Why must I be “Saved” to Join Your Church? Or ... Saved (Regenerated) Church Membership!
Are local Baptist churches committed to snobbery? Is it reasonable to ask a perspective member to give a believable, personal, testimony of their conversion? The biblical distinctive of Saved Church Membership is another concept that separates biblical Baptists churches from denominational groups. The fact is that historically this doctrine is more important to Baptists than baptism by immersion. Let me explain…
There are two senses of “church” in the NT, the invisible/universal church, and the visible/local church. Theologians have found the concept of the invisible or universal church (i.e. all those who have trusted in Christ from the day of Pentecost to the rapture or catching away). It is deemed the invisible church because one can not look at another and know if that he/she is saved. It is universal in the sense that it encompasses all true believers regardless of their time in history, the location, and the name. Theologians have also found the concept of the visible or local church. It is visible because one can see others who meet together and profess to be saved. It is called local because it meets in a locality. It is the Tenth Presbyterian, Church of the Cross Methodist, West Broadway Baptist Church, Shadow Mountain Community Church, or some such name.
Some churches such as the congregation I grew up in, Fairgreen Presbyterian Church teach that the wheat and the tares (saved who can’t be sure they are saved, and the unsaved who can’t be sure they are saved) grow up together in the covenant community and that God would straighten it all out in the end. The proof text for this idea is… Matthew 13:24-30 usually from the RSV:
Another parable he put before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the householder came and said to him, `Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?' He said to them, `An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, `Then do you want us to go and gather them?' But he said, `No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"
It is suggested that the “church” is inclusive of anyone who wishes to join, or anyone who has grown up therein (eg. me, my parents, my grandparents, my great grand parents, my great, great grandparents etc.) Anyone? Yes anyone!
However this suggestion is misleading, it serves as an example of the saying, “a text out of context is a pretext.” Later in that same chapter, Jesus clearly explains the parable to His disciples (incidently, we also have the explanation Matthew 13:37-43). The field is not the kingdom, not the covenant community, not the church … the field is the world! Christians are not to go about the world claiming dominion, or pestering and persecuting till others believe, but by prayer and persuasion explaining the good news so that others become responsible to believe! Once one becomes a child of God by being born again into God’s family (BTW the Bible never speaks of the grandchildren of God, or great grandchildren etc.) they are a part of the church (invisible/universal). The next step for a child of God is to become a member of a church (visible/local). One is not to become a member of a church preceding salvation. A local church should not receive unbelievers into their fellowship! One my say, “That’s a dogmatic statement, how can you say such a thing?” I can say such a thing for three simple reasons: the original language indicates this, the NT dictates this, and reason predicates this.
The original language indicates this. The Greek word ecclesia, which is a means a “called out group” in the classical sense, characterizes citizens that were called out of their homes into a public place. In the biblical sense it refers to those called out of the world unto God. God’s church is made up of those called out of the masses to God and for God. The body of Christ (the invisible church) is composed of believers and I hope you will agree that the local church should reflect this.
The NT dictates this. Fifty days after Christ’s resurrection was the day of Pentecost. On that day Peter the apostle (NOT the Pope) preached a powerful message of good news! Christ’s death, burial and resurrection (Acts 2:14-36). On that day God began the church, the body of Christ: all who believed from that day till the end of the age. The church of Jerusalem (NOT Rome) was founded that day. If we break it down further, we can see that Acts 2:41 describes the events on the “Day of Pentecost” while vv. 42-47 describe events of the weeks and months that followed. In v.47 we read that God added to the church such as should be saved. Those who were saved were baptized and added to the church. There is no example in Scriptures of a believer refusing to be baptized and join a local church.
Reason predicates this. I asked my ABF why it is important that we admit only those who give a credible testimony of personal salvation. One quoted, Amos 3:3 “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” Another quoted from 2Cor.6:14 “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?” Another said, “Unless we are on the same page, we would not be working as a team.” This prompted another who asserted “An unbeliever may have different agendas than believers do…” The discussion continued to snowball, “Unbelievers might want to use and influence others to fulfill a social program instead of the great commission… we could lose our focus and forget our mission.” Good answers! There were other answers given. We had a good discussion time that day. The answers were all reasonable. Saved membership is reasonable because it unifies the members, it gives us a sense of family and brings us into full responsibility to one another (see my wife’s post here. This was part of our discussion at that time too).
This is a very practical, biblical, Baptist distinctive. What are some commitments or obligations of members in your church toward the Pastor/s and other members? How may this be applied to business meetings? In what ways do you value this concept? Perhaps you do not like it … tell me why. Use Scripture whenever applicable. :-)
There are two senses of “church” in the NT, the invisible/universal church, and the visible/local church. Theologians have found the concept of the invisible or universal church (i.e. all those who have trusted in Christ from the day of Pentecost to the rapture or catching away). It is deemed the invisible church because one can not look at another and know if that he/she is saved. It is universal in the sense that it encompasses all true believers regardless of their time in history, the location, and the name. Theologians have also found the concept of the visible or local church. It is visible because one can see others who meet together and profess to be saved. It is called local because it meets in a locality. It is the Tenth Presbyterian, Church of the Cross Methodist, West Broadway Baptist Church, Shadow Mountain Community Church, or some such name.
Some churches such as the congregation I grew up in, Fairgreen Presbyterian Church teach that the wheat and the tares (saved who can’t be sure they are saved, and the unsaved who can’t be sure they are saved) grow up together in the covenant community and that God would straighten it all out in the end. The proof text for this idea is… Matthew 13:24-30 usually from the RSV:
Another parable he put before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the householder came and said to him, `Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?' He said to them, `An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, `Then do you want us to go and gather them?' But he said, `No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"
It is suggested that the “church” is inclusive of anyone who wishes to join, or anyone who has grown up therein (eg. me, my parents, my grandparents, my great grand parents, my great, great grandparents etc.) Anyone? Yes anyone!
