Which denomination best resembles the Church of the 1st Century?

[SetFree]

Which denomination today most closely resembles the Christian Church of the First Century?

Why do you think so?

Protestants that have to meet in secret, like in Red China and other Communist countries that forbid belonging to any other Church but their 'state' run church system.

The early Church of the 1st century in Jerusalem had to meet in secret, in their homes, etc. They didn't have outward Church buildings, nor elaborate services with altars and such. Likewise it was with many Gentiles, they had Church in their houses. Even Apostle Paul preached The Gospel in his own house in Rome while captive for 2 years.

 

[Albion]

Protestants that have to meet in secret, like in Red China and other Communist countries that forbid belonging to any other Church but their 'state' run church system.

That's one characteristic, but the question was meant to take account of the whole of the church--including its beliefs, worship practices, membership, etc.

They didn't have outward Church buildings, nor elaborate services with altars and such.

Well, yes, they did use some of those things. A "holy table" on which bread and wine were prepared, for example. I agree with you that the early congregations met in much simpler surroundings than some of our churches today do, whether Protestant or Catholic, but there's more to consider than this.

 

[SetFree]

That's one characteristic, but the question was meant to take account of the whole of the church--including its beliefs, worship practices, membership, etc.

Not how I understood the question. Just because a 'denomination' name is not applied to a gathering in Christ does not make that gathering invalid.

Those Christians who fled to the early Americas are another case in point. Many of them left their denominations they belonged to in Europe. My French huguenot ancestors came to the Americas in the 1600's having fled Catholic persecution in France. (The French huguenots were the first French Protestants).

 

[Albion]

Not how I understood the question.

Okay. It happens.

Just because a 'denomination' name is not applied to a gathering in Christ does not make that gathering invalid.

I didn't suggest that it does. The question seems straightforward. Which of the denominations that is known to us these days is the most like the Christian churches of the first century?

And I don't consider this an irrelevant question since many, if not most, of the denominations today (Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Russian Orthodox, Methodist, etc. etc.) entertain the question when in discussions with other such groups.

Whether or not it is critical, most of them have some basis for arguing that they are more like the original church than their competitor denominations are. Catholics can point to some characteristics of the first Christian assemblies...but Baptists can do the same, pointing to other characteristics of the early church, and both like to imply that their chosen facts show them to be more like the church Christ founded than other of today's denominations.

Which of them does actually come the closest to being like the early Christian churches?

Presumably, the one that can be shown to "fit the bill" doctrinally or that by its religious practices or organization or in some other way has a lead over the others.

I think we'd both agree that in order to be deemed a Christian, it is necessary for a person to believe little more than that Jesus is the Son of God who died for our sins and that he will save eternally those who trust in him. That, however, isn't the question here.

The question is asking about the current denomination which actually does come the closest to the religious style, convictions, activity, and everything else that describes the first Christian churches, irrespective of whether or not this makes that denomination any "better" than other ones.

 

[SetFree]

Okay. It happens.

I didn't suggest that it does. The question seems simple enough. Which of the denominations that is known to us these days comes the closest to the Christians churches of the first century?

Nor do I consider this an irrelevant question since many, if not most, of the denominations today (Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Russian Orthodox, Methodist, etc. etc.) take up the question in discussions with other such groups.

Which of them does actually come the closest to being like the early Christian churches?

Presumably, the one that can be shown to "fit the bill" doctrinally or by its religious practices or organization or in some other way has a leg up on the others in the familiar sparring over which one is the most genuine, correct, or Bible-based.

You didn't stipulate the type of Church that is the 'resembling' had to be a modern... denomination. So all I see is your backtracking on what you wrote in your OP.

 

[Albion]

You didn't stipulate the type of Church that is the 'resembling' had to be a modern... denomination.

Here is the question that was asked in the Original Post:

"Which denomination today most closely resembles the Christian Church of the First Century?"

 

[SetFree]

Here is the question that was asked in the Original Post:

"Which denomination today most closely resembles the Christian Church of the First Century?"

resembles the Christian Church of the First Century - is what I keyed on, so stop trying to beat me up please.

