False Church or True Church with a Little Error?

A bigger question is whether salvation by faith alone is a core scriptural doctrine akin to rejecting the gospel if one rejects salvation by faith alone. Martin Luther was certainly not an adherent of salvation by faith alone. I'm not one to accuse him of being hellbound, nor would I even call him a false teacher. Mistaken on the subject, sure. A false teacher, no. That said, there's a huge difference between being mistaken and being false. Every one of our pastors is going to be mistaken on some scriptural point. Does that make them false? If it does, then all are false teachers, and all churches are false.

 

What is a New Testement church? My idea is right and yours is wrong. That sums up all the posts so far.

It seems very odd to me with the vast array of doctrine that would define a New Testement church, that the only one talked about here is Baptism. That is a red flag to me right there. Not that the statements about Baptism are wrong, but that is a small piece of the puzzle.

Would you consider a church to qualify as a New Testement church if it has as part of its beliefs ideas that have no Biblical foundation such as no dancing and no lottery tickets? How about a church that ignores sins right in front of its nose, like gossip and gluttony? How about a church that gives it deacons governing authority, clearly at odds with Scripture? Does a church that holds an altar call with salesmen like appeals to get someone to "make a decision for Jesus" and walk to the front, is that a New Testement church when you find no such model in the Scripture? What about local churches that disagree with you on the Rapture, seven day creation, and God's sovereignty, are they New Testement churches?

Where is the line? Are Methodists and Presbyterians New Testement churches, but Catholic not? How many Baptist churches are New Testement churches? Only those like the one I serve in?

Several of the posts mention essentials and non-essentials. Who decides how to divide that?

Here is the best one of all. Is a church that tolerates members who neither attend, support, or minister in the church on their rolls for decades, is that a New Testement church? How much is it a New Testement church if only 35% of those on the rolls ever show up? So there is the answer to your questions. None of you are a true New Testement church, because none of your churches measure up to the standard of the Lord.

Actually, no doubt there are New Testement churches out there, and probably in great number. The point is, before you go listing your evils on a pedestal to define such, look at your own church.

 

You sure about that? Peter and Paul did not agree on everything. Take, for example, circumcision. One thought it necessary, the other did not.

 

I know I stand in the minority here, being Free Will Baptist, but I beleive that error on the part of many of things is a small thing. I personnally beleive that the large majority misunderstands on at least 1 point of doctrine. As long as salvation is based on the work of Christ and not our works and one is "Born Again" as Jesus taught Nicodmus, God's grace will be sufficient.

And by the way, the teaching of one not being able to lose their salvation is just a small error and I am willing to overlook it. :laugh:

 

Paul and Peter had some disagreements in the beginning during the transitional phase from Judaism to Christianity, but by the time scripture was complete, they were in complete agreement and Peter even said that Paul's writings were scripture.

Today we have the complete canon of scripture, so there is no reason for dispute other than the fact the humans are self absorbed, sinful beings. The question should always be "what does the Bible say?".

 

(double post... sorry)

 

John Calvin would be proud.

 

Excellent post.:thumbs:

I will note here for Amy's benefit that the Corinthians were a church rife with error and contention, yet Paul calls them saints and the proof of his Apostleship in his corrections of them. Paul reserved the curses for the Judaizers who added the law of Moses to faith as a requirement of justification.

I'm sure if we looked closely, we might find that some of your own ideas are antithetical to the teachings of Paul—at least the way we see them.

 

If no one else calls Johnv out on this, I will, and it won't be pretty.

 

Already noted. Paul and Peter had disagreements as the early church developed and as the scriptures were being written, but they were scripturally in one accord by the time scripture was complete.

 

Peter and Paul never had a theological disagreement. Rather, Peter, in his practice, briefly went against what he himself had taught. Paul rebuked Peter for being inconsistent with what they both believed, not for disagreeing on what they both believed.

 

As for this thread, in general, I think that the first poster, Tom Butler, perhaps inadvertently, put words in DonnA's mouth. She spoke of false teaching, but he changed this to false churches.

If a church is teaching baptismal regeneration whether for infants or adults, or if it is teaching the necessity of speaking in tongues for one to be saved, then that church is a false church because it is rejecting the gospel grace and is adding works.

If a church teaches that infants must be baptized, but that the baptism is not salvific, I think that this is false teaching, but, since it is not adding to the gospel, it does not make the church a false church. Same thing with tongues; if the church is practicing miraculous gifts, I might consider their teaching to be false, but if the teaching is not required for salvation, then the church itself is not false. IMHO

 

Indeed we are our own worst enemies....<<deja vu>>:wavey:

 

I'm gonna rephrase my question(s).

I suspect the vast majority on this site believe in 'THE GREAT COMMISSION' of the church, which in the final analysis equates to:

The mission of the Church on earth is to populate heaven. Period.

That is the all important, all pervading purpose of the Church; to make as many sheep as is possible with the means available to it. And preaching the gospel is the 'means' that the church has to make these sheep. Right?

A goat is persuaded to believe 'the gospel' that a particular church preaches and becomes a sheep. Right?

So, it stands to reason the standard to judge false or true churches should be by how successful they are at changing goats to sheep.

The NUMBERS of goats made sheep by a paticular church should determine how true it is. Right?

Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I'm not sure why so many are disagreeing with me. I responded to the false teachings that Donna brought up in the OP. Any teacher or church that teaches those things is teaching a false doctrine and I posted Biblical proof of that. It was others that brought up minor disagreements like clothes or dancing. I was not referring to that, only to the false teachings that were described in the OP. Where am I wrong?

 

I get where you're going with this, but preaching the Gospel isn't always going to be popular. It's a mistake to base that on sheer numbers. Plus, evangelizing is not the sole purpose of the church. We also need to help people grow in grace in their Christian walk as well as help the poor and needy (while still presenting the Gospel if we can.)

 

really? does the bible tell us to baptize babies and they automatically go to heaven because they were baptized? where does the bible teach us that we aren't saved until we are baptized, that baptism saves us?
there is no scripture for this, and to say there is compromising the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

anyone depending on baptism to save them is going to hell.

 

no excuse me, you said 'false church' my quote says 'false teachings' big difference, your title misrepresents my quote, and a s result this whole thread has nothing to do with my quote you used.

if you don't think baptizing babies and calling them saved, or saying you have to be baptized to have your sins washed away or you can't go to heaven aren't false teachings you've got bigger problems then this thread.