If the Apostles Came Back in Our Time...

The departed saints ....yes....assembled in heaven

the rest of us....scattered in local assemblies

 

I think they would SHOUT with JOY and praise God that what they helped to begin was still alive 2000 years later. Think about it, they began the church of Jesus Christ and they gave their lives for it and to see it persevere all this time (of course they already know this). They had false teachers back then so to see all the corruption today probably wouldn't blow them away. IMO

 

Some of the things you list are clearly wrong, as I see it, one is possibly wrong, some I cannot see anything wrong with, and some I just don't understand what is meant.

Clearly Wrong in my opinion: TV preachers begging money, division

Possibly Wrong in my opinion: denominations

Not wrong in myopinion just new to the Apostles, or to anyone else from the 1st century: Printed Bibles, satellite, digital media, church bank accounts

Not sure what you mean by: tithers suffering, programs (I would guess you mean things like man-made plans for church growth), bulletins (printed notices?), audiences

 

I agree.

Why do you believe that the apostles would try to find the church or churches that need no assistance and are already continuing the work of the apostles?

I think they would do quite the opposite, seeking those who have lost their way or who have never encountered Christ.

 

My take is that they would not be shocked at the false doctrine/ teachers in the world. As others have stated, they dealt with that regularly in their own day.

I also do not think they would be shocked by the depravity of our day, as they knew well what went on in Corinth in their own.

What would shock them, in my opinion, would be the lack of commitment within the Western church. I can't imagine the Apostles would believe or accept the "come when you feel like it" attitude in churches today.

 

They would praise God for the true Christian believers. They would thank God for the faithful men who are Pastoring and the Evangelist who conduct cruisades. They would be in awe of a nation with the religious freedoms we have. and the freedom to go about preaching Christ and Him crucified.
They would be disappointed in the denomination religious systems we have that divide us as believers. The denominational beliefs that seperate us. They would be ouraged at the false doctrine being perpetuated from many pulpits and the hypocracy of many who say they believe and are not. They would be disappointed in the way we conduct ourselves when the doors of the church are open and we choose not to go because we have a hangnail or some other excuse.
I guess they would be like us have mixed emotions about it all.

 

On the positive side, think they would be shocked by Church taking Gospel of Jesus to so many, through radio/tv/Satellite/ etc, and how we are getting close to getting it to whole World!

On the negative side, they would be appalled at the rampant heresy and false teaching in among the bethren at the present time!
False teachers/False Gospel/false Jesus!

 

Such a body does not exist. But if it does, it is already asunder, and filled with error.

 

Well, I'm not so sure. All SBC churches are independent and autonomous, just as the non-convention Baptists.

And many of them, mine included, are quite conservative. At one time it would have been labeled fundamentalist. Doctrinally, there's not a dime's worth of difference between my SBC church and the IFB churches in this area.

In fact,at least one IFB church, a big one, is now affiliated with the SBC, but retains its IFB identity. The did it because of the Conservative Resurgence, which brought the SBC back to where the IFB church never left.

 

There are many more than one. Most do not advertise it publicly.

 

Many SBC churches do not either. I would be willing to be that if we took most of our IFB brethren to our conservative SBC churches blindfolded they would be hard-pressed to tell the difference by the music, the sermon or the smell.:smilewinkgrin:

 

Thomas Road Baptist Church is a cooperating SBC church, regardless of whether or not they choose to advertise it on their website:

"Thomas Road first affiliated with the SBC in 1997 through its financial support of the Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia state convention, although it maintains relationships with independent Baptist groups. Thomas Road plans to give at least $100,000 to the Cooperative Program this year [article was written in 2000] -- the first year such gifts have come from the church's budget rather than designated contributions."​

Link to article

If a church contributes to the Cooperative Program, they are a Southern Baptist Convention church. Contrary to what I have heard from numerous IFB pastors and church members, there are no blood oath rites, selling your soul to Paige Patterson, affirmation of the Baptist Faith and Message, use of Convention Sunday School materials or hymnals, or any other obligations to be an SBC church.

 

There is a perfect example why it is not independent. A church gives its money to a denomination and denominational headquarters. I would vote against such a policy every time, and as much as possible persuade that such a great amount of money be given to missions instead (don't start boasting to me how much they already give; I don't want to know). I just consider that giving to denomination HQ is a waste of money.

 

As far as Southern Baptist polity goes, the Convention offices are only a "headquarters" in the sense that they apportion the received funds (in the manner and percentages designated my the Convention, that meets annually) to the various agencies that support the churches and the mission effort. The true "headquarters" of the Southern Baptist Convention are the independent SBC congregations who receive no directives from the Convention. The individual independent SBC churches may choose to send messengers to the convention to express their interests in the broader cooperative effort, but they are not even obligated to do that!

The principles of cooperation and independence are not necessarily opposed.

Southern Baptists see "missions" spending as broader than just funding missionaries on the field. The Convention understands that a theological education is important for the health and growth of missionary-sending churches (and part of missions in the United States) and the missionaries themselves, so they support theological education through a variety of seminaries and programs. They also believe that discipleship and evangelistic materials are helpful to the churches and missionaries, so they operate several publishing houses to prepare this material. There are also a number of other programs and divisions which either directly or indirectly support mission efforts. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any division or department of the SBC structure that is not, at least theoretically, designed to support mission efforts.

So, at least to a Southern Baptist, saying that you want everything to go to "missions" doesn't quite add up since nearly the entire structure of the SBC is poised to support and maintain missionaries on the field. (I say this as someone who considers himself a former Southern Baptist. I know the denomination from the inside out and understand how the structure works, both in theory and reality.)

If the Convention elects poor leadership who are poor stewards of the resources entrusted to them by SBC churches, then money gets wasted. If the Convention elects honorable leadership with a heart for mission work instead of personal fiefdoms, then it is an incredibly efficient means to maximize resources and support missionaries throughout the world.

 

Now you have admitted that the churches are not really autonomous.
"The convention "supports the churches, etc. etc." This is against historic Baptist polity or Baptist distinctives.

There is no independence when you just stated that they are dependent on the convention.

Had William Carey lived in this day and age they would have rejected him as a missionary.

However everything stands or falls on the SBC leadership at the Convention. If it is weak the entire structure, including its mission program is weak.