Is Church Membership Essential to Service?

Church "membership" is a man-made concept that is not found anywhere in the Bible. Legally speaking, there are two types of churches:

• Membership Churches
• Non-Membership Churches

In membership churches, the property of the church belongs to and is controlled by the members. In non-membership churches, the property is owned by a non-profit corporation and is controlled by the board of directors of that corporation. Maranatha churches and the churches that grew out of that movement are non-membership churches, as are many others.

 

Several corrections are in order. First with respect to the RCC, the RCC preaches a false doctrine as a church, as they have for 15 centuries. An individual Catholic church may preach a true salvation message, but their theology is radically unbiblical. For that reason (and others), they are not a true church. A true gospel church must first start with the true gospel. The RCC does not, regardless of the failures of some Baptist churches or the beauty of Catholic buildings or the kindness of Catholic people.

Second, as for church membership, it is clearly taught in Scripture, in various places such as Acts 6 where "from among you" shows that they knew who was a part and who was not. 1 Cor 5 where someone is to be "put out from among you" shows again that there was a clearly defined body. There are other passages that could as well be referenced. But Scripture makes it clear that the local church knew who was a part and who was not.

 

I agree here, but can't this be true in a non-membership church also...we all know who is a part and who is not...

 

The "true gospel", an interesting but highly-debatable concept. I suppose that your concept of the "true gospel" is the version of the gospel that you happen to prefer and choose to “find” in the Bible, including the need for church membership and ???

 

The true gospel has never been debated by orthodox theologians. THe true gospel is clear in Scripture and that should not be up for debate.

The Bible is the authority. The more you say, the more it seems that the Bible is not your authority. That is strange to me ... I must confess that I do not understand what seems to be an weak view of Scripture. I hope that you are simply misspeaking ...

 

Orthodox theologians = People who believe like Pastor Larry does.

I am not misspeaking—you are misreading my posts! Actually, my view of the Scriptures is probably more conservative than yours. Nonetheless, truth is truth wherever it is found, and good data is good data. One thing that I really like about the academic world is that those who disagree with my position on Biblical theology are much less likely to criticize me when they find my data to conflict with their theology. They either dig out their own data to refute mine, or they have the courtesy to respect both me and my data. But of course this is not an academic message board and my colleagues would be horrified if they knew that I posted to it. Perhaps I better quit posting before I get caught! But, of course, if they catch me here, they are here too! It must be getting late—what am I doing sitting at my computer posting to the Baptist Message Board at this hour of the night?

 

You have incorrectly indentified orthodox theologians. Just because I happen to be one does not mean I am the standard for them. The Scriptue defines for us what orthodox theology is. That is widely recognized.

As for misreading, it seems that you have been very clear. You have said teh same thing several different times in different ways, leading me to believe that I am not misunderstanding you. I believe you have some holes in your theology that you are not dealing with. I too love the academic world. This forum does not lend itself to that kind of exchange. However, I have "dug out the data" and shown your understanding of certain things to be inadequate to deal with the Scriptures. Your recourse is continually to the church fathers and definitions of orthodox theology. I see that as a way to avoid the issues at hand.

I am not criticizing the fact that your data disagrees with my theology. I am addressing the fact that your position has conflicts with the revealed word of God. A high view of God's word, IMO, gives deference to the word of God as the authority and that is what I say what I do. It is certainly not personal, nor is it a matter of disrespect for you or your data. It is a matter of discussion on a discussion board. If you don't want to discuss it, that is fine, but don't resort to blaming me ... please.

 

My position does NOT have conflicts with the revealed word of God, but only with your personal interpretation of it. A high view of God's word, in my opinion, gives deference to the word of God as the authority, and I diligently apply myself to the study of God’s word in order to learn the correct interpretation of it, recognizing that God is not a respecter of persons and that he has, throughout the history of the Church, manifested to those who truly and honestly seek to know the true interpretation, the knowledge of the true interpretation. Any interpretation that is unique to any specific period of history, is therefore, contrary to the truth.

