What makes a church Scriptural?

AVL1984,

bmerr here. May I suggest to you a NT study on topics such as:

- church organization

- acts of worship

- terms of entrance to the church

- the apostle's doctrine

- builder/founder of the church

- time/place of establishment

All of this can be found in the NT, and is helpful in identifying the church that Jesus said He would build (Matt 16:18). Much success to you. Any assistance I can be would be my priviledge. PM, e-mail, or post are all fine by me.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Greetings

What is the minimum set for you?

For me, it is two things:
The doctrine of the Trinity.
The doctrine of justification.

All else, even wild acts of worship, do not make a church scriptural or not. Wild music? It might be against biblical principles but the church is nevertheless scriptural if it preaches the gospel of Jesus Christ (I would yet seek out another church).

Before you jump all over my two choices, try a positive presentation of your own minimal subset.

Lloyd

Is a Church scriptural if they botch any one of these? You've listed 5 things. This is 2 to the fifth power (32) possible yes/no combinations.

 

Lloyd,

bmerr here. There are probably more than the things I've listed involved in the pattern set out for us in the NT. That list was just off the top of my head.

But to be Scriptural, a church must conform to the pattern found in the Scriptures. If it doesn't, then how can it be Scriptural?

I don't want my "minimum set" to be anything less that what God has commanded or authorized in the NT. This is far more important than most realize. It is essential for us to abide in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9-11). To fail to do so leaves us without the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit.

The doctrine of Christ is the teaching Jesus did, both personally, and through His apostles. Some will offer a different definition, that being that the doctrine of Christ is simply the teaching about Christ. But this is not the case.

To demonstrate, turn to Matt 16:6-12. In this passage, Jesus warns His disciples to "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees" (16:6). The disciples initially misunderstand Jesus (imagine that!), and Jesus explains His meaning (7-11). Then in verse 12, we read,

"Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."

At this point we shift gears to common sense, and ask the question, "Was Jesus warning the disciples about:

A. someone who might teach them about Pharisees and Sadducees, or

B. to beware of the doctrine that was taught by the Pharisees and Sadducees?"

Option B seems the most logical to me.

In conclusion, a church must abide by the teaching found in the NT concerning the areas listed above, in addition to other areas. A full study is more than I am prepared to present at this time, but I could get one together, if anyone would like me to.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Hey bmerr

What I'm trying to get at is this. My inclusion in any single church is a guarantee that it is not scriptural. I'm not perfect, neither is any church!

You dodge the question with vague appeals to scripture. We all want to follow the Bible. We have to settle for less. What makes a church scriptural?

If a church plays the Pharisee, is it yet scriptural? Example 1, ladies must not wear pants. Are they still scriptural? This is nugatory! Church has nothing to do with a dress code.

Example 2, one must offer the Lord's Communion every week. Is this scriptural? Well - no! The Bible says as oft as ye drink. This could be once a year, once a quarter or once a month. Who says it has to be every week? Acts 2:46 shows that they broke bread DAILY.

Hence any church that does not follow this breaks the NT pattern. Who does it right?? This also is nugatory!

Example 3: one church sets the pastor over deacons or elders. Are they unscriptural? This is nugatory. Though not the biblical pattern, the crux of the matter is the preaching of the gospel message of Jesus Christ. All who believe inherit eternal life.

Example 4: a church has the right ecclesiology and polity. However, they add things to Christ's cross. One must believe and tithe (commanded). Are they scriptural? This church is not scriptural. Anything added to simple faith in Jesus is a corrupt message. It is an attribute to the saving power of the gospel message that people can get saved in any cult. There will many Catholics and CoCers in heaven in spite of blatant corruptions to the gospel message. There will even be Islamics in heaven in spite of all their bad doctrine. Likewise, there will be many free grace theologians who have not believed the gospel they can so truthfully articulate.

Again, you see I made a bee-line for the doctrine of justification by faith in Jesus Christ. All these Church discussions are derivative concepts from justification.

Lloyd

 

Just to let everyone know, I've re-enabled my PM function so you can PM me if you want

 

Lloyd,

bmerr here. It is clear that no assembly of people will be sinlessly perfect. However, that does not mean that an assembly cannot be faithful in doctrine and practice. 1 Cor 4:2 tells us that it is faithfulness that is required of man, not perfection, as you acvocate. Perfection is found in Christ.

I agree, most will at least claim to want to follow the Bible. All one need do to see if this claim is genuine is investigate the Bible, and see if they're following it. I guess we could look at some of the examples you gave.