 

[Albion]

resembles the Christian Church of the First Century - is what I keyed on, so stop trying to beat me up please.

You don't have to answer the question if it's not especially to your liking, and it may indeed not be something you care much about as a self-described non-denominational Christian. However, I hope that other members of this forum will offer their thoughts about the matter.

 

[SetFree]

You don't have to answer the question if it's not especially to your liking, and it may indeed not be something you care much about as a self-described non-denominational Christian. However, I hope that other members of this forum will offer their thoughts about the matter.

You are a rude person. Welcome to my Ignore list.

 

[tango]

Protestants that have to meet in secret, like in Red China and other Communist countries that forbid belonging to any other Church but their 'state' run church system.

The early Church of the 1st century in Jerusalem had to meet in secret, in their homes, etc. They didn't have outward Church buildings, nor elaborate services with altars and such. Likewise it was with many Gentiles, they had Church in their houses. Even Apostle Paul preached The Gospel in his own house in Rome while captive for 2 years.

You didn't stipulate the type of Church that is the 'resembling' had to be a modern... denomination. So all I see is your backtracking on what you wrote in your OP.

So on that basis I guess you'd count groups like Hindus meeting secretly at members' homes in Islamic nations where their worship is outlawed to align well with the early church system?

 

[SetFree]

So on that basis I guess you'd count groups like Hindus meeting secretly at members' homes in Islamic nations where their worship is outlawed to align well with the early church system?

I do not recognize Hindus as Christians, so you can can that kind of double-speak that is not applicable to Christian conversation.

 

[tango]

I do not recognize Hindus as Christians, so you can can that kind of double-speak that is not applicable to Christian conversation.

Your post seemed more concerned with whether a group was persecuted than what they believe in. If that's all that matters then persecuted Hindus would appear to qualify, no?

 

[SetFree]

Your post seemed more concerned with whether a group was persecuted than what they believe in. If that's all that matters then persecuted Hindus would appear to qualify, no?

Your words point to aggressive behavior in wanting to create an argument. Good luck with that.

 

[Albion]

Let's try to resurrect this topic. What denomination TODAY do you think most closely resembles the First Century Church? Why?

For purposes of this question, no judgment is made concerning whether a denomination is better or worse than any independent congregation. It's just a reference that allows us to identify what branch of Christianity we are describing.

The question asks about doctrine...and worship practices...as well as such things as the group perhaps being persecuted by the political authorities, which, after all, can refer to any denomination if it has followers in a nation that persecutes Christians.

 

[1689Dave]

Let's try to resurrect this topic. What denomination TODAY do you think most closely resembles the First Century Church? Why?

For purposes of this question, no judgment is made concerning whether a denomination is better or worse than any independent congregation. It's just a reference that allows us to identify what branch of Christianity we are describing.

The question asks about doctrine...and worship practices...as well as such things as the group perhaps being persecuted by the political authorities, which, after all, can refer to any denomination if it has followers in a nation that persecutes Christians.

I think individual house churches, independent of each other, like many Baptist churches today, come the closest. 2-3 meeting at Mickey D's in Jesus' name, is closer to the NT church model than any institutional church. No Monarchical bishops ruled over house churches. If you look deeply enough, Institutional Churches are nothing more than religious franchises, like chain shoe stores, meant to service Christians with a certain bent. They divide the church.

 

[Albion]

I think individual house churches, independent of each other, like many Baptist churches today, come the closest. 2-3 meeting at Mickey D's in Jesus' name, is closer to the NT church model than any institutional church. No Monarchical bishops ruled over house churches. If you look deeply enough, Institutional Churches are nothing more than religious franchises, like chain shoe stores, meant to service Christians with a certain bent. They divide the church.

House churches prevailed until Christian communities could have their own, separate church buildings. So, there's nothing special about that characteristic in my view.

However, it is a characteristic, so that's a fair answer to the question...in part.

But the question asks about the denomination (or independent assembly) of our time that is the closest to the first century model--NOT just a present-day church that is the closest in one way but not very close in any other.

A handful of believers meeting over coffee somewhere and talking about the Lord or something of that sort falls short of being like the early churches in just about every way except for being less formal than churches have become.

