church membership
I seem to be having a hard time getting responses to some of my questions. (See my first post on 2/15.) And now you're all leaving the discussion! Oh well.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
Hi Homer,
Sorry, I haven't had a chance to answer those questions yet. It was only yesterday, and I have been very busy, but I will try to get to them before calling it quits on this thread. God bless you.
Sorry, I haven't had a chance to answer those questions yet. It was only yesterday, and I have been very busy, but I will try to get to them before calling it quits on this thread. God bless you.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Homer,
Please take the time to read these verses.
Matthew 18:15-20 "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.
But if he will not hear you, take with you one or two more, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.
For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them."
The point I am trying to make is that christians use this last verse to say that two or three believers gathering together "is a church" because this verse says that the Lord is there with them is, is taken totally out of context here. The "two or three" here are the same two or three in verse 16 and 17. And the Lord says if the brother does not hear them then tell it to "the church". So the "two or three " can not be the church because they are supposed "tell it to the church".
The only way "two or three" in any given city or town can be "the church" is if they are the sum total of the believers in that town.
Roger
Thie verse is greatly misused by most christians.
Please take the time to read these verses.
Matthew 18:15-20 "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.
But if he will not hear you, take with you one or two more, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.
For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them."
The point I am trying to make is that christians use this last verse to say that two or three believers gathering together "is a church" because this verse says that the Lord is there with them is, is taken totally out of context here. The "two or three" here are the same two or three in verse 16 and 17. And the Lord says if the brother does not hear them then tell it to "the church". So the "two or three " can not be the church because they are supposed "tell it to the church".
The only way "two or three" in any given city or town can be "the church" is if they are the sum total of the believers in that town.
Roger
Thie verse is greatly misused by most christians.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Roger,
As I read Matthew 18:15-20, I understand v.17 to say that the decision to ex-communicate the offender is made by the church after the problem is brought to the church. In vs. 18-20 I see Jesus blessing on the decision of the church no matter how small the congregation. Otherwise if the two or three in v.19 are the same as in v.16, and their decision is decisive, why take it to the church ? Why not simply inform the church of their decision?
This gets to my question regarding what constitutes a body (congregation) authorized to send an evangelist, Romans 10:15, or to ex-communicate? Would all congregations in a city have to agree? And why limit it to a city or even a geographical area? But then we have the institutional church for sure.
If all the churches in a city gathered to make a decision, without some sort of recognized membership, a list on paper or in the mind, who would be allowed to decide? When the first deacons were chosen it would seem to have been a decision by the church as a whole. I see Jesus instruction in Matthew 18 regarding taking it to the church not to be a reference to hierarchical authorities.
Blessings, Homer
As I read Matthew 18:15-20, I understand v.17 to say that the decision to ex-communicate the offender is made by the church after the problem is brought to the church. In vs. 18-20 I see Jesus blessing on the decision of the church no matter how small the congregation. Otherwise if the two or three in v.19 are the same as in v.16, and their decision is decisive, why take it to the church ? Why not simply inform the church of their decision?
This gets to my question regarding what constitutes a body (congregation) authorized to send an evangelist, Romans 10:15, or to ex-communicate? Would all congregations in a city have to agree? And why limit it to a city or even a geographical area? But then we have the institutional church for sure.
If all the churches in a city gathered to make a decision, without some sort of recognized membership, a list on paper or in the mind, who would be allowed to decide? When the first deacons were chosen it would seem to have been a decision by the church as a whole. I see Jesus instruction in Matthew 18 regarding taking it to the church not to be a reference to hierarchical authorities.
Blessings, Homer
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
-
_livingink
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:54 pm
Dear Homer and Roger,
Sorry Homer for not attempting to answer any of the questions you posted--very busy lately. I believe you asked if Matt. 18:17 referred to a local or universal ekklesia. This particular passage seems to be a local body as compared to a universal body, for example, in Matt. 16:18. I may differ a little when saying who made the decision to ex-communicate based upon your last post but I believe you said it otherwise earlier. The decision is made by God and revealed through the ekklesia. Believers announce that which confirms those decisions which have already been made by God. My Hebrew-Greek Study Bible tells me that the binding/loosing language should be read "having been bound" and "having been loosed" already.
Well, that's nice but how would we know when God is doing that? Matt. 16:17--Jesus replied, "Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven." NIV Since the ekklesia is made up of true believers who are called out of the former covenant, they would apparently be able to reveal decisions already made by God in matters of discipline of the separate body parts. I believe Christopher already made the point that the sheep recognize the voice of the shepherd--John 10:1-6--so they would be able to distinguish between false and true teaching. While you may be correct Roger in making the point that 2 or 3 body parts may not constitute the entire ekklesia in a given locality, they could easily meet together as we are now to discuss scripture, pray and exhort. Actually, I believe you made that point in an earlier post.
