True Church Disqualifiers

Couple of things before I get back to some replies:

1. Who are we to determine what is New Testament and not?

2. Nobody is using Scripture to bolster their claims. If we are to define who's "in" and "out" we might be best suited to use Scripture.

 

Do Churches of Christ -- Stone-Campbell style -- up Kentucky way practice closed communion? They do not here. They are ardent advocates of open communion, which seems to be a strange position for those who think we're lost if we weren't baptized by them in order to be saved!

 

I love how people around here try to use my position against me. As though I should be a "Bible thumping anti-intellectual fundamentalist" or something. It shouldn't matter. I'm Baptist and have been for most of my life.

Well I'll disagree with your polarization on a couple of accounts but don't want to get into a drop-down, drag-out post war about "Catholics believe this" "No they don't" "yes they do" ad infinitum. If you're against Roman Catholics I can't change your mind.

I would say that they aren't "180 degrees" different in their positions. To be "180 degrees" different you would have to start by denying the doctrines and practices I suggested at the head of this thread. Roman Catholic positions on these non-essential areas of doctrine are just different, but not "180 degrees" polarized.

Why does everything with Baptists have to be "us or them"? Seriously, why can't we celebrate our unity before saying, well that's just an area of respectable disagreement.

I believe that to define a New Testament church we have to use the foundational elements I listed above. The clear teaching of the New Testament itself deals with churches and individuals who have walked away from clear teaching of Scripture in both belief and action. Think about Diotrephes (3 John 9f) and Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Timothy 1:20) who were condemned by Paul for error in character and error in essential doctrines.

Additionally it seems Paul even acknowledged different "denominations" in early Christianity (Philippians 1:15-18.)

It seems clear that Christianity and what comprises an assembly that is truly "the church" according to the New Testament is the list I provide at the head of this thread.

Beyond that we can have our respectfull and respect-filled disagreements over doctrine and preferences.

I don't understand how people around here and in so many of our Baptist churches can have the ecclesiological myopia to not acknowledge other walks of Christianity. Are we seriously ready to call into question the salvation of many millions of faithful followers of Christ from before October 31, 1517?

As well I believe the Roman Catholic Church, though fraught with theological difficulty and difference is part of the larger body of Jesus Christ. As well I believe that Church Christ, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Weslyans, liberals, conservatives, moderates, and many other groups are legitimate churches so long as we agree on the essentials.

I make no apologies about this. Biblical inerrancy, how we baptize, style of worship, issues of the nature of communion, elders/bishops/pastors/etc, peripherial eschatological issues, and other areas are not essential issues of theology and practice.

When we look so hard to find difference we often lose track of what unifies us.

 

All we are doing, is reading the scriptures, and describing what is there. There is a difference between being a "legitimate local church" and a "New Testament" church.

My bad.

The entire book of Acts.

Acts 2:44-45

1 Corinthians Chapter 5
Galatians 2:11-14

Acts 8:38, Acts 19:1-5, Acts 22:16

Php 1:1, 1 Timothy 3

1 Timothy 4:13, Ephesians 6:17, Hebrews 4:23

Is that better?

 

What does Scripture say?

I've never seen an example in the NT with one elder.

Without exception, a plurality of elders was always appointed.

 

A sidenote to Tom and nothing to do with thread:

Yes, Tom, I am a true Cockney, born within the sound of Bow bells, in Plaistow, West Ham, East London. Grew up speaking Cockney. That is all we knew years ago.

Yes, going apples to visit Uncle Ted is Cockney for going upstairs to bed.

Cheers,

Jim

 

A New Testament church is a church that values the New Testament as a specific instruction and a new revelation to believers in Jesus Christ. Some of the denominations being talked about here are, quite literally, Old Testament churches, in that they have an ordained priesthood and tend to be liturgically based rather than NT based. So, a NT church does follow the pattern of pastor(s)/deacons and derives its pattern faith and practice from the New Testament, which it views as a unique guide in such matters.

 

well, bob's yer uncle, mate, we musn't rabbit on in daffadown dilly lest we fall prey to some un's daisy roots, must we.

Cheers, have at it then

Jim

 

Would a NT Church Disqualifier be:

Deacons who hold authority because they are deacons.
Acts 6, leads me to believe that deacons were servants, the fact that they were deacons does not put them in authority, but again, I do not think man in authority should not be a deacon as long as they hold the qualification of a deacon. (Timothy 3)

How about not having plural elder led churches with elders elected from the congregration? Acts 14:23

How about Churches that have women in any authority over a man or who teaches a class with men. 1Timothy 2:12

I have donned my asbestos undergarments so let the flames roarraying:

 

I'll work on that,,,,:thumbs:

Cheers,

Jim

 

I agree with your premise that there seems to be in some circles of the Baptist faith a tendency to exclude rather than include. One of the evidences I have seen in this is open vs closed communion. Whenever I have seen closed communion in action, it has resulted in nothing but disunity, hurt feelings, and anger. I have also gotten the idea from some that mostly Baptists are going to be in heaven. News Flash. There will be lots of Baptists in hell, in fact, may be looking across that gulf at some Catholics and Methodists.

The one area that I disagree with you on is the nature of the Catholic Church. I think for the most part, it does not follow the Gospel. However, there are saved Catholics despite the mess they find themselves in. We as Baptists are fortunate to hear the Word from the Bible and sound doctrine.

The rise of Landmarkism, closed communion, Baptist bride theory, etc, all lend to the idea of exclusion.

Those are all debates for another thread, but things like that continue the mindset.

 

Landmarkism is an historical understanding and should not be a means of separation. I am a landmarkist, but never been accused of isolationism when it comes to fellowship with believers of whatever stripe.

Cheers,

Jim

 

We used to have some landmark Baptists on board, but actually it doesn't come up much except in ridicule or close to it.

I simply traced baptist beliefs back to NT times. If someone discredited something, I just ignored it. There are some big leaps in doctrine, but no different to many NT churches in the times of the apostles.

Cheers,

Jim

 

We decided to leave these off because they do not even qualify for Christianity. If we put these in, we need to add all the other cults, like the Way International, Armstrongianism, the sacred name groups, and thousands of others.

 

Is that the same Armstrong that used to have the TV program "The World Tomorrow." I have not seen or heard about that in years, and never understood what their doctrine was.

 

Yes, it is the same one. His group was the Worldwide Church of God.

He taught a lot of OT laws that had to be kept to be saved, denied the Trinity (and I think the deity of Christ but not sure), and other legalisms that were way, way off from the Bible.

Happily, after his death, some of the church leaders turned the church around, going to orthodoxy. But others did not like this and split off from the group becoming orthodox. One of the biggest of these split-offs is the Philadelphia Church of God, which still follows Armstrongianism.

Remember that church shooting up in upper Midwest about 2 yrs. ago where a man went into a small church and shot some people (I know there have been several of these but I can't recall exactly when or where this was). That was a church that was a split-off and still following Armstrong.