However this suggestion is misleading, it serves as an example of the saying, “a text out of context is a pretext.” Later in that same chapter, Jesus clearly explains the parable to His disciples (incidently, we also have the explanation Matthew 13:37-43). The field is not the kingdom, not the covenant community, not the church … the field is the world! Christians are not to go about the world claiming dominion, or pestering and persecuting till others believe, but by prayer and persuasion explaining the good news so that others become responsible to believe! Once one becomes a child of God by being born again into God’s family (BTW the Bible never speaks of the grandchildren of God, or great grandchildren etc.) they are a part of the church (invisible/universal). The next step for a child of God is to become a member of a church (visible/local). One is not to become a member of a church preceding salvation. A local church should not receive unbelievers into their fellowship! One my say, “That’s a dogmatic statement, how can you say such a thing?” I can say such a thing for three simple reasons: the original language indicates this, the NT dictates this, and reason predicates this.
The original language indicates this. The Greek word ecclesia, which is a means a “called out group” in the classical sense, characterizes citizens that were called out of their homes into a public place. In the biblical sense it refers to those called out of the world unto God. God’s church is made up of those called out of the masses to God and for God. The body of Christ (the invisible church) is composed of believers and I hope you will agree that the local church should reflect this.
The NT dictates this. Fifty days after Christ’s resurrection was the day of Pentecost. On that day Peter the apostle (NOT the Pope) preached a powerful message of good news! Christ’s death, burial and resurrection (Acts 2:14-36). On that day God began the church, the body of Christ: all who believed from that day till the end of the age. The church of Jerusalem (NOT Rome) was founded that day. If we break it down further, we can see that Acts 2:41 describes the events on the “Day of Pentecost” while vv. 42-47 describe events of the weeks and months that followed. In v.47 we read that God added to the church such as should be saved. Those who were saved were baptized and added to the church. There is no example in Scriptures of a believer refusing to be baptized and join a local church.
Reason predicates this. I asked my ABF why it is important that we admit only those who give a credible testimony of personal salvation. One quoted, Amos 3:3 “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” Another quoted from 2Cor.6:14 “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?” Another said, “Unless we are on the same page, we would not be working as a team.” This prompted another who asserted “An unbeliever may have different agendas than believers do…” The discussion continued to snowball, “Unbelievers might want to use and influence others to fulfill a social program instead of the great commission… we could lose our focus and forget our mission.” Good answers! There were other answers given. We had a good discussion time that day. The answers were all reasonable. Saved membership is reasonable because it unifies the members, it gives us a sense of family and brings us into full responsibility to one another (see my wife’s post here. This was part of our discussion at that time too).
This is a very practical, biblical, Baptist distinctive. What are some commitments or obligations of members in your church toward the Pastor/s and other members? How may this be applied to business meetings? In what ways do you value this concept? Perhaps you do not like it … tell me why. Use Scripture whenever applicable. :-)
58 Comments:
Being of Brethren theology, I see sectarian Church membership as a denial of the One body of Christ.
God Bless
By Matthew Celestine, at 22/12/05 3:34 AM
I agree with all that you said here. When I was a deacon at our old Baptist church we took all the same things into account that you outlined here when considering new members.
Good post!
Mark the Baptist...
Yes, I acknowledge Brethren, Presbyterian, Methodist,and so on as brothers in Christ...Romans 10:9-13!
By mark pierson, at 22/12/05 7:52 AM
We don't have membership at our church. The reason the elders have given is that one is to put their saving faith in Jesus not in belonging to a particular church or denomination.
By mas, at 22/12/05 8:12 AM
Hi Matthew,
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by, "sectarian Church membership as a denial of the One body of Christ." If I *understand you correctly... being a member of a local church is not a denial of the universal church. If anything, in a day of ecumenism and apostasy, fundamentalists should champion the understanding that it is the Holy Spirit dwelling in us that unites us in the faith. NOT a man made imposition such as the NCCC or WCCC! This is in no way implying that local churches are a man made institution any more than marriage is. Thus this post on Saved Church Membership.
Hi Mark the Baptist,
Thank you for your comments and encouraging words. You are right with humility we need to acknowledge all believers as brothers and sisters in Christ regardless of the church label they associate themselves with.
Hi MAS,
Once on visitation, someone told me they aren't a member of a local church because they are a member of the invisible church. My response was, "Oh! Where does that meet, I don't believe I've seen that one around." :) Seriously MAS, how can a church have elders and not members? My understanding is that a local church is made up of Pastor/s (elders), deacons, and saints (members)... Am I missing something? Is this post incomplete? I would love to get further input on this.
growing in Christ too,
brother John
*It's possible and probable that I don't understand, so please forgive my ignorance.
By J. Wendell, at 22/12/05 12:32 PM
I don't think I'd ever give the answer that we don't have members because we are all part of the invisible church (actually I know I wouldn't). There are many verses that say we should worship corporately which when I hear someone say that they belong to the invisible church I wonder what sin they are cherishing that the are forsaking the gathering together of the believers. We sign a Desire to Fellowship agreement which puts us under the authority of the elders. It also allows us to vote in congregational meetings after we have attended regularly for one year. We also had to meet with the elders and present our testimonies before we were allowed to sign the Fellowship paper. I don't think its very far off from what you've written in your post. We don't want people saying that they are saved because the go to First Baptist Church of Anytown, we want them to say they are saved because they have trusted in Christ's finished work on the cross.
