Defining what a church is that God would call His own

[360watt]

Talking of churches, I believe there are distinctive markers of a true christian biblical New Testament assembly that God would call His own.

* Believing the bible is the Word of God inerrant and infallible all sufficient rule of practice
* Believing in the trinity-- One God in three persons/substances/essences
* Believing in baptism by full immersion of only those who are saved in the first place
* No pedobaptism
* The independence of the church - seperate from control by any other church and seperate from the government
* Salvation by grace thru faith in Christ that cannot be undone
* The deity of Christ
* Observance of the Lord's supper and tithing
* Jesus as the Head
* Offices of Pastors and Deacons
* The nature of 'the church' being a local NT assembly and not universal.
* Faith hope and love the remaining abiding gifts of the Holy Spirit

Now..

This is obviously not what everyone believes on this site.. or in all christendom but..

If there are distinctive markers that make up a church God would call His own.. what of all other churches that say they are one of God's churches but differ on these markers?

One line of reasoning goes that God can still use other groups that don't have these markers but wouldn't call them His churches.

Another is that there are less distinctive markers that a church would have that God would call His-- eg..

The deity of Christ
Salvation thru Christ
Independence of church and state

So.. my question is.. where do you draw the line at a local church that God would say-- yes.. that is mine. .I will be there with that church in the midst as they assemble and --

Where God would say.. that is off beam.. I will not be there as the Holy Spirit in the midst.

 

[Salty]

Uhh - Tithing is not a New Testament Command

 

[360watt]

Uhh - Tithing is not a New Testament Command

Ok so are you saying that a church would be one of God's if it did follow God's NT commandments?

What markers then would it have?

 

[annsni]

Ok so are you saying that a church would be one of God's if it did follow God's NT commandments?

What markers then would it have?

He said that tithing is not a New Testament command of God. It is kind of hard to "not follow" something that is not there.

 

[Refreshed]

So.. my question is.. where do you draw the line at a local church that God would say-- yes.. that is mine. .I will be there with that church in the midst as they assemble and --

Where God would say.. that is off beam.. I will not be there as the Holy Spirit in the midst.

This is actually a good question. I believe a church is Ichabod when it invites another authority than Jesus Christ and His Word to have preeminence.

 

[360watt]

This is actually a good question. I believe a church is Ichabod when it invites another authority than Jesus Christ and His Word to have preeminence.

I can finally reply!

It is difficult to tell.. because it is from God's perspective. There were churches that were pretty unfaithful in the New Testament eg. Corinth that God still considered His.

I believe it comes down to the authority a church has to be on of God's own. Someone just starting a church on their own without previous sanction from another biblically grounded church .. no authority.[/QUOTE]

 

[reformed_baptist]

Talking of churches, I believe there are distinctive markers of a true christian biblical New Testament assembly that God would call His own.

* Believing the bible is the Word of God inerrant and infallible all sufficient rule of practice
* Believing in the trinity-- One God in three persons/substances/essences
* Believing in baptism by full immersion of only those who are saved in the first place
* No pedobaptism
* The independence of the church - seperate from control by any other church and seperate from the government
* Salvation by grace thru faith in Christ that cannot be undone
* The deity of Christ
* Observance of the Lord's supper and tithing
* Jesus as the Head
* Offices of Pastors and Deacons
* The nature of 'the church' being a local NT assembly and not universal.
* Faith hope and love the remaining abiding gifts of the Holy Spirit

Now..

This is obviously not what everyone believes on this site.. or in all christendom but..

If there are distinctive markers that make up a church God would call His own.. what of all other churches that say they are one of God's churches but differ on these markers?

One line of reasoning goes that God can still use other groups that don't have these markers but wouldn't call them His churches.

Another is that there are less distinctive markers that a church would have that God would call His-- eg..

The deity of Christ
Salvation thru Christ
Independence of church and state

So.. my question is.. where do you draw the line at a local church that God would say-- yes.. that is mine. .I will be there with that church in the midst as they assemble and --

Where God would say.. that is off beam.. I will not be there as the Holy Spirit in the midst.

I find it interesting that one of the conditions you state a for genuine 'assembly' is 'salvation by grace....'

Surely grace is receiving God's kindness and blessing despite the fact we don't deserve it - ie we are saved despite our badness rather then because of our goodness - or to put it another way, we are saved despite what we get wrong not because of what we get right.