Should the whole ekklesia in a given area be consulted before ex-communicating a person attending? In 1 Timothy 1:19-20 Paul "handed over to Satan" 2 blasphemers. The NIV says Paul did it. I assume they had attended the Ephesian ekklesia. In 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, Paul instructed those assembled together to hand a man over to Satan for sexual immorality. Since the letter was written to the entire ekklesia , I assume it was everyone's responsibility to accomplish it. As I remember 1 Timothy 3:1-7, I do wonder if Paul would have advocated keeping order by accomplishing these disciplinary tasks through the overseers of the ekklesia as opposed to the entire assembly. Some say that 2 Corinthians 2:5-11 addresses the situation after the man repented. If so , is the use of the phrase "inflicted on him by the majority" a reference to disciplinary action taken in less than unanimous agreement or something else?
Could we consider answering JJB's 8 points? I believe I could give some specific replies--but not tonight!!!
livingink
Sorry Homer for not attempting to answer any of the questions you posted--very busy lately. I believe you asked if Matt. 18:17 referred to a local or universal ekklesia. This particular passage seems to be a local body as compared to a universal body, for example, in Matt. 16:18. I may differ a little when saying who made the decision to ex-communicate based upon your last post but I believe you said it otherwise earlier. The decision is made by God and revealed through the ekklesia. Believers announce that which confirms those decisions which have already been made by God. My Hebrew-Greek Study Bible tells me that the binding/loosing language should be read "having been bound" and "having been loosed" already.
Well, that's nice but how would we know when God is doing that? Matt. 16:17--Jesus replied, "Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven." NIV Since the ekklesia is made up of true believers who are called out of the former covenant, they would apparently be able to reveal decisions already made by God in matters of discipline of the separate body parts. I believe Christopher already made the point that the sheep recognize the voice of the shepherd--John 10:1-6--so they would be able to distinguish between false and true teaching. While you may be correct Roger in making the point that 2 or 3 body parts may not constitute the entire ekklesia in a given locality, they could easily meet together as we are now to discuss scripture, pray and exhort. Actually, I believe you made that point in an earlier post.
Should the whole ekklesia in a given area be consulted before ex-communicating a person attending? In 1 Timothy 1:19-20 Paul "handed over to Satan" 2 blasphemers. The NIV says Paul did it. I assume they had attended the Ephesian ekklesia. In 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, Paul instructed those assembled together to hand a man over to Satan for sexual immorality. Since the letter was written to the entire ekklesia , I assume it was everyone's responsibility to accomplish it. As I remember 1 Timothy 3:1-7, I do wonder if Paul would have advocated keeping order by accomplishing these disciplinary tasks through the overseers of the ekklesia as opposed to the entire assembly. Some say that 2 Corinthians 2:5-11 addresses the situation after the man repented. If so , is the use of the phrase "inflicted on him by the majority" a reference to disciplinary action taken in less than unanimous agreement or something else?
Could we consider answering JJB's 8 points? I believe I could give some specific replies--but not tonight!!!
livingink
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_livingink
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:54 pm
Re: Romans 10:15 The same principle applies. The preacher, keryx, proclaimer, announces the word of God. Since Jesus is the head of the church he retains the authority to send whom he pleases to preach. A local ekklesia may be led to support the proclaimer financially but I don't believe they would authorize the proclaimer of the Good News to go forth since the proclaimer needs to get that authority from Jesus. At times, Paul was supported and at others he was not. In either case, he was sent by Jesus . Acts 9:15--16 But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name." Does this begin to answer any part of your question?
livingink
livingink
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
JJB
I think your understanding of the term"local church" and my understanding of that term are very different. To me, any denomination in any given town is not a "local church". The term "local church" to me is inclusive of all believers in a given locality.
In the New Testiment the church in any city where the gospel went included all of the believers in that city.
A few examples:
1 Cor. 1:2 "To the church of God which is at Corinth"....Paul did not say churches of God which are at Corinth because in Pauls mind all the believers in the city of Corinth were "the church of God ".
Acts 13:1 "Now in the church that was at Antioch..." Once again the word speaks of only one church in the city of Antioch.
Acts 8:1 "the church which was at Jersalem..."
Rev.1:11 "What you see write in a book and send it to the seven churches..." Then following this we have the letters to the seven churches...unto Ephesus, unto Smyrna, unto Pergamos, unto Thyatira, unto Sardis unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. The seven churches were not seven different denominations. They were seven different cities in Asia and each one included all the believers in that city.
The concept of having many various denominational "churches" all with varying interpretations of scripture is not the concept at all of the writers of the New Testiment. So to reject "church membership" is not acting divisive in the slightest since the very existence of all the varying denominational groups is division in itself.
This topic could be a long discussion and I think loooooooooooong posts are hard for a lot of people to read and connect with so I will purposely keep it short.