The early churches did have leaders of various ranks. And they did have a regular worship routine. They did observe the Lord's Supper as Christ directed his followers to do. And they baptized. They had certain beliefs about the nature or identity of their Lord, about His return, and etc. They knew that they were to spread the faith to non-believers and live according to certain values that He had taught before his Crucifixion.

None of that was mentioned in your post and, I think, you want to believe that none of this really happened, although there is no doubt that it did. Much of it is clearly identified in the New Testament, in fact, so we have that as evidence in addition to the historical record.

 

[1689Dave]

House churches prevailed until Christian communities could have their own, separate church buildings. So, there's nothing special about that characteristic in my view.

However, it is a characteristic, so that's a fair answer to the question...in part.

But the question asks about the denomination (or independent assembly) of our time that is the closest to the first century model--NOT just a present-day church that is the closest in one way but not very close in any other.

A handful of believers meeting over coffee somewhere and talking about the Lord or something of that sort falls short of being like the early churches in just about every way except for being less formal than churches have become.

The early churches did have leaders of various ranks. And they did have a regular worship routine. They did observe the Lord's Supper as Christ directed his followers to do. And they baptized. They had certain beliefs about the nature or identity of their Lord, about His return, and etc. They knew that they were to spread the faith to non-believers and live according to certain values that He had taught before his Crucifixion.

None of that was mentioned in your post and, I think, you want to believe that none of this really happened, although there is no doubt that it did. Much of it is clearly identified in the New Testament, in fact, so we have that as evidence in addition to the historical record.

Have you ever studied NT house churches? I spent some time with it and they clearly have nothing in common with the later churches under the control of the monarchical bishops. That has divided the church into opposing persuasions. Scripture does not mention today's "church" governments since Pastor, Elder, and Bishop are interchangeable terms in the NT. No wonder things are the way they are.

 

[Albion]

Have you ever studied NT house churches? I spent some time with it and they clearly have nothing in common with the later churches under the control of the monarchical bishops.

If you think there's a point here, it seems as though you should explain it in more detail rather than just make mention of it.

We all know that the first Christians used homes for their meetings, and also that the earliest believers still attended synagogue which no Christian does today.

Plus, you've given us almost nothing in the way of worship style and policies, administrative structure, prayers and sacraments, doctrines, and on and on that would lead to a conclusion that a very loose gathering of believers today in something like Bible Study makes that gathering be closer to the first century churches than some of today's denominations are.

That has divided the church into opposing persuasions. Scripture does not mention today's "church" governments since Pastor, Elder, and Bishop are interchangeable terms in the NT.

That's not entirely true. Bishop and PRESBYTER had the same function although the bishop was a also a supervisor over presbyters and took on the oversight of a number of different congregations when they began to proliferate.

And Pastor isn't the equivalent of either Presbyter or Bishop. That term refers to whoever is leading a congregation--a presbyter or bishop or neither of these. Then too, you omitted any mention of Deacon, which is yet another church leader with his own particular qualifications and duties. The New Testament addresses that also.

 

[1689Dave]

If you think there's a point here, it seems as though you should explain it in more detail rather than just make mention of it.

We all know that the first Christians used homes for their meetings, and also that the earliest believers still attended synagogue which no Christian does today.

Plus, you've given us almost nothing in the way of worship style and policies, administrative structure, prayers and sacraments, doctrines, and on and on that would lead to a conclusion that a very loose gathering of believers today in something like Bible Study makes that gathering be closer to the first century churches than some of today's denominations are.


That's not entirely true. Bishop and PRESBYTER had the same function although the bishop was a also a supervisor over presbyters and took on the oversight of a number of different congregations when they began to proliferate.

And Pastor isn't the equivalent of either Presbyter or Bishop. That term refers to whoever is leading a congregation--a presbyter or bishop or neither of these. Then too, you omitted any mention of Deacon, which is yet another church leader with his own particular qualifications and duties. The New Testament addresses that also.

You need to define these roles by scripture, not history.

 

[Albion]

You need to define these roles by scripture, not history.

Should I have said that to you when you relied upon the Catholic Encyclopedia and Wikipedia to try to verify some of your claims??