How Much Should we be supporting each other as groups in the Church of Christ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I know some beloved brethren on the Puritanboard who uphold exclusive Psalmody. But there are very very few exclusive Psalmody churches in New Zealand.

For sure. I think the advice of sticking with the most faithful church that is close to you applies. Sorry, it is not feasible to travel 2hrs to attend the most reformed I can find or to relocate (as I have seen some argue). I do not think most places or times have that luxury.
 
The main problem with Baptists and Presbyterians working together is going to be the food, of course. We Presbyterians have all manner of tasty dishes and desserts, while the Baptists have. . . . . . . . . .casseroles! Heh.

Not so with the desserts. Baptists love to immerse the dissert with plenty of tasty whipped cream; in a Paedobaptist dessert you get a stingy sprinkling of cream :lol:

Well... to be fair, we like whip cream, just we [do] not want our brownies drowned in it.

Edited []
 
Last edited:
Their missions budgets certainly don't ever get in the way of most churches plans to renovate or change the color of the carpet

I've never been a member of a congregation that didn't keep capital campaigns separate from operating budgets. I have been a member of a church that did keep the annual missions budget separate from the general fund.

America is the richest country in the history of the world and yet they still give their scraps to missions.

The first step needed for that discussion is a definition of "missions".
 
Stephen,

This lecture sounds very good, do you have a link. Thanks.
Cannot find it on the web; probably because of copyright. Also cannot find it on his sermons page. Pergamum, if you ever need teaching to feed your soul, Dr Lloyd-Jones is one of the best. He is not one of those 'dry' 'academic' pastors you are often concerned about https://www.mljtrust.org/sermons/

Also it is worth getting the complete book. Dr Lloyd-Jones often warns against academic study that does not touch the heart and make Christians useful in the service of God and man. A point you often make.
 
Water baptism is a point of division in the church, whether or not you would have it so. Further, baptism, as a sacrament, is, in general, a more critical issue than a view of the end times.
It should not be an issue that causes us to either divide or not support each other though, as both sides agree that it is a sign, just disagree on who and when to have it applied.
 
Ecclesiology could also be a big issue. Are the planted churches going to be accountable to a presbytery? I don't mean to disparate those with congregationalist or independent views, but for those who view such as schismatic, there's no way they could in good conscience offer material support to a Baptist mission if there were Presbyterian options.
I think the point would be in addition to, or else if it was the only viable church in area established already.
 
Yes and No. As New Zealand has become more secular, and the sexual revolution hits us hard, our society is now quite intolerant of Christianity. We do not have something like the first amendment to protect our freedoms. It is noteworthy that Barnabus Fund, an organisation with a noble reputation for defending the persecuted church, is now putting out booklets encouraging Christians in a number of nations (including mine) to be proactive in protecting our freedoms as we could lose them very soon. I have heard tragic news about Christians in Scotland and Canada having feedom under threat. It could hapen here.


We need to keep asking "define Christian" first. I agree with Dr Lloyd-Jones that the Arminianism of John Wesley was certainly an Evangelical Arminianism. But it is more complicated today due to the influence of Finney. Certainly, all Christians are brothers and sisters in Christ. Defining 'Christian' is the key priority.

You may find the 1978 Lecture by Doctor Lloyd-Jones on John Bunyan and Church unity insightful. Bunyan argued that unity among Christians is more important than demoninational diffrences. It is noteworthy that Bunyan developed this conviction when he faced severe persecution. This persecution helped his priorites. For this lecture see "The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors" 1978 lecture.
I see the scriptures teaching much as Dr Lloyd-Jones saw this issue, as we are united around the person and work of Jesus Christ.
 
Cannot find it on the web; probably because of copyright. Also cannot find it on his sermons page. Pergamum, if you ever need teaching to feed your soul, Dr Lloyd-Jones is one of the best. He is not one of those 'dry' 'academic' pastors you are often concerned about https://www.mljtrust.org/sermons/

Also it is worth getting the complete book. Dr Lloyd-Jones often warns against academic study that does not touch the heart and make Christians useful in the service of God and man. A point you often make.
The one time there was a separation was between him and Dr Stott, and still not quite sure for what reason.
 
It should not be an issue that causes us to either divide or not support each other though, as both sides agree that it is a sign, just disagree on who and when to have it applied.

That is no minor disagreement, and it is not even the extent of difference between Presbyterians and Baptists.

As for supporting each other, it depends on what is meant.
 
"Just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit..."
(1 Corinthians 12:1-21)

"In Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise." (Galatians 3:26-29)

"For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God. (Ephesians 2:11-19)"

---

If we are one body and one family and one loaf and one building, and since we have one common Saviour and one common destination, then we are, indeed, already united in Christ.

If Baptists count confessional presbyterians as true believers despite their error of baptism, and if Presbyterians count confessional baptists as true believers despite their supposed baptism errors, then we ARE united as believers, despite some disagreements.

If there are many churches to pick from, we should choose the one that suits us best. But in regions lacking solid churches, there is no compromise in finding a way to worship together with all true believers. And in emergencies and hard times we should be ready to come to the assistance of all people who are of the household of faith. The emphasis should be on the unity we have in Christ.

Not every Christian of another stripe is a heretic.
 
If Baptists count confessional presbyterians as true believers despite their error of baptism, and if Presbyterians count confessional baptists as true believers despite their supposed baptism errors.

I think you've worded that one backwards! ;)

If there are many churches to pick from, we should choose the one that suits us best.

That is no answer to the question in the OP.

Not every Christian of another stripe is a heretic.

No one has suggested anything of the sort.
 
That is no minor disagreement, and it is not even the extent of difference between Presbyterians and Baptists.

As for supporting each other, it depends on what is meant.
We are all one now in Christ Jesus though, correct?
And support would be as in provoding for the other party financial, spiritual, physical blessings when needed and asked for...
 
The main problem with Baptists and Presbyterians working together is going to be the food, of course. We Presbyterians have all manner of tasty dishes and desserts, while the Baptists have. . . . . . . . . .casseroles! Heh.
And Jello salads......
 
I really cannot see what is objectionable about helping another Christian if they need help. If your church policy forbids this somehow, there is a problem with your church.
 
We are all one now in Christ Jesus though, correct?
And support would be as in provoding for the other party financial, spiritual, physical blessings when needed and asked for...

It looks to me as though you've answered your own question.
 
I really cannot see what is objectionable about helping another Christian if they need help. If your church policy forbids this somehow, there is a problem with your church.

I don't think anyone is saying, "Don't help Baptists!" And they're certainly not saying that those Christians who've got baptism wrong are for that reason lesser Christians (which you earlier appeared to suggest they were saying).

It really depends on circumstances.
 
I don't think anyone is saying, "Don't help Baptists!" And they're certainly not saying that those Christians who've got baptism wrong are for that reason lesser Christians (which you earlier appeared to suggest they were saying).

It really depends on circumstances.
I just think we should see each other as now being extended family, and there will always be some friction between siblings...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top