1. "Women must not wear pants." I believe this is a reference to an OT verse about women not wearing that which pertaineth to a man. I'm not sure where it's found, at the moment. My take on this verse is that it is simply a prohibition against cross-dressing. Don't dress in such a way that another would be confused about your gender.

There are pants that are made for women, and there are men who don't wear pants (Scots). Go ahead and tell a Scotsman to stop dressing like a woman; but be ready for a fight!

Partaking of the Lord's supper each week. In Acts 20:7, we find that it was "...upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread..." This is a reference to the Lord's supper, and it is differentiated from eating a meal in 20:11, where they "...had broken bread, and eaten..."

So how often did they partake of the Lord's supper? Every time there was a "first day of the week". Since every week has a first day, the pattern left for us demands that we also observe the Lord's supper on every first day of the week.

You made mention of Acts 2:46. I've asked about that, too. Upon closer examination, this is speaking of the sharing of food. Let's look at the verse.

2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

They were simply sharing food with each other in separate houses. The Lord's supper is observed when the disciples come together (Acts 20:7).

Setting the "pastor" over the elders and deacons. "Pastor" is just another word for elder. Bishop, shepherd, overseer are other names for the same office. The different names have respect to either the qualifications, or duties of the office.

According to the NT pattern, each congregation was overseen, or ruled by a plurality of elders (Acts 20:17; 14:23; 11:30; 15:2, 22; 16:4). Phillipians 1:1 gives us a snapshot of the organization of the church, as it was in the first century under the inspired direction of the apostles.

"Paul and Timotheus [preachers, evangelists], the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints [members] in Christ Jesus which are at Phillipi, with the elders and deacons."

The "one pastor" with "deacons" type of organization found in most religious bodies today is not what is found in the NT. It is unscriptural. No matter how much truth may or may not be taught within that body, it is still an unscriptural body, since they have not taught the whole council of God, which is evidenced by their unscriptural organization.

Individual elders have no authority. Elderships do, so long as they remain under the authority of Scripture, and thus, Christ. The "one pastor" system eventually gave rise to the papal system of Rome. Failure to adhere to the NT pattern always leads to more and more error.

I'm not sure what "ecclesiology and polity" are, but I'll do my best with your last set of examples. Frankly, this quote from you is more than a little disturbing.

Tithing is part of the OT, which has been nailed to the cross of Christ and put out of our way (Col 2:14). In the NT, we are commanded to give as we purpose in our hearts (2 Cor 9:6-7), bearing in mind the law of sowing and reaping, and to give as God has prospered us (1 Cor 16:2). There is no set percentage. That's part of the liberty we have in Christ.

Well, again, is that a simple, obedient faith, or simply acknowledging the facts of our sinfulness and the atonement? Let's just follow the pattern in the NT.

Now ]that's interesting! Idolatrous Roman Catholics, with their Maryolatry, and rosary beads, and ring-kissing, side-by side in heaven with Muslims, who deny that Jesus is the Christ, thus qualifying themselves as antichrists (1 John 2:22)! And they'll all be hanging out with JW's and those from the church of Christer? Where do you get this stuff?

And quite frankly, I don't appreciate the implication that the church of Christ is a cult. Cults try to hide information from outsiders. The church does not. We are open to investigation from anyone, and welcome questions from both doctrinal opponents, and honest seekers of the truth. I've come to expect better from you, sir.

I suppose it is true that many are in it for the money. Your "bee line" led to a doctrine flatly denied by the Bible (James 2:24).

I'm worried about you, Lloyd.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Greetings bmerr

In context 2:13 discusses sins. The handwriting of ordinances was the LEGAL INDICTMENT containing the offenses (sins) of every believer. The OT law has never died. Paul wanted to establish the law (Rom 3:31). When the NT covenant is discussed, even there the OT law is merely described as old and ready to vanish (Heb 8:13). This is denominational rhetoric.

You are locked into the Pharisitical view of formal religion. Justification is by faith in Jesus Christ - no matter formal religion one attends. A ring kissing Catholic can have faith in Christ just as much as Christ-denying CoCer. An Islamic who has heard a radio broadcast can believe while locked into his formal religion of death.

You've botched every aspect of context. The overarching context is James writing to believers. He urges them to provide works worthy of their standing in Christ. It is an error to make spiritual growth of faith + obedience sanctification a requirement of justification. We expect the baby to talk + walk sometime after birth. We don’t make the baby talk + walk as a requirement for birth.