I never suggested that it was personal in a personal sense, but only in a tactical sense. When one’s data is irrefutable, the opponent has the choice of recognizing the validity of his opponent’s argument, or attacking his opponent. We see these attacks all over the KJO threads, i.e., “Westcott and Hort were Satan-worshiping Catholic whoremongers” and “the translators of the ‘modern versions’ are tools of Satan whose goal is to steal the Word of God from the Christians and substitute it with lies from the pit of hell.” If I didn’t want to discuss theology with you, I wouldn’t do it, but I would appreciate it if you would employ tactics of a more academic nature. You post your interpretations of the Scriptures, but you do not post data to support your claim that your interpretations of the Scriptures are the correct interpretations. Unless you can post data that proves that your interpretations are NOT limited to a specific and limited period of history, I can only conclude, based on Scriptural principles, that your interpretations are false interpretations. Either God gave us the Scriptures in a form that they could be understood by all honest seekers of the truth throughout history, or He is a respecter of persons who gave us the Scriptures in a form that can only be understood by persons living in specific and limited periods of time.

These principles apply to All of the doctrines of the Bible, including church membership.

 

As I have said before, I think the "that's just your interpretation" is a copout. The Bible is explicitly clear on some things, essentially clear on some things, and obtuse on others. The doctrine of salvation is one of explicity clarity. There is no doubt about the essence of the true gospel, and for 1900 years, no one believed that the RCC and non RCC both believed the same gospel. They were (and still are) mutually exclusive.

Your comment about being unique to any specific period of history is tenuous, at best. I think it undermines the nature of truth. Truth is truth whether or not anyone believes it. But secondly, and more importantly, you assume that you know everything that was believed at any poitn in church history. I simply cannot buy that line.

I agree ... But as I have said, I dispute the validity of your data on biblical grounds.

Actually I have, but not in depth.

But notice the fallacy of your logic. It assumes that truth can never be misunderstood or that a proper understanding has always been preserved so that Craigbythesea in 2004 would have access to it. In the first case, clearly, truth has been misunderstood and still is. It is even possible that it is misunderstood on a widespread, if not practically universal spectrum. That does not change the truth. In the second case, there is no legitimacy to the argument that you have possession of all the doctrine that was taught in the early years of the church. That is a huge leap that cannot be justified by the data. So at this point, I would say that your data is invalid because it is insufficient.

Is it not possible that there were some early believers (besides the NT writers) who believed in eternal security who simply did not have their words recorded and preserved for church history? Of course it is possible. To say that it is not simply assumes too much information.

My argument has consistently been that Scripture alone is the authority, not Scripture with the approval of the church fathers, or anyone else. Historical theology plays an important role, but it is only a role. It is not a determiner of truth. The accurate exegesis of the words of the text are the authority for the church.

As for church membership, these things are indipsutable from Scripture:

1. The church knew who belonged to them and who didn't. The commands to "choose from among you" are meaningless if there was not an "you" to choose from. The fact that people were chose from the body means that the church knew who was in and who was not.

2. The church was required to expel from "among you" certain people (1 Cor 5). The method of excommunication from the body was the act of the body itself (not the plurals in 1 Cor 5). It can be logically deduced that entrance to the body was on teh same principle. Again, the fcat that one can be expelled from among you shows clearly that there was a "you," an acknowledged group of people who were in the church.

Other arguments can be made, but these should suffice to show that the NT clearly sets forth a pattern of individuals identifying themselves with a church in some sort of formal way.

The fact that you question these points leads to me to question whether or not you are a baptist. These are typical baptist distinctives that have been around for very long. I am not sure how one can be a Baptist and disagree with them, whether or not they are Scriptural (I grant that only for the sake of argument). But again, the accurate exegesis of Scripture is the basis for authority.