Therefore whilst there a clear standard of doctrine (to my mind at least) that we should all be striving for can we actually say that those who do not hold to all those teachings are not part of a 'church'?

Bearing in mind that Jesus promises to be in the presence of two or three who are gathered together (Matt 18:20) I conclude that the only real requirement for a church is that it must be a gathering of people who are calling upon the name of the Lord - I take that to mean regenerate people (saved).

Now, that is not to say that would be happy to settle in any church that fits this high level criteria, for I believe one must find the 'best' church they can to settle in - ie the one that seems to best demonstrate biblical teaching and attitudes - but just because I would not attend a certain group, or just because I disagree with a certain groups theology does not automatically necessitate my rejection of that groups Christianity (I can only do that where heresy is found).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

A church is people.
A church is the people described in Acts 2:41-47. They have gladly received the word of God, been baptized into Christ, and now they meet together, learning more of the faith, joining together in the Lord’s supper and in prayer, looking to each other’s needs, having joy in their hearts and praising God together.

A church is the people described in 1 Corinthians 1:2-8. They have been set apart in Christ, called in holiness, have received undeserved favour and peace from God; their knowledge of God and their witness to Him comes from the Holy Spirit, who has given them corporately all the gifts they need to function as a church, as they eagerly await the return of their Lord who will preserve them in Him until that day.

The Lord Jesus is continuing to build her even at this present time (Eph 2:21-22 ); she is His Church, His bride; He has purchased her with His own blood and she is a chaste virgin. As it is written, ‘In that day there shall no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the Lord of Hosts’ (Zech 14:21 ). It is the duty of the leadership of each individual church to seek to make the assembly in its charge as pure as possible (2 Cor 11:2 ).

The Church is composed of those who have come out of the world to join it. They are no longer what they were (Eph 5:8 ). Peter speaks of them as ‘sojourners and pilgrims’ (1 Peter 2:11 ). Paul told the church at Philippi, ‘Our citizenship is in heaven’ (Phil 3:20 ), and to the Colossians he said, ‘[God] has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love’ (Col 1:13 ). The church at Thessalonika had, ‘Turned to God from idols to serve the true and living God’ (1 Thes 1:9 ). They came out of the world and into the Church. Now some will say immediately, “Ah, yes. But this refers to the invisible church. In the visible church there are many who are in the world and in the church at one and the same time.” Perhaps, but as we have seen, this is simply not the language of Scripture. When Paul writes to the church at Colossae, he is addressing, ‘The saints and faithful brethren in Christ’ (1:2 ) He knows nothing of a ‘visible’ or ‘invisible’ church, but only an assembly of true believers. If there were false brethren in the Colossian church, Paul’s letter is not addressed to them. It is true that there are exhortations to the believers to examine themselves (2 Cor 13:5 ), and warnings against falling away (Heb 6:4-8; 10:26-38 ), but the writer to the Hebrews remains confident that the recipients of his letter will remain constant (Heb 6:9; 10:39 ).

 

[Yeshua1]

A church is people.
A church is the people described in Acts 2:41-47. They have gladly received the word of God, been baptized into Christ, and now they meet together, learning more of the faith, joining together in the Lord’s supper and in prayer, looking to each other’s needs, having joy in their hearts and praising God together.

A church is the people described in 1 Corinthians 1:2-8. They have been set apart in Christ, called in holiness, have received undeserved favour and peace from God; their knowledge of God and their witness to Him comes from the Holy Spirit, who has given them corporately all the gifts they need to function as a church, as they eagerly await the return of their Lord who will preserve them in Him until that day.

The Lord Jesus is continuing to build her even at this present time (Eph 2:21-22 ); she is His Church, His bride; He has purchased her with His own blood and she is a chaste virgin. As it is written, ‘In that day there shall no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the Lord of Hosts’ (Zech 14:21 ). It is the duty of the leadership of each individual church to seek to make the assembly in its charge as pure as possible (2 Cor 11:2 ).