The immediate context is James 2:23. Abraham was saved by faith (Gen. 15:6) twenty years before he offered up Isaac (Gen. 22; James 2:24). Romans 4 uses Abraham as an example of justification by faith (4:2-3,13) apart from any obedience and sacrament (4:4-12). The promise is voided by faith + obedience (4:14). Can God be any clearer? In 4:16, justification is by grace through faith [fn4]. Justification was IMPUTED to Abraham (4:22) by passive faith; EVENT – not process.

James 2:23 with 24 shows the total picture. Justification by passive faith is the new birth; sanctification by active faith is spiritual growth. These two must not be confused. Error forces the sanctification part of Abraham’s life to be a requirement for justification oblivious that Abraham was already justified. It is wrong to endorse a system that makes the baby prove itself before birth. Proof of life happens AFTER birth.

“Faith without works is dead” can only be used as a means for JUSTIFIED BELIEVERS to verify their justification before others. Faith and works cannot mix to produce or maintain justification before God (Rom. 4:14, 11:6; 1 Cor 1:17c). All faith + obedience verses fit into this harmony.

When one adds something - anything - to the Cross, then one unwittingly denies the Christ he claims to worship. This is a very serious bit of ignorance.

Lloyd

 

No interpretation can be forced upon Hebrews 8:13 that brings it into conflict with other clear passages, even in this very epistle.

For example, “Now if perfection had been [imperfect tense – activity in the past] attainable through the Levitical priesthood. . . ” (Heb. 7:11).

Notice he did not say perfection is attainable, but "had been".

The oath by which Christ was appointed high priest was “after the law,” i.e., in the post-Mosaic period (Heb. 7:28).

Christ was not appointed high priest during the law, but after the law.

“If the first covenant [law of Moses] had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second” (Heb. 8:7).

The first covenant “had ordinances” (Heb. 9:1), etc. These phrases obviously view the Mosaic regime as a by-gone system – from the divine viewpoint.

In Heb 8, the inspired writer had just quoted from Jeremiah that foretold the coming of a “new” covenant (Jer. 31:31-34). The writer of Hebrews, therefore, might well have been constructing an argument in the following vein.

When Jeremiah spoke of the coming of a ‘new’ covenant, he implied that the covenant ‘made with the fathers’ was the ‘old’ one. It was "new" as opposed to something "old". Now it is a well known fact that anything ‘old’ is near to the point of passing away. Even the prophet Jeremiah, then, hinted that the Jewish covenant would not abide perpetually.

Perhaps no verse is as clear as Heb 10:9, "then He said, "'Behold, I have come to do your will.' He abolishes the first in order to establish the second."

He is clearly talking about taking away the first law in order to establish the second.

When you compare Col 2:14 to Eph 2:14-15, it makes it even more plain, "For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

What divided the Jews and Gentiles? The law. The great mystery was how the wall that separated the Jews and Gentiles (old law) would be removed so making peace.

Gal 3 talks about the mystery how the Gentiles were fellow heirs through the gospel and this is accomplished through the church.

The Jews in Acts 2 were added to the church at baptism (Acts 2:41, 47). I Cor 12:13 tells us that we are baptized into one body (church). This is a fulfillment of the commission Jesus gave, "And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Christ has truly torn down that wall (the old law) that once was a source of enmity, thus making peace.

 

In the previous post, I meant Eph 3, not Gal 3.

Sorry for the typo.

 

Lloyd,

bmerr here. Man, what's happening with you? It's like you're going off the deep end, lately. Is everything alright?

In answer to your post, the Mosaic Law was brought in to show the exceeding sinfulness of sin (Rom 7:13). It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come, to whoom the promise was made (Gal 3:19). The Law was the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith (Gal 3:24).

3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster [the Mosaic Law].

26 For ye are all [Jews and Gentiles] the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

When we establish the law by faith, we affirm that the purpose of the Law has been fulfilled, since it brought us to Christ.

If the OT Law is still in effect, then Jesus cannot be our High Priest (Heb 7:14). Is He not now High Priest? Of course He is, but not under the Levitical priesthood.

Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchizidec, which means there is no longer a Levitical priesthood. "for the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law" (Heb 7:12). The Mosaic Law is gone.

Well, I've been called away to work, so I'll have to finish up later.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

"What makes a church Scriptural?"
If we shall live of every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, then, for those who can take it, here is one possible definition: "Wher two or three are gathered together in my Name, there I shall be with them". I take Chris's words for prophetic, also of the Church!

 

AVL1984,

bmerr here. What? Us on a tanget? Why I've never...!