By mas, at 22/12/05 1:51 PM
John,
My wife and I first met, and were married at, a Calvary Chapel church. They have no church membership. It is a nation wide ,yea world wide, Movement. They look at church membership as man made, therefore they don't practice it.
We no longer go there and are currently members of an Evangelical church. I see the advantages of church membership.You are much more plugged in and commited to the other brothers and sisters.
I do not know, but you may have encountered a Calvary Chapel person with that individual you mentioned.
By mark pierson, at 22/12/05 1:52 PM
Hi Mas,
Thanks for explaining. We at Emmanuel Baptist church would not allow such a thing as Church Saved Membership, we admit those into our fellowship based on a credible testimony of salvation through Christ alone. NOT because one was a member of another Baptist church. That smacks of works righteousness. There are some who feel they are OK because they belong to the "right church". BTW I think I have been through Anytown:)
Hi Mark,
I will often listen to the Calvary Chapel Network, good preaching there.
The person in the afore mentioned comment had a daughter in our "Shepherds Ministry", an out reach to those differently abled. We would spin our wheels talking to him about faith in Christ and the glory of the cross, he would always let us in to his home, open the Word, pray for him, and he would even visit our church when his daughter and the "shepherds" were giving a presentation, but he would not be persuaded that he needed Jesus to save him. Very sad, and disappointing:( BTW his name is Jim, we can still pray and ask God to draw Jim to Himself.
Thanks for reading,
brother John
By J. Wendell, at 22/12/05 2:32 PM
I do not hold to any distinction between the visible and invisible Church. The Church is a spiritual body that is visible on earth. That there is no unity in the body of Christ indicates its apostate condition.
Being a believer in Christ brings a man into the Church of God. If denominations are not the Church of God to which all believers in an area are mebers, whose Church are they?
As for how we can have elders, I hold that we cannot indeed have elders. Only the apostles and those to whom their authority was delegated had authority to appoint elders. We have no elders, so we have no apostles. It is a serious thing to give ourselves an authority that God has not given us.
As for business meetings, if a man is a believer and is owned by Christ and accepted by God as a justified sinner, what right have you to exclude him merely becasue he is not a member of your denomination. If he is in Christ, he belongs to the Church of God.
I realise that these ideas are not popular, even within Brethren circles but I believe my position is Scriptural.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
By Matthew Celestine, at 22/12/05 3:44 PM
To me, membership in a local congregation is a commitment to a group of members of the invisible/universal church who are working together to further the cause of Christ in a given area.
I am a Baptist, not by doctrine, but by methodology and polity (though I believe in baptism by immersion and some other "Baptist distinctives").
dyspraxic fundamentalist is flat out wrong about membership being a denial of the One body of Christ.
I do not deny the One body of Christ, but I am a church member.
Church membership, however, never saved anybody.
I must say, additionally, that I do not believe that the majority of church members are saved.
Wow! That's tough, isn't it?
By Joe, at 22/12/05 4:37 PM
How can you consistently further the cause of Christ by disowning those who are in Christ? If you do not include all who are in Christ, how can you truly identify your congregation as a Church if it does not embrace those who receive the salvation in which the Church is grounded?
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
By Matthew Celestine, at 22/12/05 5:31 PM
dyspraxic fundamentalist: I do not personally know of any particular church in my denomination that disowns anybody who is in Christ.
I do know that there are many in my congregation who (though I cannot see their hearts) do not exhibit what I, in my highly trained and experienced observations, consider to be behavior and/or attitudes that indicate a relationship with God through Christ.
In my own mind, any person who trusts in, and only in, the finished work of Christ at Calvary and His resurrection is a brother or sister in Him, whether he/she worships in my congregation or not.
By Joe, at 22/12/05 9:28 PM
Joe
But if you have a mebership system, presumably you exclude non-members from particpation in various activities, regardless of whether you acknowledge them to be brothers in Christ.
With great respect, thsi shows your congregation not to be a true Church, for its mebership and organization is not grounded in what Christ has done in salvation, but on the structures that it has presumed to create and uphold. I say the same thing about the congregation that I attend. It contains many godly men and women, but it is not a true Church.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
By Matthew Celestine, at 23/12/05 3:36 AM
Our church is membership is united around two documents. Our Confession of Faith and our Covenant.
When we acept members into our body it is upon their profession of faith, their commitment to our doctrinal distinctives as outlined in our Confession, and their commitment to the rest of the body as outlined in the covenant.
I really can't see accepting anyone into fellowship with the church without them agreeing wiht the church body on what they believe (How can two walk together excxept they be agreed?), and if they are not going to commit themselves to Christian standards of conduct.
Further, in Corinth, there must have been some kind of membership if they were to obey Paul's command to put out that man who had unrepentant sin in his life.
Just a couple of thoughts.
By Jeremy Weaver, at 23/12/05 7:41 AM
Doxoblogist
The man who was put out was excluded from all areas of fellowship. However, those areas of fellowship were surely open to all believers who were walking in holiness. A man who has not signed some agreement or document is in a quite different position form one who is put out.
By restricting fellowship to those who subscribe to your doctrinal standards, you make your own views the test of fellowship not faith in Christ. By such exclusiveness, you fail in your claim to be a true Church.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
By Matthew Celestine, at 23/12/05 7:55 AM
Dyspraxic,
We don't exclude people from fellowship in Christ. How could any church do that even if they tried. It's impossible.
Rather, we have a definite idea about what constitutes a New Testament church and hold to that idea based on Scriptures.
BTW, a true Church is where the ordinances are observed and the Word is preached.
