False Church or True Church with a Little Error?

one of the biggest problems in christianity today is the christians willingness to compromise scriptures, to compromise the gospel, all in the politically correct name of tolerance, soon we'll tolerate Jesus right out of the picture.

 

I agree 100% with what you said. I am merely pointing out there is a lot of other aspects to a New Testement church than Baptism. As posted above, the one that we overlook lots of times because most of our local churches are guilty of it is neglect of the church and the church tolerating it. The author of this thread, Tom Butler, who serves in the same church I do, took a short mission trip to Romania some years back, and the people there, after years of Communist rule, flocked to the churches, sometimes at risk to their jobs, families, and even their own lives, to hear the word of God. Now, we shift to America, present day, and most local churches barely have 35% of their rolls that ever show up. They do not support the church finanacially, attend, or get involved in ministries. Churches in the book of Acts, like those in Romainia, never had that problem, and would not have tolerated it. So my question is, would a real New Testement church allow decade after decade of neglect by church members without exercising church discipline? The 65%not supporting the work of the Lord are not showing any signs of regeneration, and are a drain on a local church trying to carry out its mission.

Another problem which I see in our local churches is gossip, which is tolerated to the point of ruining lives in some churches. Yet, we pick and choose our sins to gossip about, and usually are in the catagory of the threads you see here ie alcohol, gambling, dancing, adultrery and the like. What starts out as a request for information about this member or that member so they can pray for their repentence, turns out to be a gossip entertainment session in the corners of the church. Is a church that tolerates this a real New Testement church. In both examples above, a clear outline of how to confront the problem is clearly spelled out in Matt 18.

In addition to baptism that your post addressed, the main disqualifier to being a New Testement church is a gospel based on works or something other than faith in Jesus Christ. That answers the question about the Catholic Church and the Church of Christ.

Beyond baptism and a false gospel, and examining our own local churches, the waters get muddier. For example, we get some real heated threads here on Calvinism. Is a New Testement church defined by one side or the other?

The mainstream Protestant denominations are a matter of opinion. I will use the example of the Presbyterian Church (PCA) to illustrate, since I grew up in that church. Of all the denominations, except for infant baptism, are probably closer to us on doctrine than any other. Now, focusing on infant baptism, in this case, is what you would have to decide about this church on. They preach a solid Gospel message. The baptism is not regenerational, and in some churches, is merely a dedication of the child to the Lord, and not a question of salvation until a realization of right and wrong. One poster said only a solid Gospel was required to be a NT church. In that case, it would qualify, but the mode of baptism puts it in question. I certainly do not put them in the same catagory and the Catholics, which is nothing more than a cult.

I am thankful that I am a Baptist, and for all its problems, believe it to be closest to what is on earth now to what the Lord would have as a New Testement church. We must be careful to keep our local churches that way.

 

If someone has placed their trust in Jesus for their salvation, I don't think they would lose that salvation by being ignorant of all correct theology.

So how wrong can they be? If someone believes that by speaking in tongues is proof of receiving the Spirit, does that then become an unpardonable sin or are they just wrong? What about the person that believes that they can lose their salvation?

 

It is to those of us who are 'being saved'! It is the power of God!

for the word of the cross to those indeed perishing is foolishness, and to us -- those being saved -- it is the power of God, 1 Cor 1:18 YLT

Finally! Someone actually mentions the sheep!

Feed my lambs.......Tend my sheep.......Feed my sheep.... Jn 21:15-17

Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood. Acts 20:28

Tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not of constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God; nor yet for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 1 Pet 5:2

The church that best feeds the sheep is the truest church, IMHO.

 

Not so. Yes, that's obviouly crucial, but the mission of the church is also to help people to live righteous lives while on the earth. It's to assist those who need assistance (feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc). It's to be part of the KIngdom of Heaven of Earth, not just the Kingdom of Heaven in Heaven.

 

I personally use the Nicene Creed to decide if a church or person is a true Christian, as well as their faith in Christ.

 

I was actually being facetious when I wrote that; playing the devil's advocate, because I most definitely do not believe that at all.

The church's mission on earth:

Feed my lambs.......Tend my sheep.......Feed my sheep.... Jn 21:15-17

 

Infant baptism in the Reformed Churches is eqivalent to circumcision in the Old Covenant. It is a covenant promise to raise that infant in the Lord. Some believe it covers original sin, and in that sense it does involve salvation.

If one reads the Anglican Prayer Book literally, it advocated infant baptism for an infant as soon as possible after birth to cover original sin. Most modern Anglican Churches do not teach this, however, and I was not taught this in all my years as an Anglican. Confirmation was when a person (12-13 years of age) was encouraged to receive Christ as Saviour. The difference between the evangelical Anglican Churches and the Romish Anglican Churches. Perhaps this is where the idea of "age of consent" that so many seem to believe, came from. Even some baptists believe in the "age of consent" thing.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Makes mroe sense now. Thanks. :thumbs:

 

Instead of rephrasing I probably should have stuck with my original questions (facetiousness, jesting, joking, often does not come accross well in the written form):