True Church Disqualifiers

Hocus Pocus

 

One thing seems obvious from the posts so far. Everyone is going to have their own definition of a NT church. For example, in the previous post, some may think Lutherans may not meet the definition because of the way they view the elements. Some are so anti-Calvinism, some might say that those who hold to such doctrines are not a NT church. No doubt some KJOV people would hold that a NT church can only read that Bible.

A few have mentioned essentials and non-essentials. That takes you right back to the start. My list of essentials will be different than yours.

 

That's cool, I just don't think the Baptist church is the only legitimate church out there. I'm also seeking to discover what unifies us rather than divide us.

In terms of belief that is a pretty solid, imho, list of what constitutes valid New Testament church according to the New Testament.

Again I'm interested in why the negative spin? Why is it, particularly in this forum (i.e. the BB in general), people are so quick to attack and so slow to listen?

Anyhoo, I'd suggest that denial of those beliefs (whether in practice or doctine) is pretty henious. Also, I'd say that the morally and ethic of the leadership, particularly in terms of how they line up with the New Testament instruction about qualified leadership. If a church is blind to put up with a leader who isn't biblically justified, they have forfeited, albeit temporarily, their true designation as a church.

Yes, this is still a New Testament church. What we need to realize is that theological (and methodological) triage need to happen as we consider who is "in and out." Also we should realize the New Testament paints a pretty broad stroke about who is in when it comes to the body of Christ.

Just because a church, or denomination, holds to a doctrine you don't agree with...but we agree on the essentials as historically proven...doesn't mean they are "out." Pedo-baptism, while a practice and doctrine I find highly dubious, has been part of the established church since the early church fathers. The sacramental view has been held since the end of the first century by some in the New Testament church. We have the evidences from the early church historians themselves and documents from their meetings.

I'd even suggest that churches that have a different view of the charismatic gifts, so long as they honor the essential doctrines (i.e. aren't Oneness Pentecostals), are legitimate.

If we believe that the Baptist church that we each attend is the definition of New Testament we have a faulty template. We need to look at the New Testament to see who the writers would qualify and disqualify.

I just think there are far more true expressions of the church out there than we give credit for.:thumbsup:

And I wouldn't suggest that you are. I would encourage you to affirm that there is more than one expression of the church in the world.

 

This is a good point. I'd suggest we all sit down and look at the New Testament first, which my first post does, for our essentials.

For instance I don't believe that holding to an inerrant, infallible Bible is an essential belief. I do believe holding to an authoritative, inspired Bible is a prime doctrine but not the former expression. We don't see people seeing the need to affirm the Scriptures as either inerrant or infallible until recently and a lot of good Christians have serious questions about those terms today as it stands.

Other than the list I have proposed what other doctrinal and practice markers do we find about the New Testament church?

 

I would respectfully disagree. I would say the Roman Catholic Church is a legitimate expression of the Church as found in the New Testament.

I have plenty of good friends who are Roman Catholic and they are wonderful representatives of Christianity.

Maybe the bigger question is what happens to a Christian who attends a church some hold to be false? (Not that this board is an authoritative judge of that term.)

 

Baptist sects that do not believe in evangelism or missions. It is kind of hard to be a NT church and ignore the last few verses of Matthew.

 

I would say nothing would happen to a Chrisitian who attends a church some hold to be false. The term "some hold to be false" is merely one opinion or another and has no basis in calling a church false. There seems to be a lot of confusion on the board between opinion and Biblical fact.

 

How about if they pray to Allah? Also if the church believes in free will, they should be disqualified.

 

I was kidding about the free-will thing.
Although I have serious with paedo-baptists, I fully believe that many are true believers, so I would have to disagree with your first one. I could easily worship with many Presbyterian brothers. I guess it depends on the specifics of what they believe about paedo-baptism and the sacraments. If they belileve there is "saving grace" in baptism and the sacraments, then I would agree that they aren't a true church.

 

By the time I get here, I forget what the list was,,,,,,I even forget te question..Come one, help us old blokes out a little...........

Cheers,

Jim

 

I'm a former PCA guy and you've pretty much got it right.

 

Tom, I would like to hear what you have to say a little more on the inerrancy issue. I'm leading toward disagreeing with you on that but I'd like to hear your explanation fo why that shouldn't be included before I disagree.

 

I grew up in a PCA in Gulfport, MS. The description is pretty much correct. There is no regenerational baptism.

I would not have baptism any other way than the way it is in the Baptist church. However, under the term NT church, I think in respect to baptism the only thing I would exclude from a NT church is baptismal regeneration. This is just my opinion.