The Church is composed of those who have come out of the world to join it. They are no longer what they were (Eph 5:8 ). Peter speaks of them as ‘sojourners and pilgrims’ (1 Peter 2:11 ). Paul told the church at Philippi, ‘Our citizenship is in heaven’ (Phil 3:20 ), and to the Colossians he said, ‘[God] has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love’ (Col 1:13 ). The church at Thessalonika had, ‘Turned to God from idols to serve the true and living God’ (1 Thes 1:9 ). They came out of the world and into the Church. Now some will say immediately, “Ah, yes. But this refers to the invisible church. In the visible church there are many who are in the world and in the church at one and the same time.” Perhaps, but as we have seen, this is simply not the language of Scripture. When Paul writes to the church at Colossae, he is addressing, ‘The saints and faithful brethren in Christ’ (1:2 ) He knows nothing of a ‘visible’ or ‘invisible’ church, but only an assembly of true believers. If there were false brethren in the Colossian church, Paul’s letter is not addressed to them. It is true that there are exhortations to the believers to examine themselves (2 Cor 13:5 ), and warnings against falling away (Heb 6:4-8; 10:26-38 ), but the writer to the Hebrews remains confident that the recipients of his letter will remain constant (Heb 6:9; 10:39 ).

Are we allowed to exclude from seeing as a real church or really saved those who differ in regards to baptism/Eschatolology than we baptists?

 

[Yeshua1]

I find it interesting that one of the conditions you state a for genuine 'assembly' is 'salvation by grace....'

Surely grace is receiving God's kindness and blessing despite the fact we don't deserve it - ie we are saved despite our badness rather then because of our goodness - or to put it another way, we are saved despite what we get wrong not because of what we get right.

Therefore whilst there a clear standard of doctrine (to my mind at least) that we should all be striving for can we actually say that those who do not hold to all those teachings are not part of a 'church'?

Bearing in mind that Jesus promises to be in the presence of two or three who are gathered together (Matt 18:20) I conclude that the only real requirement for a church is that it must be a gathering of people who are calling upon the name of the Lord - I take that to mean regenerate people (saved).

Now, that is not to say that would be happy to settle in any church that fits this high level criteria, for I believe one must find the 'best' church they can to settle in - ie the one that seems to best demonstrate biblical teaching and attitudes - but just because I would not attend a certain group, or just because I disagree with a certain groups theology does not automatically necessitate my rejection of that groups Christianity (I can only do that where heresy is found).

So that would mean, by the OP, that all Reformed not Baptist not a real church?
That we who hold could say Free will Baptists are not, and they could say same of us?

 

[reformed_baptist]

So that would mean, by the OP, that all Reformed not Baptist not a real church?
That we who hold could say Free will Baptists are not, and they could say same of us?

What do your question have to do with what I have said?

I say we can't define a church by our own narrow standards of doctrine - and you suggest I am doing just that!

 

[Salty]

Talking of churches, I believe there are distinctive markers of a true christian biblical New Testament assembly that God would call His own.
...
* The independence of the church - seperate from control by any other church and seperate from the government
.

Lets say two churches have Christian schools - both with Girls volleyball teams.
Church A - allows the team to wear shorts as their uniform.
Church B believes shorts are immodest- and insists that girls must wear long dresses while playing a volleyball game.
Since the game is scheduled at church B - Church A - informs it team - that they must wear long dresses in order to be able to play.

So - Is Church "A" separate from control by Church "B"?

 

[rlvaughn]

So - Is Church "A" separate from control by Church "B"?

Yes, they are separate, i.e. independent or autonomous. Church "A" makes their own decision whether or not they want to meet/play under the conditions of Church "B".

 

[Salty]

Yes, they are separate, i.e. independent or autonomous. Church "A" makes their own decision whether or not they want to meet/play under the conditions of Church "B".

Depends on how you look at it.

So if I attend Church "B" and my wife must wear a long dress - even if I dont think it is required by Scripture - am I succumbing to legalism - or am I just tyring to keep the peace

 

[Yeshua1]

What do your question have to do with what I have said?

I say we can't define a church by our own narrow standards of doctrine - and you suggest I am doing just that!

I thought that one of your requirements was no infant Baptism? if I misunderstood you, sorry!

 

[rlvaughn]

Depends on how you look at it.

So if I attend Church "B" and my wife must wear a long dress - even if I dont think it is required by Scripture - am I succumbing to legalism - or am I just tyring to keep the peace

Seems you have changed to a question of a different kind -- relationship of a church and church member -- rather than the relationship between two churches as in your first question. So I'm not sure whether I understood you to begin with.

 

[360watt]

I find it interesting that one of the conditions you state a for genuine 'assembly' is 'salvation by grace....'

Surely grace is receiving God's kindness and blessing despite the fact we don't deserve it - ie we are saved despite our badness rather then because of our goodness - or to put it another way, we are saved despite what we get wrong not because of what we get right.