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Hey bmerr

What you miss is that the sinner dies to the Law and then is risen to new life in Christ. The law hasn't died but our (I hope you are saved) relationship to the law is dead.

That is why Paul can establish the law (Rom 3:30). As a representation of God's holiness, the Law is holy and good and perfect as well. If used properly, it can be a great guide.

It is true that Christ is the Mediator, Surety, High Priest etc of the new covenant. But the new covenant is only for those who have believed in Him. The law is still around. Math 5:19 shows that it will be around until everything is fulfilled. We still have a lot of unfulfilled prophecy about Israel - so the law is still around. It isn't binding on the Christian any more.

Don't get confused and miss our death. I have been co-crucified in Christ. I live, yet not I myself for Christ lives in me (Gal 2:20). Hope I didn't paraphrase it badly.

Not the deep end.
Just union with Christ.
Lloyd

 

Tangent?

What do we need to do to undo a Tangent.

Oh yeah - Cotangent.

so friend bmerr

1. What about our Islamic brother in that devil culture?

2. What about our ring kissing Catholic brother?

They both are denying Christ by staying in their false religions. Yet they both will be in heaven.

If individuals can get saved with really warped theology, why not also church with really warped theology still being scriptural?

Example 1. A church preaches faith in Jesus Christ but then adds that one must partake of the Lord's Supper or not be saved. This is really bad theology. I don't know of a single Church that does this. But people still would get saved with this really bad theology.

Is it scriptural?

Example 2. A church preaches salvation by avoiding murder, adultery, booze, drugs, and gossip. They have the right ecclesiology and church polity. They offer the Lord's Supper at the right times and baptize people who come forward. Nobody professes Jesus because they are crying over gossip and personal sins.

Is it scriptural?

Example 3. A church has 1000 members, an outreach center, a clothing center, a home for orphans, a baby care center, a golden agers fellowship, and four youth groups.

Is it scriptural?

My answers: First, the first two are not the right setup. Not enough was given for #3. But in #1 people get saved. In #2, no one would get saved except that God's Spirit can woo anyone.

Second, my answers Yes, No, Don't know.

What about you? Can you give a minimum set? If you only give perfection, then be it known that every church is short somewhere and no church would then be scriptural.

Whooo whoooooooo. Puff puff puff
Back on track!
Lloyd

 

A church is scriptural when it fosters belief in and following of the teachings of the scriptures.

 

Greetings

Nice general answer. Get specific. Is theer a practice that would disqualify a church for you? If so, name it.

Lloyd

 

Lloyd,

bmerr here. I guess the problem with trying to find "the line of departure", is that the Scriptures do not define it. Anything we come up with is, of necessity, speculation.

What we do have, though, is a pattern of worship and doctrine in the NT, which serves as our instruction on God's way of doing things. If we can read and understand the Bible, (and we can), what would prevent any of us from simply following the example left for us?

Simply put: man's desire to place his will above the will and word of God.

You asked for a specific example, so I'll try to give one. To avoid another tangent, (out of respect for AVL1984), let's use the dreaded hypothetical (yet specific) situation.

In the Bible, (1 Cor 11:24-25; Luke 22:17-20), we can determine that unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine are to be used in the Lord's supper. No problem with that, right?

But let's say, some "new thinking" fellow comes along, and he wants to add dessert in the form of a Hershey's kiss. Not a big thing, just a little something to draw in more people.

Would that be Scriptural? The Bible does not prohibit the use of a Hershey's kiss as a part of the Lord's supper, does it? Who then, could object to it? Would you continue to worship with this group if they insisted on keeping the Hershey's kiss?

I couldn't, no matter what else they may be doing right. They would have left the pattern of the NT, and departed from the faith. Not because I think so, but because the Bible says so (2 John 9-11). For me to continue with them would make me a partaker of their evil deeds.

Or, we could go the other way, and use the example of a group that decided they were not going to sing as a part of their worship. They just decided that their voices sounded too horrible, and no visitor would ever come back if they continued singing. No amount of piano or organ could compensate for their discord, so they just stopped.

The Bible says that we are to teach and admonish one another in singing (Col 3:16). It is how we are to be filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18-19). Singing is clearly commanded as a part of the worship of the NT church.

Would you carry on in fellowship with such a group? What part of God's word can we ignore, or neglect, and still be faithful? What excuse will be accepted by God for our failure to obey His word?

The answer given by born again and again, general as it may be, is actually correct. I hope this serves as a continuing point. I know we like to avoid hypotheticals, but actual specifics tend to tangents, and we wouldn't want that, now would we?

In Christ,

bmerr