By Jeremy Weaver, at 23/12/05 12:43 PM
Hi Matthew,
Of course you have the liberty to hold to whatever you feel is reasonable, I respect that and I feel you have helped here to get some of us thinking. That is a valuble talent. Fundamentalists such as myself should be thinkers, not just Parrots, voicing others’ opinions. On the same token, we should be doers of the word, followers of Christ, and obedient to the Bible, now that we are believers (esp.NT teaching, and if I am not mistaken, that includes the Epistles) right?
Stay with me here, I tend to go off on tangents ;)
Jeremy and Joe and I all belong to, and are members of local Baptists churches. However and I think they would agree that it is improper to speak of “THE BAPTIST CHURCH”. My church is autonoms and separate from any denomination and each of theirs is autonoms too (I think). What I have presented in this post is what the Bible says not what the ideas of man are. Here are some Scripture I had to consider (among a host of other things) when I came out of my liberal UPCUSA that I linked in this post, and perhaps you can consider my thoughts along with me as I do so afresh. This is a great tool that I use offten
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=church&version1=9&searchtype=all&startnumber=101&startnumber=1
Let’s consider Rom.16:1 “…the church which is at Cenchrea” and v.5 “…Likewise greet the church that is in their house.” V.23 “…Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you.” Matthew did you notice as I did that the word church is in the singular sense, i.e. the church at Cenchrea… the church in their house… and then, the whole church. Here’s where it gets interesting look back at v.4 “not only I give thanks, but also all the churches (plural) of the Gentiles.” And v.16 “The churches (plural) of Christ salute you…” if you consider these Scriptures along with what Jeremy and Joe have said, and do your own search on Bible Gateway I think you will see the concept of the universal church and the local church. And that one does NOT exclude the other!
If you come to the same conclusion as I have on the post then perhaps you will see the importance of saved chuch membership too.
Hi Joe,
I want to thank you for your contribution to this discussion too. To you I say (not that "I" is so important) AMEN! I am a Baptist by conviction not because of my parents choice. I still recognise all true believers as the church also.
Jeremy,
Your comment answered my question I put to you on the thread of the post about ISL, thanks. Interestingly, not only did they put him out, they also recieved him back (after he repented)!
Yours in the faith,
brother John
By J. Wendell, at 23/12/05 12:49 PM
John,
I absolutley believe in saved Church membership.
The Church is composed of all who are saved and only those who are saved.
In the New Testament we find local expressions of the Church such as the ones you mention. These were composed of all Christians in an area, except for those who had been excluded by their own actions. If a Christian moved into a particular area, he woudl be received into that Church and included in it.
In the city of Worcester where I live, there are at least six Evangelical Churches containing converted men and women. None of them can claim to be the Church of Worcester. None of them can even claim to be the Church of the Eastern part of Worcester or the Southern part of Worcester, for none of them embrace and include all of those in the Church of God in the area.
This shows us that the Church of God is in a ruined and apostate condition. It has lost the unity that is central to its existence.
To try to create Churches now is to try and build again what God has allowed to be lost. It is the same error as those Charismatics who appoint apostles and who expect signs and wonders.
The only way for Christians to be faithful is to meet for worship and minsitry without the presumption of the ability to build Churches and appoint officers.
Doxoblogist,
If you do not exclude any believers in Christ, does that mean you allow any Christians to attend your business meetings and allow any who are gifted to preach? I very much doubt it. In this sense your church is exclusive and fails to recognise the unity of the Body of Christ.
Every Blessing in Christ to you both
Matthew
By Matthew Celestine, at 23/12/05 3:21 PM
Dyspraxic,
You have offended me and I will not dialogue with you until you have apologized to my church (which is a true church).
By Jeremy Weaver, at 23/12/05 3:34 PM
I am sorry if that has offended you and I am sorry if it shoudl offend any other believers who attend it. As I said, I do not hold to the existence of any true Churches today. The Church is in ruins. That is my theolgical position and I cannot apologise for holding it, any more than you could apologise for saying you thought my theology is sound and Biblical, which I am sure you do not.
I do not accept your definition of what a Church is becasue it is actually a description of what a Church does.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
By Matthew Celestine, at 23/12/05 3:38 PM
Hi John! Great post, more provacative than you thought?
Dyspraxic,
You are always getting into these controversies, aren't you? :~) Do you really believe that we have to be as perfect in our fellowship as the early church or we are no church? (Didn't they argue about stuff too and split up into groups following different leaders?) Isn't the Apostacia a turning from true doctrine? You are so polite. I am surprised you offended anyone. (But I doubt he is really offended, he has a very thick skin, and an interesting sense of humor)
Every Blessing in Christ!
By Rose~, at 23/12/05 3:53 PM
Greetings once again my fellow saints, my Brothers and Sister!
My time is waning, forgive my whining, thanks for waiting (Jeremy and Matthew, I don’t recommend this as an outline for anything. You may agree that I should always avoid alliterations).
“The Church is composed of all who are saved and only those who are saved.”
Actually a NT church is made up of saints, pastors and deacons, all who are baptized by immersion and are part of the church. This will come up soon ... as I intend to finish the acrostic originally stated (Two Officers) be sure to come back in another month for that one :)! Then, inspired by Doxoblogy, I hope to do a post on spiritual gifts where these two gifts will get more exposure.
Matthew, who is Paul addressing in Philippians 1:1? What does he say is a good work in 1Tim3:1
“If a Christian moved into a particular area, he [would] be received into that Church and included in it.”
What would they base their reception of such a one upon? Acts 2:41-42 seems to make it plain to me one must be saved and baptized, then added to the church.
