If the Apostles Came Back in Our Time...

[Salty]

... I've read several responses that basically said they would be disappointed in Christians arguing over doctrine and practice ...They fought hard to keep the Lord's people from being deceived with false doctrine. They were very concerned that what the Lord had delivered to them and they had delivered to the church be kept in that same fashion.

I agree that we need to fight hard to keep the Lords people from being deceived with false doctrine.

However, there are several practices that are more of a preference than actual Bible doctrine. To have or not have Sunday School - is that really Bible Doctrine - some seem to think so - is CCM really of the Devil; and of course, Heaven forbid if a pastors hair touches his ears; and the list goes on and on....

Yes fight hard for Doctrine - but ease off on preferences

"In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity."

There was a similar discussion about a year a half ago on BB.

 

[Iconoclast]

Wrell, part of it, departed saints, are before the lord in heaven, while rest of thre Body ARE here on earth!

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

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

 

[SolaSaint]

What would they see? Printed Bibles, satellite, digital media, TV preachers begging money, church bank accounts, tithers suffering, division, denominations, programs, bulletins, audiences... on and on.

Would they be impressed?

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

 

[David Lamb]

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

 

[Baptist Believer]

I really think people have no concept of what was truly important to the apostles.

I agree.

I'll tell you what the apostles would do - they would search for that body that had continued steadfastly in their doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. They would know it was still here because Jesus promised just that, so they would hunt for it, not settling for anything less.

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.

 

[Crucified in 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.

 

[revmwc]

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.

 

[JesusFan]

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!

 

[Salty]

...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.

Crucified - I think you have given the best answer.

Many of us would not even register on the "commitment scale".:tear:
Our attitude is normally whatever is left, I will give to God

Salty

Only one life will soon be past
Only whats done for Christ will last

 

[Tom Butler]

Strange, as BOTH of those groups are in the ONE Body of Christ, the Church of Christ, the "real one"

Since the Lord brought all Christians together in ONE BODY, why break it asunder?

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

 

[Tom Butler]

If it is an IFB church it wouldn't be affiliated with the SBC. That is a contradiction if I ever heard one.

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.

 

[Mexdeaf]

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.

 

[Salty]

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

I just checked the website for Thomas Road Baptist Church, and it did not say anything about be SBC

 

[Mexdeaf]

I just checked the website for Thomas Road Baptist Church, and it did not say anything about be SBC

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:

 

[Salty]

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:

I agree - the first thing they probally do would look at the hymnal at see if it was the "Baptist Hymnal" - Hmmm, what would be next....

 

[Baptist Believer]

I just checked the website for Thomas Road Baptist Church, and it did not say anything about be SBC

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.

 

[DHK]

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.

 

[Salty]

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.

Does your church support missionaries who are with mission boards?
If so, what % of the amount sent FOR the missionary is retained by the Mission board for admin purposes. If the mission board does retain $ - then I supposed you could call them a "denomination" and thus your church is no longer "independent'

 

[Baptist Believer]

There is a perfect example why it is not independent. A church gives its money to a denomination and denominational headquarters.

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.

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).

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.)

I just consider that giving to denomination HQ is a waste of money.

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.

 

[DHK]

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!

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.

The principles of cooperation and independence are not necessarily opposed.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.)
There are no such organizations in the Bible. The church at Antioch sent out Paul and Barnabas. Our own church has sent out missionaries. If we had that kind of money to throw around how much more could we give to the mission projects that these missionaries have started.

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.

In a local church decisions are made by the congregation, nor "one man," or "a few men." So that problem does not exist.