Roger
I think your understanding of the term"local church" and my understanding of that term are very different. To me, any denomination in any given town is not a "local church". The term "local church" to me is inclusive of all believers in a given locality.
In the New Testiment the church in any city where the gospel went included all of the believers in that city.
A few examples:
1 Cor. 1:2 "To the church of God which is at Corinth"....Paul did not say churches of God which are at Corinth because in Pauls mind all the believers in the city of Corinth were "the church of God ".
Acts 13:1 "Now in the church that was at Antioch..." Once again the word speaks of only one church in the city of Antioch.
Acts 8:1 "the church which was at Jersalem..."
Rev.1:11 "What you see write in a book and send it to the seven churches..." Then following this we have the letters to the seven churches...unto Ephesus, unto Smyrna, unto Pergamos, unto Thyatira, unto Sardis unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. The seven churches were not seven different denominations. They were seven different cities in Asia and each one included all the believers in that city.
The concept of having many various denominational "churches" all with varying interpretations of scripture is not the concept at all of the writers of the New Testiment. So to reject "church membership" is not acting divisive in the slightest since the very existence of all the varying denominational groups is division in itself.
This topic could be a long discussion and I think loooooooooooong posts are hard for a lot of people to read and connect with so I will purposely keep it short.
Roger
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Livingink,
I'm having difficulty believing Romans 10:15 is not an exhortation to the Church to send out laborers for the harvest. When an Apostle was chosen to replace Judas, the Church was involved in the choice, and when the first deacons were chosen, the Church selected them and at least one of them became an evangelist. I believe the Church has the responsibility to ordain preachers. Some will no doubt imagine they are chosen by Jesus; some people have a high opinion of their mental impressions.
Roger,
I have great sympathy for your desire to have unity, cooperation, and love among all Christians. It is sad that the Church falls short of that ideal.
However, let us imagine what it would be like if all Christians in a city were in total agreement on every matter of faith and doctrine. Could they not meet separately in many congregations, each acting independently although cooperating where needed such as in operating a mission for the homeless, sending missionaries, etc.?
If they do not have to meet in one large congregation and can meet in many congregations, but not independently, it seems to me an institutional Church would be required. And if they can be independent, why do they have to agree on every item of doctrine if non-essential?
In Eugene the Eugene Mission is supported by many denominations both financially and in ministry. There are chapel services daily for men and women, about 60 each month, with a different local congregation or group conducting almost every one of them. In this effort all these various congregations are in fellowship with one another in the true biblical sense of the word. (In the popular view of fellowship it is confused with socializing.)
I do not see a great problem with people meeting with a group they feel at home with or who have similar taste in worship style, or even where there is disagreement on "essentials". To me the problem is in how the groups treat one another.
I'm having difficulty believing Romans 10:15 is not an exhortation to the Church to send out laborers for the harvest. When an Apostle was chosen to replace Judas, the Church was involved in the choice, and when the first deacons were chosen, the Church selected them and at least one of them became an evangelist. I believe the Church has the responsibility to ordain preachers. Some will no doubt imagine they are chosen by Jesus; some people have a high opinion of their mental impressions.
Roger,
I have great sympathy for your desire to have unity, cooperation, and love among all Christians. It is sad that the Church falls short of that ideal.
However, let us imagine what it would be like if all Christians in a city were in total agreement on every matter of faith and doctrine. Could they not meet separately in many congregations, each acting independently although cooperating where needed such as in operating a mission for the homeless, sending missionaries, etc.?
If they do not have to meet in one large congregation and can meet in many congregations, but not independently, it seems to me an institutional Church would be required. And if they can be independent, why do they have to agree on every item of doctrine if non-essential?
In Eugene the Eugene Mission is supported by many denominations both financially and in ministry. There are chapel services daily for men and women, about 60 each month, with a different local congregation or group conducting almost every one of them. In this effort all these various congregations are in fellowship with one another in the true biblical sense of the word. (In the popular view of fellowship it is confused with socializing.)
I do not see a great problem with people meeting with a group they feel at home with or who have similar taste in worship style, or even where there is disagreement on "essentials". To me the problem is in how the groups treat one another.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
Homer,
Because the word indicates that all believers in a city are the church in that city it does not mean everyone has to meet in the same building. In Acts James told Paul " How many thousands" there are that believe....referring to the church in Jersalem....and I believe the greek word there actually means "tens of thousands" and I'm sure they met in many places. But they still functioned as the one body in that locality.
Roger
Because the word indicates that all believers in a city are the church in that city it does not mean everyone has to meet in the same building. In Acts James told Paul " How many thousands" there are that believe....referring to the church in Jersalem....and I believe the greek word there actually means "tens of thousands" and I'm sure they met in many places. But they still functioned as the one body in that locality.
Roger
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: