Quote:
Originally Posted by joshua  Quote:
Originally Posted by Davidius What is better about going to a terrible church, which may not be a true church, than going to no church at all? | Obedience. How many folks stopped going to Corinth because of all the debauchery, etc.? Paul certainly didn't tell them to stop. He didn't tell them to give up. Corinth was certainly a "terrible" church at the time. | I understand what you're saying, but having someone in your congregation who is sexually immoral, and problems with a misuse of the charismatic gifts, are not the same thing as going to a "church," which is no church at all, instead of staying home. Would you go to a Roman Catholic church or Jehovah's Witness congregation if you lived in a town with no evangelical presence? That is the kind of situation to which my question was directed. Perhaps I misunderstood what Grymir meant; his statement seemed overly general to me.
__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics
This may explain the old adage about Baptists being Methodists with shoes, and Presbyterians being Baptists who can read. To round out the adage, Lutherans might qualify as Presbyterians who drink to excess, and Episcopalians as Lutherans who know when to say when. - D.G. Hart
|