In my research I have narrowed down the churches to three main categories: Catholic, Protestant, and Restorationist.
If you had to pick a single denomination from each category that best represents that category then which would it be?
The idea I’m looking for is which particular denomination most closely matches what the early New Testament church would have practiced.
Please cite examples from the Bible or any early church writings if possible.
Thanks!
All of them match approximately the same because all of them are imperfect and have their respective strengths and weaknesses.
I think you division between "Catholic, Protestant, and Restorationist" is substantively flawed. First and foremost, unless you're including the "renewed" portion of the Catholic Church restorationists are Protestant. Your categories amount to Catholic and Protestant and you've left out the Orthodox Church.
Personally, if by "Restorationist," you mean those sects that arose during the 19th century during what is historically known as the "Restoration Movement," then these are easily the least consistent with the New Testament era Church. Much worse in some ways and some cases than the RCC. The restoration movement fostered a huge shift in Christian thought, doctrine and practice. The shift between creedalism and experientialism was enormous. Then there's the problem of differences between sect and cult, and the spectrum of the historical, mainstream, and orthodox. The restorationist movement is where the Church of Christ, the Adventists, the Brethren, the Dispensationalists, as well as the JWs and LDS began. Each taught the need to restore the Church. Each taught the need to restore the Church was corrupt (this alone was a radical departure from long-standing Chruch doctrine). Each taught the need to restore the Church because the Church was corrupt, and Jesus was soon returning (which did not happen). Each sect elevated ecclesiology and eschatology over previously preeminent Church doctrines and redefined theology. Each of them also defined "restoration" based on their theology and doctrines and their
eisegetic reading of scripture.
Every single one of them.
The FACT of the New Testament is the Church was messy back then.
Anyone reading the letters to Corinth, Ephesus, and Galatia, or James' epistle cannot claim the Church was perfect. The Church was diverse, and its congregants had many ideas how things should be run, and institutionally the Church was just beginning to form and iron out its doctrines. It took 400 years for the Church to iron out its doctrines. The doctrine of the Trinity, for example, was not formalized until well into the 4th century. Many heresies existed.
Many heresies existed so we would NOT
want to return to a first century Church where such a condition existed!. The SDA claim the restored Church didn't eat shellfish or pork. The CoC, Brethren, and Dispies will disagree. The Brethren will emphasize Pietism. So what was really going on is that each sect said the Chruch needed to be restored to their version of the NT era Church and not an objective view based on what the NT actually states. One last point: Most of the restorationists were Reformed in their basic doctrines, especially soteriology but as experientialism spread the synergist influences became more prominent because they say the sinner's will is instrumentally causal before salvation. In the extreme there are sects like the Pentecostal and Assembly of God sects that say a person isn't saved unless and untill s/he has experienced the "second blessing," or indwelling of the Holy Spirit (as they teach their version of it).
So, although there are very real and serious problems within the Roman Catholic Church, I will respectfully suggest the "Restorationists," are the least likely to represent the New Testament era Church. There is a CARM member who disagrees with me and believes RCCism a much worse example and much more dangerous to the Church so I will let him offer his views if and when he arrives at this thread.
The New Testament Church was messy. It had a man sleeping with his father's wife, Nicolaitans, Gnostics, and converted female priests from the pagans cults asserting their influence, and the seeds of sectarianism. In spite of these and other problems, the author of the epistles treated their audience as if they were, in fact, members of Christ's body. They drew distinctions between division and divisiveness (something the 19th century restorationists failed to grasp), and on most occasions when discharge from the community of believers was recommended it was taught as a means of salvation
?.
1 Corinthians 5:5
1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and sexual immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, namely, that someone has his father’s wife. 2 You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. 3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and [d]I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 I have decided to turn such a person over to Satan for the destruction of his body, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.
Hand him over to satan so that his spirit may be saved. Saved, not destroyed. Satan as a means of salvation? Yep. That's what it actually says.
I almost forgot. Some, not all, also teach a different satan than the one taught in scripture. This is partly an extension of the bad ecclesiology they hold (the Church is corrupt) combined with the bad eschatology the hold (the Church will fail in its commission and mission, the world will spiral into depravity, the Church will become impotent and need rescuing and removal from the earth). In this theology satan is an ominous being, the "
ruler of the air."
So, again, my vote will place the Protestants above the Catholics and the Catholics above the Restorationists, even though the Restorationists are Protestant. They get placed at the bottom for a number of reasons but mostly because of the abject failure to do what they said they'd do: restore the Church. They are, paradoxically, the singles greatest obstacle to such a restoration (assuming one is needed) because they radically depart from long-held well-established Christian thought, doctrine, and practice. The differences are so severe in some cases that if what they believe is true then Christianity never existed and 18-20 centuries of Christendom has been wrong all along.
Happy to provide more details for those still interested.