“To try to create Churches now is to try and build again what God has allowed to be lost.”
Where does the NT teach that the church or any of her members are lost? The church is the body of Christ what part of His body is lost? Can you picture Christ on the bema seat with His searching eyes of fire “Where’s Johnny Cole and the rest of his vhurvh? Did they slip through a knothole in the plank of grace?”
I’m sorry for the reactionary tone, but I truly love all the members of Christ’s body, the church, and that part of His body ... as imperfect as it may be ... called Emmanuel Baptist Church!
“... build Churches and appoint officers”.
I do not know of any Baptist church that appoints officers. We do elect them; in a sense we are affirming God’s call and extending our welcome.
"... does that mean you allow any Christians to attend your business meetings ...”
In fact, we open our doors to the public, any one can attend, but only members can vote.
By J. Wendell, at 23/12/05 5:29 PM
Hi John, I am glad that you are continuing to post. i enjoy reading them along with the commments.
I have nothing bright to say, so I'm just gonna say "Hi".
I should probably shut up now before I put my foot in my mouth...
I have not thought about these things this way, for that I appreciate Mathew's approach.
Yet there is something to be said about those involved in a locale keeping a unity and purity of perceived theological and doctrinal truth, and this through some institution of means. (What biblical means I don't know)
Matthew, would your brethren congregation allow a charismatic covenant arminian amillenialist preach?
Matthew, what suggestions do you have in the concerns of doctrinal and theological conistency in a locale? Or consistency in polity?
Excuse my ignorance as ecclesiology is not my theological forte. (I am much to myopic in my concerns).
Antonio
By Antonio, at 24/12/05 12:32 AM
I am really tired and merely scanned the comments. If I am off base with my questions, please forgive me.
I need to wake up at 3am.
What am I doing awake?
Shame!
er
Yawn!
By Antonio, at 24/12/05 12:34 AM
Rose~ I am glad you do not think I was impolite. I was horrified to read that I had offended Doxoblogist and was concerned that my tone had been harsh.
The early Churches were not perfect and we can see in them the start of the apostasy. However, there were recognisable Churches, such that if schisms occurred, they were could truly be seen as schisms. Today, every Christian body is implicated in some sort of schism.
By Matthew Celestine, at 24/12/05 8:07 AM
Hi John,
I've intended to get over here forever now and finally made it this morning!
I appreciate your post here and confess I have been taught these same things. I have to confess something else too. Matthew's perspective on Church has me rethinking all of those teachings. I am very curious to hear his response to Antonio's questions. I also look forward to catching up on your blog. ;-)
By Kc, at 24/12/05 8:16 AM
John, being saved and baptized adds one to the Church. This is clear from the theology of Acts. I know some American Baptist Churches require the baptism of all who are admitted to their membership, regardless of whehter they are baptized already. I apologise if that is the case in your congregation, but that seems to me a monstrous practise.
I am not sure the bearing that Phillipians has here. It is addressed to the saints there together with the bishops and deacons. Nor do I understand what 1 Tim 3:1 has to do with it either. I am not denying that there were elders and deacosn in the early Church.
I am not talking about salvation. The Church exists today and all her members are saved. This is not in question.
The institution of the Church, however, is in ruins. There are no longer any true Churches, onlu meetings of Christians, some meeting according to right principles, others according to wrong principles. The denominational churches, including the one I attend are of the latter.
The apostasy of the Church is predicted in the parables of Matthew 13, Romans 11 and the in the message to the Seven Churches in Revelation.
I am aware that electing officers is the Baptist practise. With respect, this is unscriptural and is again presuming to have power that is not given and which God has allowed to be lost.
Do you recognise the elders of thsoe in other denominations or just those in yours? For if there are other genuine elders in your locality, I see no Biblical reason why you must not obey them as you do those in your congregation.
It is good that your business meetings are open, I know churches where this is not the case. However, I see no reason why a believer in Christ who is not in your membership shuld be forbidden to vote. Your system is built on exclusion.
I realise that I am arguing for doctrines contrary to your position, however, you have yourself professed admiration for H.A. Ironside and J.N. Darby who believed as I do.
By Matthew Celestine, at 24/12/05 8:28 AM
Antonio,
I do not actually attend a Brethren assembly. I attend a indepenent Evangelical Church that could be described as Baptist. I disagree fundamentally with its structure.
A Brethren assembly (aside from the Raven/ Taylor Exclusives) will admit to fellowship anyone who professes Christ. The liberty to preach would not be denied to them. However, most Open Brethren assemblies started in the twentieth century to pre-arrange their sermons, which is contrary to the original principles of the Brethren.
If someone was teaching false doctrine they would be a silenced by the other brothers. The decision would be made by the whole assembly.
If an assembly became infected by false doctrine, then there is a duty to separate from it. The Exclusive Brethren factions will disown an assembly that is teaching false doctrine. The Open Brethren only disown individuals. One of Darby's most famous papers was entitled 'Separation from Evil God's Principle of Unity'.
Does this clarify the Brethren position?
Wow! You admitted to being myopic! Fair enough. You make a stand for what you are concerned about. I would get bored just talking about one issue.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
By Matthew Celestine, at 24/12/05 8:41 AM
John, I hope you don't mind me throwing out my two cents to our English friend.
Matthew,
you say:
However, I see no reason why a believer in Christ who is not in your membership shuld be forbidden to vote. Your system is built on exclusion.
Turn this around. If there is a true believer in Christ coming into my church, why would he not want to go on record with us? Why would he not want to officially make his status as a believer known (by membership/baptism)?
Incidentally, we recognize one baptism. If someone has been baptised biblically as a believer, we wouldn't insist they do it again -- monstrous!