Therefore whilst there a clear standard of doctrine (to my mind at least) that we should all be striving for can we actually say that those who do not hold to all those teachings are not part of a 'church'?

Bearing in mind that Jesus promises to be in the presence of two or three who are gathered together (Matt 18:20) I conclude that the only real requirement for a church is that it must be a gathering of people who are calling upon the name of the Lord - I take that to mean regenerate people (saved).

Now, that is not to say that would be happy to settle in any church that fits this high level criteria, for I believe one must find the 'best' church they can to settle in - ie the one that seems to best demonstrate biblical teaching and attitudes - but just because I would not attend a certain group, or just because I disagree with a certain groups theology does not automatically necessitate my rejection of that groups Christianity (I can only do that where heresy is found).

Yeah, I would never say a group of christians is not saved. The salvation is a free gift and not dependent on the doctrine they follow.

I guess this comes down to defining church again. I believe the bible teaches it is purely local. Individual assemblies of saved baptised believers.. that God would dwell with in the midst. Every believer will one day be one church in heaven.. but that isn't now. That is 'yet future'

So that's what I believe. So then the definition of church gets seperated from salvation status. So when someone is saved..they join every believer.. but are not yet a member of 'the church' for that is a local assembly that is joined after eternal salvation is given.

I think it comes down to authority of whether an assembly is going to be one God would dwell with or not. Someone going out and starting a church without being from a biblically grounded church themselves.. I don't see God being there 'in the midst' with His Holy Spirit.

 

[rlvaughn]

360watt, back in 1995 I polled 15 Baptist preachers as to what they believed were the minimum requirements in doctrine and practice for a group of people to exist as and be considered a church of Jesus Christ. Some responses were fairly complete doctrinal statements while a few others kind of said they couldn't tell for certain. The most succinct answer I got was the following:

"...an assembly of two or more believers in Christ as their Savior, who have been immersed in water on their profession of faith in Christ, who have covenanted together under God to love, aid one another and walk circumspectly in the world and who covenant with God to follow Christ's commands. The minimum doctrinal standards, I consider to be: a belief in Christ as Lord and Savior; to have repented of sins and exercised faith in Christ as the Son of God; to believe that Christ died for their sins, was buried, then arose from the dead to serve as the go-between for all who come to Him; to believe in the future resurrection of both saved and lost, in future judgment; and in Heaven and Hell as eternal abodes...I would qualify all of the above for the ideal Scriptural church..."

 

[Rhetorician]

Talking of churches, I believe there are distinctive markers of a true christian biblical New Testament assembly that God would call His own.

* Believing the bible is the Word of God inerrant and infallible all sufficient rule of practice
* Believing in the trinity-- One God in three persons/substances/essences
* Believing in baptism by full immersion of only those who are saved in the first place
* No pedobaptism
* The independence of the church - seperate from control by any other church and seperate from the government
* Salvation by grace thru faith in Christ that cannot be undone
* The deity of Christ
* Observance of the Lord's supper and tithing
* Jesus as the Head
* Offices of Pastors and Deacons
* The nature of 'the church' being a local NT assembly and not universal.
* Faith hope and love the remaining abiding gifts of the Holy Spirit

Now..

This is obviously not what everyone believes on this site.. or in all christendom but..

If there are distinctive markers that make up a church God would call His own.. what of all other churches that say they are one of God's churches but differ on these markers?

One line of reasoning goes that God can still use other groups that don't have these markers but wouldn't call them His churches.

Another is that there are less distinctive markers that a church would have that God would call His-- eg..

The deity of Christ
Salvation thru Christ
Independence of church and state

So.. my question is.. where do you draw the line at a local church that God would say-- yes.. that is mine. .I will be there with that church in the midst as they assemble and --

Where God would say.. that is off beam.. I will not be there as the Holy Spirit in the midst.

What about the three that came out of the Reformation:

1. The right understanding of the Gospel and the preaching of the Gospel.

2. The right understanding and serving of the sacraments, the Lord's Supper and Baptism.

3. The practice of Church Discipline.

I heard Dr. Mark Dever say recently that the proper understanding of the Church is what we Baptists bring to the Reformation understandings of what was recovered.

Ponder on these for a while.

rd

 

[TCassidy]

Some of us don't believe it was ever lost so did not need to be "recovered."