Baptists Many Years Ago

I'm aware that some churches do not have formal membership rolls, but I've never been a member of a church which doesn't.

How would it work? Just curious.

I don't see a church roll as a barrier. I see it as an orderly way to keep track of those who have entered into a covenantal relationship with a congregation, as well as an orderly way of doing church business. For instance, determining who should be members, who its pastor and deacons (or elders) should be and how the money is spent.

In open communion churches, church rolls seem to make no difference anyway.

In I Cor 11, Paul himself declared standards (set by Jesus) for observing the Lord's Supper. They were given to a local congregation. Getting drunk was prohibited. Can an autonomous, independent congregation not set standards for who participates? Can we not declare that known adulterers (even one who still professes to be a Christian) will be denied? Can we not deny the elements to one disfellowshipped from another church for flagrant sin?

Is it consistent to disfellowship one who has not attended for 15 years, but still let them participate? (Shouldn't they have been disfellowshiped 14 years ago?) How about a member of a church which teaches works salvation. How about a Jehovah's Witness, a Mormon? How about someone who professes to be a believer, but has never been baptized? What if the Pope wanders in one Sunday? Under open communion, on what basis would you deny participation?

I contend that a church which will not guard its doors carefully, and will not guard the integrity of its ordinances just as carefully, is asking for trouble down the road.

BTW,Mike, we miss you. See you when you get home from Oklahoma.

 

I beg to differ. The very Greek word for church, ekklesia, demands a church roll. It was originally used for the democratic assembly of a Greek city-state. The assembly was "called out" (the etymology) when a vote needed to be taken. Now how could it be "called out" if there was not a roll of those eligible to vote?

 

I think God put me in the exact state in which I am content. This is probably a good state to raise a family, but I like looking at weird objects like trees, green grass, and an occasional body of water. Thanks for the kind words.

 

Thank you John! That is a valuable perspective!

 

The statements never said a local church did not have the right to determine its own decision on this matter. The local church members have a right to vote as lead by the Lord, and that includes the right to vote for open communion. My paragraph is why I believe open communion is more in line with Scripture. There are many who will set their own standards for the Lord's Supper, and one of those is local church membership, and if a church decides that, it is the way it should be.

Then we get into those who like to set standards because they live a better life than others. How many times have I heard "I have never committed murder or adultery, so I am eligible to partake, not like those other sinners." First of all, the Bible is quite clear. One has in fact committed adultery in the eyes of God by lusting and has committed murder by hating. Now, all you who put yourself upon a pedestal, how clean are you in front of a Holy God compared to the others.

And while we are on the subject, who are you to assign a higher level of evil to one sin over another? Another question comes to mind, who are you as a sinner one to judge another person's relationship to the Lord?

Three thoughts come to mind
1. Get the plank out of your eye.
2. Your righteousness is as flithy rags.
3. There is not righteous.

Until you clean up your church rolls, until you are full of the Holy Spirit and exactly what God would have you be, dont tell me about who you think is eligible to take the Lord's Supper, because to tell you the truth, the words are meaningless.

If your church votes for closed that is fine. Dont condem others for not agreeing with what you think the Bible says.

So I not only beg to differ, I differ quite sharply.

 

It would be very helpful to express your thoughts about the subject instead of Amening. Arent most of you all from a background of degrees and higher education in theology?

 

I have always down deep inside wanted to believe we as Baptists have a direct line all the way back to the time of Acts, and are not just a part of the Reformation out of the Roman Catholic Church like Methodists, Presbyterians, and others. It would be really nice if there were more historical evidence for it.

 

I stand by my statement. The etymology and usage of the Greek word ekklesia demands that there be a church roll. If you don't believe that, just try voting in the next election without being registered, or "on the church roll" in 1st century terminology.

And while we are on the subject, who in the world are you to condemn me with this harsh language without even knowing what I believe??? For the record, I do not believe in closed communion--something you would have found out if you had only asked. My only point in this whole communion discussion was to counter your assertion that church rolls were unbiblical.

One thought comes to mind:
"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him" (Pr. 18:13).

 

There was no harsh language, just facts. I never, if you read, and since I assume you have advanced higher education, have to believe you did read, said that church rolls were unbiblical. I said they were a sad standard for the Lords Supper, given the likely percentage of lost church members, and of those who do come occasionally, do not do one thing to help the ministry of the church.

Again, if you read, I said several times each church has the right, and the duty, to set its own policy on communion as lead by the Lord.

The only conclusion I can reach is that Pr 18:13 is staring at you in a mirrror.

 

Saturneptune,

Would you place no limits on participation in the Lord's Supper? If so, what should they be?

If I read you right, you grant local churches the right to set such limitations? Am I right that you think any limitations are wrong.