By Rose~, at 24/12/05 10:05 AM
Rose~
I am glad you agree with me about re-baptism. I remember reading Billy Graham's autobiography and being horrified that he had been re-baptized to enter the Southern Baptist Convention.
As to your question. Taking such membership would not admit one to any privilege to which as believers they were not already entitled (though it might grant some which are unscriptural anyway, such as voting for elders).
To accept such membership would be only to give one's assent to a system of sectarian exclusion. It would not make one member of the Church of God, only the member a group of people presuming to be a Church. This is not truly assembling in the Lord's name for it is built on exclusion and pretended privilege. I say this with great respect. I should certainly be very careful of suggesting such views in my own congregation. I think the pastor is aware of my position; I know his deputy is.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
By Matthew Celestine, at 24/12/05 10:37 AM
Hi Antonio,
I’m glad to see your avatar here as well as other places in blogdom. I have a commentary or two featuring Zane Hodges, and something written by a fellow named Charles Hodge ;)
Hi KC,
Keep coming back as we move on through this discussion…
Hi Rose~
Of course I don’t mind!
Hi Matthew,
I am not sure how to prioritize your concerns, if I don’t hit the big ones (whatever your main contention is) please feel free to come back with your best one or two as we box over this topic. Please make no mistake as I jump into the arena with you on this issue; I am not saying that it is a Fundamental of the faith, but it is a concern and interest to me. I urge you to read this and this .
1. “There are no longer any true Churches, only meetings of Christians, some meeting according to right principles, others according to wrong principles.”
You have not supported this statement with Scripture nor will you get a response until you do … in the meantime I will regard it as an unfounded cheap shot. :-)
2. “I am aware that electing officers is the Baptist practice. With respect, this is unscriptural and is again presuming to have power that is not given and which God has allowed to be lost.”
I’m sorry you feel that doing things in decency and order are not biblical … the apostles must have thought it was when they drew lots to replace Judas. Perhaps the apostles were off a bit when they encouraged the local (in Jerusalem) church to select seven deacons. They did not have authority over the local church, by the way, because we read that it pleased the CHURCH.
3. “Do you recognize the elders of those in other denominations or just those in yours? For if there are other genuine elders in your locality, I see no Biblical reason why you must not obey them as you do those in your congregation.”
First, I can see that your understanding of elders may be different than mine; this Baptist does not recognize any hierarchy. Pastors and deacons work together with evangelists, givers, teachers, exhorters and so on. To answer your question I do not recognize any elder that stays in an apostate “church” I do recognize them from other “like-minded” Bible believing churches as a matter of respect. They, from time to time, do preach at our church and we send our pastors to these “like-minded” congregations for edification and particular expertise. I am under the authority of my congregation. We are to submit one to the other and we are obligated as a true biblical Baptist church to yield to Christ who is the head of the church which is His body. BTW no elder has ever asked me to do, go, or believe anything that is not biblical. When they disobey God’s Word, they are rebuked publicly if they will not repent.
4. “I see no reason why a believer in Christ who is not in your membership should be forbidden to vote. Your system is built on exclusion.”
Yes, we may be exclusive.
5. “…you have yourself professed admiration for H.A. Ironside and J.N. Darby who believed as I do.”
Admire is a strong word, but I do appreciate him.
Matthew, my next post is on elders and deacons … maybe that will be a good one for us to discuss some more. Feel free to say anything else you want to here, though. :-)
By J. Wendell, at 24/12/05 4:44 PM
I said I was myopic in an attempt at humor, seeing I have been labeled as such by more than one person on blogdom.
I have studied ecclessiology. I respectfully disagree with your position, but I respect it as a position.
And more importantly, you can be saved and hold your position and not be sinning!
I feel compelled to learn more about it though. It is fascinating.
If only people really understood the depth and breadth of the concerns of Free Grace theology, they would not consider those who propogate it as myopic. It starts with a proper view of God, then Christ and His purpose, conversion, discipleship, and rewards. It runs the gamut.
Anyway,
I digressed.
Merry Christmas. I have to wrap all my wife's presents tonight.
Antonio
By Antonio, at 24/12/05 6:50 PM
John,
I hope you and your family are having a pleasent Christmas day. I certainly am.
I am very glad that you have permitted me within htis forum to explain my ecclesiological position.
I am deeply sorry if I have come across as dogmatic and belligerent. I can come across that way that some times.
As you say, this is not a fundamental issue, though it concerns the Church, whcih is dear to the heart of Christ. We msut seek to concern ourselves with the object of His affection.
1. “There are no longer any true Churches, only meetings of Christians, some meeting according to right principles, others according to wrong principles.”
'You have not supported this statement with Scripture nor will you get a response until you do … in the meantime I will regard it as an unfounded cheap shot. :-)'
Your description of this as a 'cheap shot' is perhaps a little harsh. It was a summary of my position. You are right to require some Scriptural support for it. There is of course a limit to the theological exposition which can take place within a comments post. I am not the only blogger to make statements without always citing a verse or two in support.
A meeting of Christians is not necessarilly a Church. The Reformed position defines a Church, as Doxoblogist did, by what it does, namely preach the Word and administer the Sacraments. You might just as easily called that a cheap shot and required some Scriptural support for that statement as well.
What is a Church? The Church itself are those who are saved by Christ and are called to be His heavenly people in one body on earth with Christ as its head.
Ephesians 1
19 'and what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20 which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand Ps. 110.1 in the heavenly places,
21 far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22 and hath put all things under his feet, Ps. 8.6 and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23 which is his body, Col. 1.18 the fulness of him that filleth all in all. '
Ephesians 2
19 'Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord:
22 in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit.'
