church membership

[Guest]

From the NIV, Romans 10:14 states "And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?" The word used here in the Greek and given to us as preaching is kerysso, to proclaim or herald. The keryx is the proclaimer or preacher and his authority lies in the message he has to bring (2Peter 2:5). Romans 10:15 then states, "And how can they preach unless they are sent?" The word sent is the Greek apostello meaning to send forth on a certain mission. So it would seem that this passage is speaking specifically to the mission of apostles. Apostles were directly commissioned by Jesus and anyone claiming a commission in any other way, including a commission by a church, would have to be seen as an illegitimate apostle.

As to the choosing of Matthias, Acts 1:24 states: Then they prayed, "Lord,you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." Jesus chose and the ekklesia revealed.

In Acts 6:3, the 7 chosen were already witnesses to the power and authority of God through a relationship with the Holy Spirit. Again, the ekklesia simply recognized something that was already existing.

I believe that scripture is clear that Jesus commissioned apostles. The church , no matter how it is defined, does not appear to have any scriptural backing to commission apostles. It is also clear that those whom the scripture calls apostles were legitimate in their calling. I will have to consider the subject of ordination in another post.

Respectfully,

livingink

[_Paidion]

I would like to go back to the original topic concerning "joining a local church". Here are some statements I believe to be true.

1. Jesus founded a ONE Church and one church only.

2. A person cannot "join" the Church that Jesus founded. The only way to become a member is by being "added" to it by the Lord.

3. A true expression of the Church which Jesus founded, will recognize and accept in full fellowship every person whom they have determined to be a true disciple.

4. Any local group claiming to be a local church who requires people to formally "join" that group with "membership requirements" has identified itself as a club rather than an expression of the one and only Christian Church.

[Guest]

Very well and succinctly put, Paidion.

[Guest]

Paidion,

You said:

3. A true expression of the Church which Jesus founded, will recognize and accept in full fellowship every person whom they have determined to be a true disciple.

How would you recommend determining a person is a true disciple? It would seem to me we should accept them at their word until they prove otherwise. Agreed?

Much mischief has been done in the past by attempts to have a pure church. With the Puritans they determined to require a conversion experience narrative, which some groups ask for today.

I recall the story of the man who wanted to join a church in the days when it was the only social opportunity in the town. Pressed to relate a conversion narrative he came up with a wild tale that was accepted and became a member. After some time amongst the Christians, he became convicted of his ways and determined to follow Jesus. Feeling guilty, he confessed his conversion narrative was false and was promptly kicked out of the church! So much for conversion narratives.

Seems to me Jesus said we should wait until harvest , then the weeds will be separated from the wheat. Unless of course the is some blatant proof as in 1 Cor. 5.

[_Paidion]

How would you recommend determining a person is a true disciple? It would seem to me we should accept them at their word until they prove otherwise. Agreed?

No. I don't agree. For millions of people profess to be "Christians" who live just like everyone in society. Most of them really believe that they are Christians because they have "accepted Christ as their personal Saviour" or are "trusting in the finished work of Christ" to get them to heaven. But unhappily, they have been taught that their "salvation" (from hell) has no relation to their lifestyle.

I think a test of discipleship should be something similar to the following:

1. The person professes to believe that the teachings of Christ and His apostles are true.

2. The person claims to have repented (had a change of mind about the way he was living) and to have submitted himself to Jesus as lord of his life.

3. The person has been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (I'm not speaking of a "baptismal formula" here) for the forsaking of sins.

4. The person gives evidence of living in the way that Christ taught in the "sermon on the mount" --- (Matthew 5, 6, and 7) and the other teachings of Christ.

Justin Martyr (110-165 A.D.) in his letter to Augustus Caesar, set out a similar test in determining who qualified to participate in communion.

"This food [bread and a cup of wine mixed with water] is called among us "eucharistia" [thanksgiving] of which no one is allowed to partake but the person who believes that the things we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so lliving as Christ has enjoined."