Would you insist that partakers be confessing believers?
Would you insist that partakers be scripturally baptized believers? I am assuming that you believe that there is a scriptural baptism.

Doesn't this all boil down to your preference that the decision to partake is solely up to the individual, and the local church should have no say-so?

 

You said, that

Sure sounds like you think a church roll is unbiblical!!

You then said the following harsh words:

So in your view, totally without any quotes from me in the issue:
(1) I am judging the level of evil believers have,
(2) I am judging other people's relationships to the Lord,
(3) I have a plank in my eye, indicating you think I am a hypocrite.
(4) I am not filled with the Holy Spirit.

If you had been more gracious, you might have had me as an ally in your discussion. As it is, I'm signing off this thread.

 

never mind posted in error

Just one comment. When it reaches a point of asking whether a fellow church member believes in Scriptural baptism or if there are any standards, then one needs to go before the church and get the policy on the Lord's Supper changed. The fact you ask questions you know the answer to says the issue greatly troubles you.

 

First of all, I was not amening...I was thanking John for a perspective on the issue I had not considered.

Second, I have not been in this discussion, so I am curious as to why you want my opinion?

I happened to be studying the concept of church membership when I saw John's comment about the Greek ekklesia, found it helpful, and thanked him for it.

Tell you what, if you ever want my higher educated opinion...just ask, but for now I'll return to my studying. As a seminary (one of those higher education places) professor once said, "Sundays keep coming."

 

Mike, the purpose of all the questions was to point out the logical end to an extreme open communion view, which invites one and all to participate. I doubt if you'd share communion with JWs and the like.

I'm sure you would limit participation to baptized believers, maybe even Baptist baptized believers. But I'm unclear about your position on Methodists, Presbyterians, and other evangelical denominations. So it was in a way a series of honest questions seeking your views.

At any rate, the point of all this is to say that once one agrees that some limitations are needed, then it's a matter of arguing over where they should be set. My view of what the limitations should be is clear--Local church members only. So far, all I can determine about your view is that you disagree with my view.

So if you'd care to, please say where you'd draw the line, and whom you'd permit to participate.

 

The question is very hypothetical since you know I believe each believer should examine himself or herself. And since each church sets its own policy by congregation vote, I cannot imagine my opinion making a bit of difference.

However, open communion does not mean to me a free for all, as some seem to like to define. Here are some groups I would exclude if it were up to me, which it is not.

1. The first group I would exclude are local church members that show no signs of a changed life, no interest in spiritual things, do nothing to support the work of the Lord, and have not darkened the door in eons. This is where our greatest difference of opinion rests. This is not a judgement of their salvation, because no man knows another's heart. However, well over half of our rolls would qualify for that.

2. The second group I would exclude are those who do not profess Jesus Christ as the incarnate Son of God, in fact, being God, present at the Creation and never created Himself. That takes care of your Mormons, JWs and the like.

3. Any faith that does not believe in the spreading of the Gospel.

4. Any faith that preaches a works salvation.

5. The point about the Baptism will take some thought and prayer on my part. I am not sure how to react to Protestant denominations that basically believe like us except for immersion.

The bottom line is the above points do not parallel a church roll. And as I said before, it is really a mute point what I think. I will get back to you on the Baptism.

 

Let's take our church and do some brainstorming. Let's say we've finally decided to formulate a specific policy with regard the Lord's Supper. You are a highly-respected and well-loved deacon who has some well-thought-out opinions on the issue. When you speak in the discussion, I guarantee you that your views will carry a great deal of weight. In all likelikhood, all of the things you mentioned in Post #77 would be adopted.

That means the policy says the church will deny participation in the LS to the following (the list). Except it won't, since it is basically up to each believer to decide. See the problem? You can't advocate that a church set its own policy, and have the believer to be the final decider.

The only way it can is if the policy is that each believer decides. But you don't want a free-for all, so there'll have to be restrictions. And round and round we go.

However----------if we adopt my closed communion policy, we won't have to stew over any of the questions we've been dealing with. We won't need your list in post #77. And our church can easily deal with the delinquent member problem you mentioned. And I agree with you about that.

 

Maybe each believer would have to decide about himself or herself based on the framework voted on by the local church. The problem I see with you church roll idea is that it encourages non believers and discourages believers in Christ from partaking. As far as dealing with the local members on the roll, before you act, think about the consequences due to relationships, friendships, and past ties to present faithful members. That indeed would be a very uncomfortable situation.

 

I think it's less a problem with the church roll idea than the inconsistent application. It is fixable.

The second problem you mention is a concern. A church which has gone for years without exercising discipline (which is another way of discipling), needs to carefully prepare its members for any change.

But rather than back away from it, the pastor and deacons should find out for sure how the majority of members feel about the issue. The way to do that is open discussion.