The Church is composed of those who are saved.
Hebrews 12
23 'to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,'
Any true local expression of the Church must be an expression of what the Body of Christ is, and therefore must embrace and include all who are saved, except that they be put out or abandon that position by schism. This is seen in Acts:
Acts 2
47 'praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.'
Incorporation into the Church is by salvation.
Do we see any body that can make such a claim? No, for there are numerous companies of Christians of different sects and denominations. None can truly claim to be an expression of the Church of God in an area, because they are unable to embrace all of the saints in an area. We see a Church in ruins.
If we get together and seek to form a Church we are taking it upon ourselves to gather what only Christ can gather. We would be merely a group of Christians assembling. We woudl have no basis to claim to be the Church of God in an area. If we were to then restrict fellowship and mistry to those who held particular doctrines, excluding believers (converted men and women undefield by immoral behaviour) because they rejected soem of those doctrines, then we would be making the problem worse, for our basis of fellowship would not be union with Christ (which is the true basis for the Church's existence), but on acceptance of doctriens of our choosing.
By Matthew Celestine, at 25/12/05 12:34 PM
2. '“I am aware that electing officers is the Baptist practice. With respect, this is unscriptural and is again presuming to have power that is not given and which God has allowed to be lost.”
I’m sorry you feel that doing things in decency and order are not biblical … the apostles must have thought it was when they drew lots to replace Judas. Perhaps the apostles were off a bit when they encouraged the local (in Jerusalem) church to select seven deacons. They did not have authority over the local church, by the way, because we read that it pleased the CHURCH.'
The men were selected by the assembly, but they required the ordaining of the apostles.
Nowhere in the New Testament do we find appointments to office without the authority of the apostles being exercised.
Titus should hardly have needed Paul's commission to ordain elders if the Church had the power to elect them.
Presuming to have a power which is not granted is not doing things decently and orderly, no matter how useful democracy may be in worldly politics. Democracy is simply not God's way of ordering things. He uses His chosen vessels. Democracy is based on self-will and majority rule. I mean no offence and I hope none is taken.
By Matthew Celestine, at 25/12/05 12:40 PM
4.' “I see no reason why a believer in Christ who is not in your membership should be forbidden to vote. Your system is built on exclusion.”
Yes, we may be exclusive.'
I am glad you recognsie this. However, the Church is the gathering of the Children of God in Christ. If you exclude those who are in Christ, except that they be put out or involved in immorality, your fellwoship is surely based on principles contrary to the Church's nature. Again, I say this with the greates of respect. I hope that I have not said more than I should.
I hope my bringing these matters will not spoil your holiday.
I do wish you all the joy that you should know this season, and to your family as well
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
By Matthew Celestine, at 25/12/05 12:48 PM
Hi Mathew,
no offense taken at all, my appologies for using the "cheap shot" comment. You have not spoiled my holiday (Sunday). You are always respectful. I like that about you. Rose and I like you. We will disagree here and perhaps I have some further study to do. You are correct that I asked for chapter and verse. I was hoping to slow things down a bit.
I do want to answer your Q/A, but I am afraid I am out of time today.
May God bless you today ... and everyday ... for He has given us a Wonderful Gift, eternal life in Christ.
Blessings to you too,
brother John
By J. Wendell, at 25/12/05 1:27 PM
Thanks a lot John.
God Bless and enjoy the rest of your holiday
Matthew
By Matthew Celestine, at 25/12/05 1:35 PM
Is this where you join the Lion's Club?
Woops, how'd I get here...
Left turn at Albequerque...
John: I left a few thoughts on my post: "Pastor's Log" concerning elders, deacons. Sorry for not responding earlier.
JRush
By John R., at 28/12/05 3:57 PM
Hi John,
What's the Lion's Club?
Thanks!
By J. Wendell, at 28/12/05 6:00 PM
Great blog you have here, John!
Hi Matthew!
Quick Dwight Moody story relating to your topic.
Among (my fellow) Moody alumni and in Moody's biographies, Dave Kendall is famous for leading him to the Lord. But if you look into the details Kendall essentially implored him to join the great effort to proclaim the Gospel. He signed on with a gusto.
When it came time for the not exactly educated Moody to officially join the church he was serving in, they wouldn't allow it. And while orthodox churches were very snooty about education in those days, that was not the issue.
The membership committee members had tried to get out of him what his views were on the cross, substitution, anything, but Moody apparently hadn't a clue.
So no membership on his first try. What is stunning is that they didn't corral him and counsel him on the gospel. Unless they did and he didn't get it. His second attempt wasn't a huge amount better but they graded on a curve and passed him.
But eventually he got it right.
This is from the Stanley Gundry biography.
But the process of membership does formalize a church body's concern for its member's souls!
God bless!
Jodie
By Unknown, at 29/12/05 1:05 AM
Jodie,
Good story.
'But the process of membership does formalize a church body's concern for its member's souls!'
It does, but according to man's principles not God's.
God Bless
Matthew
By Matthew Celestine, at 29/12/05 3:38 AM
Hi Jodie,
I enjoy biographies too. I have read a few and among my favorites D.L. Moody’s rates right up on the top shelf. It is a privilege and a duty to be a member in a local Bible preaching, Christ honoring church. I’m sure Moody was blessed and flourished in part because of that fellowship. There are many biblical reasons to be in a local gathering and I hope to point this up in further posts.
Hi Matthew,
You said “…according to man's principles not God's.”
Consider this:
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)
Here is a biblical principle. The context seems to support several churches in and area.
