Adornment… please be gentle I am learning and not from an anabaptist background

[Soloist]

OTC not to be mistaken with PRN.

One True Church.

[Josh]

At the very least, I find in my OOA interactions back here in PA that they generally tend to have the OTC concept extremely implicit among them - after all, if you aren't Amish, you're Englisch and worldly (or headed there); if you're as acquainted with the OOAmish as you seem to be with everybody else, you'll know that tends to be far more than a ethnic differentiation.

That's true. However, they are not explictly an OTC group (I believe the Swartzentrubers are).

As for the OGBBs (and a few of their offshoots like the Petitioners), the concept was highly implicit after 1881 and especially during over the last 100 years or so, most noticeably in the preaching and discipline of the more conservative/OO element of the group, and it did indeed help to keep them unified denominationally; having said that, many of them now water it down to "we just don't know about others outside of our group." As such, I simply reiterate my earlier observation, that maintain visible denominational unity is definitely a lot easier with some level of OTC doctrine (explicit or implied).

That sounds similar to the situation with Apostolic Christians (although a few wings of them like ACF or Darislavic (??) Christian Nazarene are, I believe, explictly OTC now, but I don't know for certain.)

Perhaps we can make this observation: early Anabaptists certainly did consider themselves the one true church, and separated from the broad Catholic and magisterial Protestant churches, and attempted to form a pure church. This was true of both the Dutch and Swiss regional narratives of Anabaptism. This narrative remained strong and indeed also informed the other Anabaptist branches, including the Schwarzenau Brethren's German Baptist Brethren, Fröhlich's Apostolic Christian Church, and Jakob Amman's Amish.

By the time Swiss "Mennonites" settled in America, they did not seem to retain this OTC identity, but some of the Russian Mennonites in later migrations certainly did and eagerly embraced John Holdeman's Church of God in Christ.

It would appear that OTC is somewhere in Anabaptists' DNA. When the belief in OTC is softened and finally abandoned completely, Anabaptists suddenly have to deal with a great multitude of divisions.

Or perhaps I have the arrow of causality backwards. When a formerly-stable and long-unified OTC group finally experiences a shattering division, the belief in OTC eventually is softened on one or both sides. From then on, there is no context or cultural narrative of how to maintain unity without the overarching belief in OTC.

From whence came this belief in OTC? We need look back no farther than the Anabaptists, who all descended from the Catholic church, which has indeed been an OTC group since its founding. As Christians, we don't have much of a guide in our Bibles on how to divide into different churches that belief the New Testament says fundamentally different things. I have not yet found a way to square this circle. (I realise I am part of an OTC group, but that is not because I am a seeker of OTC; I joined my group for other reasons and decided the Lord was asking me to accept the whole of their doctrines.)

[Sudsy]

OTC only God knows who are members in it and it certainly can't be any man originated church other than the man, Christ Jesus.

We all currently 'see through a glass darkly' and only 'know in part' so a group that believes they are a OTC is already contradicting the scriptures.

[Josh]

OTC only God knows who are members in it and it certainly can't be any man originated church other than the man, Christ Jesus.

We all currently 'see through a glass darkly' and only 'know in part' so a group that believes they are a OTC is already contradicting the scriptures.

That is a particular view ("visible and invisible church") that did not emerge until a few hundred years ago. I would hesitate to say it is clearly spelled out in scripture or that it is obvious.

[Sudsy]

OTC only God knows who are members in it and it certainly can't be any man originated church other than the man, Christ Jesus.

We all currently 'see through a glass darkly' and only 'know in part' so a group that believes they are a OTC is already contradicting the scriptures.

That is a particular view ("visible and invisible church") that did not emerge until a few hundred years ago. I would hesitate to say it is clearly spelled out in scripture or that it is obvious.

Yes, like a few, 1800 years ago.

The first person in church history to introduce a view of an invisible and a visible church is Clement of Alexandria

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_invisible

[Josh]

Yes, like a few, 1800 years ago.

The first person in church history to introduce a view of an invisible and a visible church is Clement of Alexandria

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_invisible

The concept was advocated by St Augustine of Hippo as part of his refutation of the Donatist sect, though he, as other Church Fathers before him, saw the invisible Church and visible Church as one and the same thing, unlike the later Protestant reformers who did not identify the Catholic Church as the true church.

The modern, Protestant concept was not something that was accepted back then.

[Sudsy]

Yes, like a few, 1800 years ago.

The first person in church history to introduce a view of an invisible and a visible church is Clement of Alexandria

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_invisible

The concept was advocated by St Augustine of Hippo as part of his refutation of the Donatist sect, though he, as other Church Fathers before him, saw the invisible Church and visible Church as one and the same thing, unlike the later Protestant reformers who did not identify the Catholic Church as the true church.

The modern, Protestant concept was not something that was accepted back then.

It is interesting who has and who still does believe they represent the OTC - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_true_church

In my Pentecostal days, our church was called 'The Full Gospel Tabernacle' so I guess it could have been labelled an OTG church. I remember some though that had a very arrogant attitude that they were the OTC of the New Testament as they believed they had all the spiritual practises and beliefs of the earliest NT church and preached a 'full Gospel'. That same church today is now called 'LakePoint Family Church' (more user friendly ?).

[Swiss Bro]

Yes, like a few, 1800 years ago.

The concept was advocated by St Augustine of Hippo as part of his refutation of the Donatist sect, though he, as other Church Fathers before him, saw the invisible Church and visible Church as one and the same thing, unlike the later Protestant reformers who did not identify the Catholic Church as the true church.

The modern, Protestant concept was not something that was accepted back then.

It is interesting who has and who still does believe they represent the OTC - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_true_church

In my Pentecostal days, our church was called 'The Full Gospel Tabernacle' so I guess it could have been labelled an OTG church. I remember some though that had a very arrogant attitude that they were the OTC of the New Testament as they believed they had all the spiritual practises and beliefs of the earliest NT church and preached a 'full Gospel'. That same church today is now called 'LakePoint Family Church' (more user friendly ?).

Were you guys snake handlers?

[JimFoxvog]

Not sure what this may add to this discussion, but I have often heard it preached (in regards to standards) that if something is not spelled out in the Bible, it becomes a preference.

I would advise you to pace yourself and not get too caught up in the emotional side of what is "right" and what is "wrong."

I can’t agree with this. Shooting up with heroin isn’t spelled out in the Bible but I think it is obvious a Christian should not do this.

The Bible gives us the basic principles. We need to apply them to the current situation. Heroin (or smoking) are covered by verses such as this.

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;

[Josh]

Not sure what this may add to this discussion, but I have often heard it preached (in regards to standards) that if something is not spelled out in the Bible, it becomes a preference.

I would advise you to pace yourself and not get too caught up in the emotional side of what is "right" and what is "wrong."

I can’t agree with this. Shooting up with heroin isn’t spelled out in the Bible but I think it is obvious a Christian should not do this.

The Bible gives us the basic principles. We need to apply them to the current situation. Heroin (or smoking) are covered by verses such as this.

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;

That isn’t the literal meaning of the text, though. That requires a congregation to discern together and then establish extra-biblical church rules.