Apology ch 66.

[Guest]

Paidion: Very nicely put. I’m going to journal those four points for future reference.

Your four points were made in response to the question of church membership and the point that a “true expression of the Church which Jesus founded, will recognize and accept in full fellowship every person whom they have determined to be a true disciple.”

Just thinking out loud – in your opinion how would the church view a brand new believer who has just made a sincere profession of faith declaring the lordship of Christ and repenting from their former ways. Yet, they are a new believer and therefore can’t give “evidence of living in the way that Christ taught in the ‘sermon on the mount’ --- (Matthew 5, 6, and 7) and the other teachings of Christ" (your fourth point). Would the church recognize and accept them into its fellowship?

I’m sincerely interested in your opinion and have no agenda here.

[Guest]

As I look around the congregation on Sunday morning I see prehaps 100 people. I have no idea how most of them spend the bulk of their time. Except in unusual circumstances I have no way of knowing who should participate in communion, and doubt if most of those present do either.

I know many churches practice "fencing the table", i.e. having communion at inconvenient times to help ensure that the "unwashed" do not show up. I believe this is wrong. Paul informs us, 1 Cor. 11:28 "Let each man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup." I believe this to be our guiding standard. I will take Paul over Justin Martyr.

I recall the story of the stern Calvinist pastor of a small church in Scotland. When the communion elements were passed, a young lady sat quietly weeping and refused to partake of the elements. The pastor came down, took the bread and wine to her and said "here lassie, this is for sinners". She probably was more worthy than any present.

[Guest]

I agree Homer. I think we're called to judge conduct, not the state or quality of someone else's relationship to the Lord. That's between them and God.

[_Paidion]

Quoting Blind Beggar:

Just thinking out loud – in your opinion how would the church view a brand new believer who has just made a sincere profession of faith declaring the lordship of Christ and repenting from their former ways. Yet, they are a new believer and therefore can’t give “evidence of living in the way that Christ taught in the ‘sermon on the mount’ --- (Matthew 5, 6, and 7) and the other teachings of Christ" (your fourth point). Would the church recognize and accept them into its fellowship?

In my opinion, the church should fully fellowship such new believers without any further evidence.

Quoting Christopher:

I think we're called to judge conduct, not the state or quality of someone else's relationship to the Lord. That's between them and God.

Yes, we are called to judge (in the sense of assess) the lives and conduct of fellow disciples ---- not to condemn them but to help keep them on the narrow road that leads to life. If some are not living as disciples, they need to be dealt with as Christ taught. If they persist, they must be separated from the body. "A little leaven leavens the whole lump."

It is impossible to judge a person's "relationship with God". I don't think I suggested doing that. But if they are strangers we can ask them about it --- ask them whether they have repented and submitted to Christ. Anything wrong with that?

Here is a case in which a newly-baptized disciple expected the apostles to judge her life:

And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us. Acts 16:15

As for the man who fornicated with his step-mother, the apostle Paul judged him:

For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. I Corinthians 5:3 ]

Paul spoke as if he expected the saints to judge those in the church:

For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. I Corinthians 5: 12, 13 ]

Paul also said:

Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? I Corinthians 6:3 ]

I think where the confusion lies is that the disciple should not judge others in the sense of condemning them and speaking evilly of them. But he must be able to assess first his own weaknesses (examine yourselves) but also be able to help others in their need.

Churches become corrupt when everyone's behaviour is acceptable no matter what it may be.









The twelve disciples are to judge Israel in the future:

Then Peter said to Him, "Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what then will there be for us?"
And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Matthew 19:27,28

Jesus even thought it okay for the Pharisees to judge, if they judged rightly

Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." John 7:24

[Guest]

I know I am getting way off topic, but what do people think about excommunication?

Is that a proper approach to dealing with obstinate sinners, who refuse to repent?