 

There is a very large church in a neighboring area that does not have a membership as most Baptist churches know it. They do not have a roster or membership list. However they have a list of those in Bible study and in Sunday School.It is modelled after the bretheren churches. It does discipline its membership. It is a church that has a combination of congregational and elders leadership. Some of the decisions are made by the leaders and others by the congregation.

 

If one were to read Spurgeon he would quickly discover the way Spurgeon did things was often very different than the way most Baptists churches in America do.

Baptist churches range all the way from Free Will to Calvinistic and from hyper-fundamentalist to liberal. Just because a man or church calls itself Baptist does not mean it is orthodox in its theology nor practice.

 

Agreed, but accurate exegesis does not ignore data simply because some conflicting data may possibly have existed at one time or another but was subsequently lost. Accurate exegesis takes into account all the data that is KNOWN to exist. And just because one or two of my Baptist beliefs are different than your Baptist beliefs does not make them or me any less Baptist.

 

Are we only saved because we belong to some denomination? The churches have Christians in them, not the other way around. A Christian is a Christian all day long, 24/7. The Church that we belong to is the Body of Christ Church. It is a spiritual church. The churches down here are for learning, and fellowship. Our good works that we are born to are not all in the church. People outside also need help. This is what Jesus did. He went about doing good. He spent time out among His people. Those in the church were "full of themselves".

A Christian can be a good Christian without ever walking through an earthly church door.

His Church is up there. He does not have a church down here, outside of us. We are His Church, in His Body, the Temple of God.

Most desire to fellowship with other’s of like faith. Some do not. God has a purpose for all. While “remnants” are for the Jew, God always has those that no one suspects of being His. It is He that gives us our instructions. Sometimes I go, and sometimes I don’t, I can worship Him anywhere at anytime. In fact I am closer to Him when I am alone, and studying His Word, learning of the “unsearchable riches of His grace” – ”Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. 8. Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9. And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:” Ephesians 7:8-9

 

What is, and what is not church membership? Are we speaking here of legal membership, as defined by the IRS, or some other kind of membership? Precisely what does the Bible actually say about church membership, and what does it not say?

 

James helps me put this into some perspective.

If I try to control my tongue (at church or away from church) then I am trying to control or "keep and eye on" my religion.

Where are the fatherless and where are the widows? Or where is anyone else that is less fortunate that I am? Sometimes in my life, they are everywhere and at other times they seem to be nowhere. Nevertheless I keep my eyes open for them.

Additionaly...

Paul said:

Present your bodies. I don't see any specifics but it is a tall order. My body is with me where ever I am. Not just at church on Sunday mornings.

Don't think to highly of myself. Another tall order. To me this is a 24 X 7 X 365 deal. Not just a Sunday go to meeting deal.

Doing these things don't seem to be limited to being a member of a local assembly of believers. If any man can do those things with or without regular attendance or a formal "membership", then it seems to me that he is approaching a pure religion and is doing his spiritual service.

It seems to me that people who feel the need to attend regularly, need to attend regularly and should be careful not to look down on those who don't feel that same need. Those who don't feel that same need are not necessarily in rebellion or being disobedient and should be careful not to unsettle those who feel strongly about attending meetings regularly.

I respect both types of folks.

Dave.

 

I absolutely agree with that. But I would further say that accurate exegesis is first and foremost dependent on the text itself. There have always been those who denied the text or misunderstood the text. Their opinions carry no weight in accurate exegesis.

Church membership in the NT is, IMO, formal identification as an active participant with a local body of believers.

 

I am not sure it was as formal as we make it though. Remember the church was comprised of several house churches. If people today were involved in that kind of structure there would be greater accountability anyway. Because of that I am not sure there was a need to record membership as we do.

 

The method of recording membership is not the issue. The issue is the existence of it. By formal, i don't mean paperwork and all that ... I mean that it was more than a "let's see who is here today." They knew who belonged to them and who didn't.