Conservative Or Scriptural ?

[1watchman]

Some believers speak of conservative or fundamental Christianity, but I think we would do better to speak of scriptural assemblies. Here is a paper I found as addressing the fundamental truth for us all. See if this might bring us to unity in truth.

S C R I P T U R A L A S S E M B LY


(I John 1:3-4)


(An invitation and statement adapted from a newspaper report in the early 1900's)​

There is a fellowship of Christians in this city gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus Christ alone (Matt.18:20), apart from organization and systems of man's devising. They believe in the absolute inspiration, infallibility, and all-sufficiency of the Holy Bible as the Word of God to man (2 Tim.3:16-17; Heb.4:12; 2 Pet.1:20-21), and seek to obey "all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27), "rightly dividing the Word of truth" (2 Tim.2:15). They, therefore, reject all human creeds, programs, names and titles, etc. as adding to God's Word (Matt.17:4-8; Acts 2:41-42; Acts 20:27; Rev. 22:18-19), and not suited to a gathering led by the Holy Spirit (Gal.3:3; Eph.4:30; 1 Thess.5:19).

These believers own that the church is "one body" (1 Cor.12:12-27), and therefore seek to express that oneness in love according to the Word of God, and in happy fellowship with other scriptural assemblies throughout the world (Rom.12:5). This is not another innovation in Christendom, but a continuation of that revival of church truth which God raised up in the early 1800's. They see there is no such thing in the Word of God as going to "the church of your choice", as is often said.

As to church government this company, or assembly, takes no name other than what the Scripture allows and which is common to all saints of God. They have no hierarchy or minister in charge, and believe in the priesthood of believers and the leading of the Holy Spirit for the exercise of spiritual gifts (I Pet.2:5,9; I Thess.5:19; I Cor.14: 12). They come together to remember the Lord in His death every first day of the week, and meet at times for prayer and study of the Word (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor.11:23-26). They also hold themselves responsible for preaching the gospel to the public, and teaching the children about the love of God. At public meetings they take no collections, seeing that the gospel is free, and the Word of God teaches there are those "within" and those "without" (1 Cor. 5:12-13; Col.4:5). The only ordinances they hold are baptism and the Lord's supper, which the Lord gave to His disciples to keep until He returns (Mark 16:15-16; Rom.6:3-4; Luke 22:19-20). Care is exercised to see that a scriptural order of meeting and discipline is carried out (1 Cor.14:40).

As to God's work of grace these Christians understand that God, in His great love (John 3:16), sent His Son "to seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10). They acknowledge the ruin by sin from Adam and Eve (Gen.3; Rom.5:12-21), and that "all have sinned" (Rom.3:23), "there is none righteous" (Rom.3:10), and "except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). They believe the Bible teaches the worthlessness of good works or feelings for salvation (Gal.2:16; Eph.2:8-9; Titus 3:5). They see that salvation is by the suffering and blood of Christ (1 Pet.1:18-20), and that He must be received by faith for eternal life, which then cannot be lost (Rom.6:23; Rom.8:15-16; Gal.4:4-7; 1 John 5:10-13).

It is generally held among these brethren that the return of Christ for His bride, the church, is the proper hope of every child of God before judgment is poured out on this world (1 Cor.15:51-57; 1 Thess.4:16-17; Rev.4:4,10; Rev.5:8-10; Rev.19:7,11). They understand that after the translation, or rapture, of the church there will be a tribulation period on earth, then Christ will return with the saints to reign a thousand years before the new heaven and new earth are formed (Matt.24:29-31; Matt.25:31-46; 2 Pet.3:10-13; Rev.20: 6; Rev.21:1). They see that everlasting condemnation awaits all who reject the grace of God in Christ (John 3:36), and everlasting joy in heaven awaits every true child of God (John 14:2-3; 2 Cor.5:1-2; 1 John 3:2).
[Adapted from an old pamphlet - R.L.D. - from biblecounsel.homestead. com]

One will hear teaching and diverse ministry along our pathway from many sources . One should always test it by the Word of God (see John 5:39; Acts 17:11; II Tim.2:15; II Tim.3:16; Titus 1:9). Whether it is profitable often depends, too, on our state of soul. This paper is prepared with much care and prayer to be a help and honor the Lord. Comments and questions are welcome.

