Is there a better way to 'do Church'?

[arachnogeek]

1 minute ago, Yowm said:

That would work if we were God and knew the hearts and not just the confessions each person makes. IOW, not all who say they are Christian...are.

That's irrelevant since local church membership doesn't allow us to see into people's hearts either....

[Guest shiloh357]

15 minutes ago, arachnogeek said:

 I believe that ALL Christians are members of the body of Christ, whereas you believe only Christians who are members in the formal sense of the word are true members.

Wrong and I never said that.   You are putting words in my mouth.  I never said that only those who are in a local church are true members of the Body of Christ.  

Quote

You are the one who's ok with having a congregation where not 100% of your congregants are members. I am advocating for a 100% membership ratio. 

I am okay with sinners and skeptics and seekers coming to see us and sitting in our worship services and partaking in our fellowship dinners and allowing them to learn and ask questions.  The last thing I want them to think is that church people are too "good" or too "stuck up"  to entertain their presence. 

[arachnogeek]

4 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No, you don't have any Scripture to back that up.  Nowhere in the NT was being a believer an automatic membership into a local church.

Yes, I do. The whole book of Acts is my Scripture to back it up. How about the ethiopian eunuch? If that wasn't automatic, I don't know what is. 

[Guest shiloh357]

3 minutes ago, arachnogeek said:

That's irrelevant since local church membership doesn't allow us to see into people's hearts either....

But spending time with them often does.  

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, arachnogeek said:

Yes, I do. The whole book of Acts is my Scripture to back it up. How about the ethiopian eunuch? If that wasn't automatic, I don't know what is. 

You are conflating membership into the body of Christ with membership into a local church.   You can't defend your original position and now you are trying to argue a different position.

[arachnogeek]

1 minute ago, shiloh357 said:

The last thing I want them to think is that church people are too "good" or too "stuck up"  to entertain their presence. 

Let's worry about what God thinks, not what skeptics, 'seekers' and unbelievers think. Furthermore, if 'entertaining their presence' is of utmost importance to you, you and I have a radically different ecclesiology. 

Besides, they'll always be offended at some point anyway; the Lord's supper is only for believers (in some churches it's only for members, or baptized believers) and some people take offence to that. It's not our problem to worry about how visitors might be offended. 

[arachnogeek]

6 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

You are conflating membership into the body of Christ with membership into a local church

I'm conflating two terms precisely because one is an invention and the other is biblical. Show me some scripture that clearly makes a distinction between the two types of membership. You can't. 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, arachnogeek said:

Let's worry about what God thinks, not what skeptics, 'seekers' and unbelievers think.

I want to know what they think because that allows us to have a conversation about the Lord and the last thing I would ever do is turn away a person who wants to understand the Christian faith better.    I don't think  God is opposed to sinners showing up in a local church.  In fact, He may have led them there and to discourage them from attending would be counter to our commission to make disciples. 

Quote

Furthermore, if 'entertaining their presence' is of utmost importance to you, you and I have a radically different ecclesiology. 

Why would you not sit and have a conversation with them?   If anyone should be willing to sit and talk to skeptics and unbelievers, it should be the pastor.  The pastor sets the example.   

Quote

Besides, they'll always be offended at some point anyway; the Lord's supper is only for believers (in some churches it's only for members, or baptized believers) and some people take offence to that. It's not our problem to worry about how visitors might be offended. 

So what?   If they are made to understand that some parts of the service are for believers only, most of the time, they will respect it   At least, every time they have been made aware of our traditions, they gladly comply and fully understand.  I attended a RCC service one time, many years ago and the priest said that only those who were Roman Catholics could come forward to take communion.  I was not offended.  I was mature enough to understand and comply. 

You are trying to manufacture problems that, as a general rule, simply don't exist.

[Guest shiloh357]

4 minutes ago, arachnogeek said:

I'm conflating two terms precisely because one is an invention and the other is biblical. Show me some scripture that clearly makes a distinction between the two types of membership. You can't. 

 

The problem is that you cannot demonstrate that being a "member" of a local congregation violates any tenet of biblical doctrine as it touches on the doctrine of the Church in the NT.   You are trying to create an issue out of a non-issue and you have no biblical grounds for doing so.    Being a member of a local church is not prohibited in the Bible and really don't have a case.

I am not the one with the burden of proof.   You are the one that says the status quo needs to change.   You need to prove that claim, and if you can't then the status quo remains by default.

[arachnogeek]

40 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The problem is that you cannot demonstrate that being a "member" of a local congregation violates any tenet of biblical doctrine as it touches on the doctrine of the Church in the NT.   You are trying to create an issue out of a non-issue and you have no biblical grounds for doing so.    Being a member of a local church is not prohibited in the Bible and really don't have a case.

I am not the one with the burden of proof.   You are the one that says the status quo needs to change.   You need to prove that claim, and if you can't then the status quo remains by default.

I don't want to demonstrate that it violates anything scriptural because it doesn't. What YOU need to demonstrate is that there is a difference between church membership and being a member of the Church. The Bible makes it clear that as soon as a person repents and believes and is baptized, they are a member of his Body. The local Church IS His body. What is so difficult to understand about this?

Being a member of a local church is not prohibited in the Bible precisely because the NT assumes that Christians are automatically members of a local church when they assemble together. There is NOTHING in scripture indicating that the local church is made up of members and non-members. You still have not backed up your argument through scripture. Sorry, your argument does not hold water, and the burden of proof falls upon you.