church membership

[Guest]

Homer....If you go back and read the gospels where the mention of "two or three" is and the Lord says.... there I am also....this is not referring to "a church".

In the same passage the Lord then says that if you don't hear the two or three then tell it to the church. The "two or three" here are two or three out of the "local church". They are not a church in themselves. This quotation is greatly misused by christians to justify the divisions in todays christianity.

Roger

[_JJB]

Hi JJB,

You seem to be very concerned about maintaining orthodoxy and accountability for believers. I don't disagree with you that this is a good thing. However, I have a few questions for you:

1. How is "orthodoxy" determined, and how is it kept in check? In other words, who or what is the final arbiter for this determination? The church or the Bible?

2. What is your objection to someone challenging something that is "orthodoxy" when the challenge comes directly from the Bible?

3. As the definitions of "orthodoxy" are continually expanded, how do you suggest that Protestant denominations keep themselves from becoming the monster that the Roman Catholic Church became over centuries of slowly, and unnoticeably, refining the definition of "orthodoxy"?

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that we chuck orthodoxy, but we all feel that the average Christian has the capability of reading the Bible and discerning for him/herself whether or not the church has overstepped it's bounds. In fact, I would even say that we have not only the right, but the duty to do so.

Christopher, how do you see orthodoxy being defined? You seem to think from your question that it is discovered from manmade rather than holy ways. The whole counsel of God is usually where doctrines such as the trinity are derived. They are not just plucked out of thin air.

Perhaps we need to define orthodoxy. When I say orthodoxy, I am referring to essentials of Christian faith: Trinity (the Godhead), virgin birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, salvation through Christ alone, deity of Christ.

Jesus and the whole counsel of God as found in scripture is the final arbiter for orthodoxy.

I have not objection to someone challenging orthodoxy. I am not fighting for orthodoxy for the sake of argument.

As for your last question, I don't know. Running away to form a house fellowship perhaps? Is that the answer to keeping from becoming a monster? Or is that creating a monster? While, I am sure there are many good house fellowships out there, it can create a cult like following of one particular teacher, no? Also, they do not preach publically, so who is to scrutinize their teaching? Only those who fellowship within that small body. What occurs when disagreement happens? Who is run off then, the teacher or the family who disagrees? It has the same problems as a formal church, but the "organized church" has one glaring, obvious benefit:

Public preaching in a place where any and all can attend, ie a church, would help keep things in check better than a cloistered group.

No one may be saying "chuck orthodoxy", as you put it, but if it becomes an unnecessary doctrine then it has, for all practical intents and purposes, been chucked.

Hey, trinity? nah, not necessary. What about local church? nah, not necessary. What else goes out the window? What else comes in the window?

[_JJB]

"The communion of the Church was not instituted to be a chain to bind us in idolatry, impiety, ignorance of God, and other kinds of evil, but rather to retain us in the fear of God and obedience of the truth."

— John Calvin

[Guest]

Hi JJB,

"Public preaching in a place where any and all can attend, ie a church, would help keep things in check better than a cloistered group."

A cloistered group of what? Christians? This would qualify them as part of the church, would it not?

I would say that your version of the local church, as you have defined it without Biblical warrant, can be every bit as much as cloistered in practice and mentality as any other group. They are cloistered by their common denominators. Size doesn't matter.

I disagree that public preaching necessarily keeps unorthodoxy in better check. Multitudes of Christians listen to publicly proclaimed, unorthodox doctrines for decades on end. TBN?

Regards,
JD

[_JJB]

I also found this link that may interest some on this discussion:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/a ... gchap1.htm

[_JJB]

Here is yet another article. I know cut and paste is considered lazy by many internet discussers, but these articles say it much better than I do.

If you have the time, read them.

http://www.ccwonline.org/pwhyj.html

[Guest]

Roger,

I understand Jesus, in Matthew 18:20, to be saying that even two or three meeting in His name are a congregation, and He will be with them. There is actually only one "church", the body of Christ, with many congregations. Perhaps some of our difficulty goes back to King James' refusal to allow the translaters to translate ekklesia into English (along with baptizo, among others). Must keep the folks in the dark, you know. Perhaps they will think "church" is the authorities or even a building.

What does "church" mean to you? If three Christians meet to worship on a regular basis could they be a "church" as the word is commonly used? What does Jesus mean in Matthew 18:20?

[Guest]

JJB,

My perception is that you have a very low opinion of the intelligence of the average Christian and the protection of the Holy Spirit.

Cults, and "unorthodox" indoctrination happen when only one person (or organization) is doing all the thinking and the rest are blindly following.

Jesus said:

John 10:1-6
10:1 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. 2 But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice; and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers."
NKJV

[_JJB]

Christopher, I hope and pray your perception is wrong that I have a low view of my Christian brethren (and sistren). Rather, my fear is that too many have succumbed to the cowboy culture so common in America. "I can do this my way."

I have been thinking about that verse in John 10, in particular your highlighted bit, as I put that chapter forward for consideration somewhere on this forum. Does that highlighted section mean that we do not warn others? Do you not look out for your family? I'm sure you do. You would consider it dereliction of duty to not do so. I'm just throwing out some thoughts here. There also comes a time when we need to let heretics go. Bad company corrupts good manners -- is that how the verse goes? Perhaps we are getting far afield from the OP.

Please do not say I am calling anyone here a heretic. I am speaking in general terms within Christendom.

I found this on yet another website written by M. Dever, the link is below, for any interested in reading further:

Let me make myself unpopular. One of the reasons we (Capitol Hill Baptist Church) are called a cult is because we limit responsibility for ministry (from leading Bible studies, to being responsible for refreshments after church) to members of our congregation. We figure that we best serve the individuals wanting to minister by requiring them to give us their testimony before we allow them to represent us for others. We first want to know what they agree with or disagree with in what we believe (statement of faith) and how we intend to live (church covenant). We also would like to see some commitment to us as a congregation.


Wayne Mack (who has never been a member of our church!) in his recent book on church membership expressed this idea well: “Whatever the reason, this unwillingness to formally identify with a local church is an indication that they’re not totally committed to that church and therefore should not be given regular, formal, service opportunities. Regular, formal ministry opportunities are a privilege given to people who are willing to commit and submit without reservation to the total ministry of the church.” See Wayne Mack, To Be or Not to Be A Church Member? That is the Question! (2004), page 53.

the link: http://blog.togetherforthegospel.org/

[_JJB]

Christopher, this question also popped up for me. Are you attending a church regularly? Putting aside the whole membership issue.

Here are the common definitions of "cult":

cult:

A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

The followers of such a religion or sect.

A system or community of religious worship and ritual.

The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.

A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.

Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.

The object of such devotion.

An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

There are one or two definitions that would apply to the local church as well as the church universal. When you use the term cult, I am assuming the first definition. Is my assumption accurate?

Here are the common definitions for unorthodox:

adj 1: independent in behavior or thought; "she led a somewhat irregular private life"; "maverick politicians" [syn: irregular, maverick] 2: breaking with convention or tradition; "an unorthodox lifestyle"

For that term I am assuming the second definition. Does that help clarify my language? I bring this up because you put unorthodox in quotes, as if it's soley my language or something???