 

[GQ Chris]

Scriptural which leans to the side of Conservative.

 

[A New Dawn]

Some believers speak of conservative or fundamental Christianity, but I think we would do better to speak of scriptural assemblies.

I believe that people speak of fundamental and conservative and liberal because all of us claim to be scriptural.

 

[GQ Chris]

Usually liberal label means you're free to make it mean what's most convenient to you.

 

[a pilgrim]

As to church government this company, or assembly, takes no name other than what the Scripture allows and which is common to all saints of God. They have no hierarchy or minister in charge, and believe in the priesthood of believers and the leading of the Holy Spirit for the exercise of spiritual gifts (I Pet.2:5,9; I Thess.5:19; I Cor.14: 12). They come together to remember the Lord in His death every first day of the week, and meet at times for prayer and study of the Word (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor.11:23-26). They also hold themselves responsible for preaching the gospel to the public, and teaching the children about the love of God. At public meetings they take no collections, seeing that the gospel is free, and the Word of God teaches there are those "within" and those "without" (1 Cor. 5:12-13; Col.4:5). The only ordinances they hold are baptism and the Lord's supper, which the Lord gave to His disciples to keep until He returns (Mark 16:15-16; Rom.6:3-4; Luke 22:19-20). Care is exercised to see that a scriptural order of meeting and discipline is carried out (1 Cor.14:40).

Bro. Wathman,
I am curious about this point as highlighted above. How do we reconcile the following:

Phil. 1
[1] Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

There was a differentiation between the two groups mentioned. Though the bishops and deacons are among the saints, their office is pointed out.

1 Tim. 3
[1] This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
[2] A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Titus 1
[7] For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

This is a recognized office to be desired by the spiritually mature.

1 Tim. 5
[17] Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

Titus 1
[5] For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

This is an office that keeps rule, and is of ordination.

I like most of the article, but wonder about these scriptures.

Your thoughts?

 

[desmalia]

Bro. Wathman,
I am curious about this point as highlighted above. How do we reconcile the following:

Phil. 1
[1] Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

There was a differentiation between the two groups mentioned. Though the bishops and deacons are among the saints, their office is pointed out.

1 Tim. 3
[1] This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
[2] A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Titus 1
[7] For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

This is a recognized office to be desired by the spiritually mature.

1 Tim. 5
[17] Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

Titus 1
[5] For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

This is an office that keeps rule, and is of ordination.

I like most of the article, but wonder about these scriptures.

Your thoughts?

Sounds like they were Brethren. The stricter Brethren churches don't have a preacher. They are quite conservative, for sure. But I believe they also err on the side of legalism in that they require women to wear head coverings and dresses, and do not allow them into the inner circle of the services. They also reject all musical instruments and all music except some hymns/psalms and do not celebrate holidays. (To name a few things...)

 

[A New Dawn]

My grandparents were Brethren, and that is exactly how their services were. And they were very legalistic. When I went to church with them, I had to wear a hat (I wore a dress to church all the time, anyway) and, while they sang in SS, they never sang in church, and definitely no instruments. There was no pastor, whoever felt led to share, shared. Sometimes several shared. Sometimes the services were pretty long. LOL.

 

[Albion]

I wouldn't call this "conservative" Christianity or anything very unique. It apparently blends several different religious movements of the last 200 years or so.

"Non-denominational" might be a better term, although a lot of different ideas pass under that title.

 

[GQ Chris]

A lot of churches that label themselves non-denom, usually are Charismatic/Pentecostal.

 

[Albion]

A lot of churches that label themselves non-denom, usually are Charismatic/Pentecostal.

I agree. I almost suggested that the church described in the OP be labelled "non-denominational charismatic" except for your point--it's so common for nondenoms to be charismatic that it seemed unnecessary to add the word.

 

[A New Dawn]

The non-denominational church I go to is reformed.

 

[GQ Chris]

Same as mine New Dawn. I don't like saying it's non-denom though just for the reasons I stated above. I usually say Reformed Calvinist.

 

[WinBySurrender]

Yes, it would be a mistake to assume all non-denoms are charismatic/pentecostal. One that comes to mind is Woodmen Valley Chapel in Colo. Springs. The senior pastor is Reformed and most of the pastoral staff graduated from Reformed or SBC seminaries.

Another one is Crossroads Church in Kansas City, Mo. It's in the heart of downtown, founded by former inmates, drug addicts, alcoholics and derelicts who felt the need to share their salvation through Jesus Christ. The pastors are SBC and Evangelical Free.

 

[Albion]

Yes, it would be a mistake to assume all non-denoms are charismatic/pentecostal.

Having read all the posts on this thead, I'm pretty sure no one has said that.

 

[Albion]

Same as mine New Dawn. I don't like saying it's non-denom though just for the reasons I stated above. I usually say Reformed Calvinist.

It's entirely up to your own church, of course, but I'd think that you are able to do that (call it Reformed Calvinist [isn't that a redundancy?]) because although it isn't affiliated with the RCA or CRCNA, it is still basically a Calvinist church.

With the church described in the OP, however, we can see at least a half a dozen different denominational themes blended together, so it would be hard for anyone to classify it otherwise than as non-denominational or non-denom charismatic.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

so it would be hard for anyone to classify it otherwise than as non-denominational or non-denom charismatic.

I really doubt Pentecostal, because the church described doesn't make any real references to speaking in tongues, prophecy, or any of the other major features of a Pentecostal service. It also seems like it leans toward at least the fifth point of Calvinism (eternal perseverance of the saints) from this part:

He must be received by faith for eternal life, which then cannot be lost

Most Pentecostals at the time and today come from the Wesleyan tradition, which is strongly Arminian.

Could be Brethren, or they could come from any of the other religious groups that emerged with similar beliefs around that time. The idea of a church without leadership isn't Scriptural, though. It's definitely an idea that became popular later on, and if you read the Bible along with the writings of the early Church, it's quite clear that they had leaders (the "episkopoi" or bishops, were 'overseers' in Greek).

 

[WinBySurrender]

Having read all the posts on this thead, I'm pretty sure no one has said that.

Really? I believe you said that:

I agree. I almost suggested that the church described in the OP be labelled "non-denominational charismatic" except for your point--it's so common for nondenoms to be charismatic that it seemed unnecessary to add the word.

 

[Albion]

Really? I believe you said that:

Yes, really.

I said: " I agree. I almost suggested that the church described in the OP be labelled "non-denominational charismatic" except for your point--it's so common for nondenoms to be charismatic that it seemed unnecessary to add the word."

If you see anything there about ALL non-denoms being charismatic, point it out to me.

 

[WinBySurrender]

Yes, really.

I said: " I agree. I almost suggested that the church described in the OP be labelled "non-denominational charismatic" except for your point--it's so common for nondenoms to be charismatic that it seemed unnecessary to add the word."

If you see anything there about ALL non-denoms being charismatic, point it out to me.

I added emphasis to your statement so you can perhaps see what I'm talking about. If it is "so common for nondenoms to be charismatic that it seemed unnecessary to add the word" to the post, it would imply that you consider virtually all non-denominational churches to be charismatic. Perhaps I could have said "almost all" in my post, but I think your original statement precludes that necessity.

 

[Albion]

I added emphasis to your statement so you can perhaps see what I'm talking about. If it is "so common for nondenoms to be charismatic that it seemed unnecessary to add the word" to the post, it would imply that you consider virtually all non-denominational churches to be charismatic.

No, it wouldn't. I was merely talking about how best to title the church described in the OP. Yes, many non-denoms are charismatic, but not all are and I don't know if it would be correct to say that almost all are. Why make an issue of such a thing?