In Christ,
Brother John
By J. Wendell, at 29/12/05 6:22 AM
John,
I fail to see how this verse establishes that.
There might be several meetings in one city and they might loosely be described as assemblies. However, they would not be meeting in opposition to each other. Following Biblical practise, they would be the Church of that city and all Christians in that area would have a claim to be part of that Church. Otherwise it would not be the Church of God.
The Church is the gathering of the Children of God in one. If a meeting does not embrace all Christians in an area apart from those that are put out or who are in schism, it has no claim to a Church. For it would not be a gathering of thsoe in Christ.
John, can you see in Scripture any form of membership that is in addition to conversion and baptism?
God Bless
Matthew
By Matthew Celestine, at 29/12/05 9:13 AM
Shalom Ephraim,
Thanks for jumping in and pointing that out to me. I misspoke… according to my diminutive dispensational understanding the church universal began on the day of Pentecost and will continue until the rapture, at which time she no longer occupy a place on this planet. I should have said,
“It is universal in the sense that it encompasses all true believers regardless of their time in history (from Pentecost to rapture), the location, and the name."
I think that would have been clearer than presuming that the statement…
“Theologians have found the concept of the invisible or universal church (i.e. all those who have trusted in Christ from the day of Pentecost to the rapture or catching away).”
…would have been kept in mind by the reader. ;)
What do you think?
Brother John
By J. Wendell, at 30/12/05 5:15 PM
So, John you ground the concept of an 'Invisible Church' in the idea that it is imposible to know who is saved?
But we are commanded to love the brethren (John 13:34,1 John 3:16,23). How are we to do this , if we know not who our brethren are? Jesus commanded Peter to feed His sheep. Presumably Peter was able to know who the sheep were.
In the letter to the Galatians, Paul identifies the brethren with the Churches of Galatia (Gal 1:2) Here we have a visible Church for every man to see. Likewise Paul writes to the saints at Ephesus. They are an identifiable company, a visible Church. The same can be said of the Colossians.
'A city on a hill cannot be hidden'. The Church is visible.
The idea of an invisible church is a theological fiction created to justify the Church's ruined and apostate condition.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
By Matthew Celestine, at 31/12/05 7:04 AM
Hi Matthew,
I’m glad you're back.
So, Matthew you ground the concept of the church's ruined and apostate condition in the idea that it is possible to know who is saved.
Do you truly have the ability to look at someone and know for sure they are saved? How do you do it?
Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said, “In the letter to the Galatians, Paul identifies the brethren with the Churches of Galatia (Gal 1:2) Here we have a visible Church for every man to see. Likewise Paul writes to the saints at Ephesus. They are an identifiable company, a visible Church. The same can be said of the Colossians.”
Thanks brother, for further supporting the biblical Baptist distinctive of saved church membership.
;-)
Thanks for the blessings,
many more your way,
brother John
By J. Wendell, at 31/12/05 8:40 AM
Yeah, saved Church membership is really sound, but I know I am a meber of the Church without my pastor asking me to stand up in a service and shaking my hand.
Happy birthday, John
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
By Matthew Celestine, at 31/12/05 4:25 PM
John,
Please forgive the intrusion but...
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!
Many blessings,
Kc
By Kc, at 31/12/05 7:28 PM
Hi Ephraim,
What do you think Pentecost was, what does it represent to you?
Is there anything more to add?
Hi KC,
Thank you for the pleasant intrusion.
Happy New Year,
brother John
By J. Wendell, at 1/1/06 8:56 AM
Happy Birthday, John!
By Jeremy Weaver, at 1/1/06 9:02 AM
Thank you Jeremy,
Happy New Year to you and yours!
brother John
By J. Wendell, at 1/1/06 9:15 AM
Hi Ephraim,
If you would like to pursue this I am open, but this post is about Saved Church Membership. It is in contrast to others who accept the unregenerate into their church as members. Some in the evangelical community are left scratching their heads wondering why there are so many great denominations that are now liberal in theology.
Shalom,
brother John
By J. Wendell, at 4/1/06 7:13 AM
I like this Spurgeon Quote..
"To introduce unconverted persons to the church, is to weaken and degrade it; and therefore an apparent gain may be a real loss." -Spurgeon-
We want them in our churches to hear the truth but to grant them membership and voting rights is dangerous.
Great Post,
Doug
By Doug E., at 15/1/06 2:00 AM
Hi Doug,
Thanks for the contibution from the Prince of Preachers. Was this quote from the "Downgrade Controversy?" Either way, it sure does bring home the point of this post.
Keep coming back,
brother John
By J. Wendell, at 15/1/06 7:47 AM
J.,
It is from the book "The Soul Winner"
God Bless,
Doug
By Doug E., at 16/1/06 1:16 AM
Great blog. I appreciate your views on the church. We need more teaching of ecclesiology these days. It seems as if the local church is losing its identity in the generic brand of groups who gather at a "center" for mainly social or entertainment reasons.
Although, as one of the comments pointed out, church membership as we Baptists practice it today may not be spelled out in the Bible, I think that it serves as a measure of accountability.
I will be back.
By Gordon, at 26/1/06 9:30 AM
i like what you have to say
By Stephanie, at 26/1/06 6:01 PM
Where did the Earnest Contender go?
By Jeremy Weaver, at 27/1/06 8:15 PM
Thanks to you:
Gordon Cloud, for your encouraging words.
Stephanie, for coming by, you too have encouraged me.
Doxoblogist, for the gentle and subtle rebuke (though you may not be aware of it).
I will soon be posting on the subject of pastors and deacons.
In Christ,
Brother John
By J. Wendell, at 30/1/06 5:30 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home