True Church Disqualifiers

Church of England and Anglican are same thing..I use the name interchangeably..Americans call themselves by the type of government,,episcopal.........all of them have an episcopalian government,,government by the bishops, as all come under the Archbishop of Canterbury who is selected by the Queen and the Prime Minister of England,,,,,,,,,,,

NOT a NT church, in my opinion..Nothing to do with believing the scriptures, having sound docrine and preaching the gospel and being saved.

Cheers,

Jim

 

What disqualifies them from being a NT church?

 

their whole structure. If they are to be called a nt church then so can the Church of Rome,then, we are the dissidents not the RC's.....The CofE pulled out, or brokeaway from the RC Church because HenryVIII wanted to get a divorce......basically...more complicated than that, but.........

Cheers,

Jim

 

HOLD UP GUYS!

I never stated Lutherans did not meet the definition of the NT Church. I said their stated doctrine regarding salvation is correct but I have personally never met a Lutheran who believed in a salvation by Grace alone doctrine. These always had a works based addition to it. Mostly like - keeping the Ten commandments. Living as best you can and that hopefully God will be pleased enough with you to allow you in... ect..

There is no long list for a church to be NT but a short list.
However there is a difference between a NT church with more correct doctrines than what constitutes a NT Church.

I think to often we place the former as the disqualifier but it is in fact not one.

 

I don't get all bottled up in NT church or not. I believe the one essential is the Lordship of Jesus Christ and acceptance of the Bibleas His holy word. My basis for fellowship is just that...I can always iron out the other things. Maybe I am just getting to old to fight over whether we have brown pews or black or even white.

Now I am off to visit uncle ted (bed) so cheers and bless,

Jim

 

Now we could take off in a debate on this one: a NT church would have a plurality of elders and deacons (Phil 1:1).

 

Now show where it is a biblical 'necessity', or 'scriptural command' to have a plurality of elders in a church.
Though we do read in scripture where 'some' churches had this, we do not know if all churches were set up this way and if they were/are 'required' to be set up this way. As far as I can find there is no such command or instruction for the churches nor for the bishops to do such nor to be set up in such a way. Yes they can be, and some or more most likely were in scripture but that is about the extent you can build the argument up to... You 'can' do it that way. Beyond that it is assumption that you 'must' do it this way or even that one pastor in a church isn't biblically correct. Scripture never addresses this other than the fact that the church must have at 'least' a pastor/elder to guide and lead the church :thumbs:

 

No, and some Baptist sects are not NT churches

 

To quote Ray Stevens from one of his songs - "Say it ain't so Ethal!"

 

Just give me time brother, I'll catch up :smilewinkgrin:

 

Political Correctness has no place in the church. This is ridiculous, Tom. It seems like you are trying to nail jello to the wall: I have seen less evasive answers at Harvard.

Here is a Partial list, since Paul told us to point out and silence false teachers...


The Following are disqualified, because they add works to Salvation: in accordance with Galatians 1, those who do such things are eternally condemned.

> Roman Catholics
> Oneness Pentecostals
> Jehovas Witnesses (besides their bad doctrine, belief of Christ as a 'lesser deity' etc.)
> Mormons (besides their other bad doctrine)

In addition any Church that does not preach and practice repentance, faith in Christ, love and support for the brethren, as well as Church discipline, is not "technically" a "New Testament" church.

 

There is no evidence of political correctness in any of the posts. Besides that, you left off the Church of Christ from you list, which is famous for adding works to salvation through baptism.

Your post is another opinion of the standards of a NT church. It is not doctrine. That makes yours neither any more or less correct than the others. For that matter, the term "politically correct" in your post is also your opinion and differs from other opinions.

I would be really interested to know how you left one of the most obvious denominations off your list, ie the Church of Christ.

 

Because I see Baptism as a gray area in scripture. The scripture says:

Mar 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.


Is it true that "Whoever believes and is baptized" will be saved? Yes. And although I personally believe, from the balance of other scriptures, that this means one is "saved" and their saving faith leads them to be baptized (which Christ commanded), I can hardly condemn others for taking this literally.

However, Roman Catholics believe salvific merit is bestowed from the Eucharist: from doing good works: from the "mediatrix" Mary: from reciting the "Lord's prayer", and "Hail Mary's". THAT cannot be supported by scripture, and is the reason the Roman Catholic Church suppressed the reading of the scriptures by the laity.

"Oneness Pentecostals" believe that you are not saved, unless you "speak in tongues". They believe you must "live Holy".

I would say, that we as Baptists have taken the importance of Baptism to a dangerous extreme in the opposite direction. In Scripture, when someone believes and is not Baptized, their seems to be an urgency there: an immediacy to the Baptism. Though we are not saved by it, I believe we have taken an important command of Christ too lightly.

The Churches of Christ are a completely different animal, and though I would consider them a "fringe" group of Christianity, I cannot condemn them, any more than I can Charismatic (biblical) churches.

 

I understand what you are saying, and maybe we have put too much emphasis on Baptism. I was in no way defending the other groups you mentioned.

As I said in other posts, I do not think sprinkling, pouring, and infant baptism disqualifies a church from being a NT church, just a Baptist church.

I have another question for you. Do you think a Baptist group that does not believe in missions or evangelism would qualify as a NT church?

 

Listen, A New Testament Church is a church which functions like the Church in the NT. Evangelism was "THE" work of the Church in the NT, so YES, a Church without an emphasis on Evangelism would not qualify.

The NT Church has the following distinctions:

#1 Emphasis on Evangelism (OUTSIDE {in the streets, synagogues, etc.} the Church: no precedent for "tricking" unbelievers to come into the assembly, by programs, circuses, sports broadcasting, or anything else)
#2 Sharing of possessions/ taking care of each other
#3 Church Discipline
#4 Immediate Baptism of Believers, by immersion (no, there is no example of "sprinkling" or "pouring" in the NT: Nor is there any examples of "we will schedule it next month")
#5 Elders AND deacons, and at least one "Shepard"(earthly Shepard, that is).
#6 Emphasis on the authority of God's word.

Obviously, this list is "in addition to" what is required to be in the "orthodox" (not eastern orthodox) Church, which is in "addition to" what is required for Salvation (repentance and faith).