Voted in?

Where in Scripture does it say that someone has to be "voted in" to be a member of the local church? Can someone be a member of a local church if they haven't been "voted in"? </font>[/QUOTE]I believe Bill is just saying that a modern local NT church also votes in members. Not that a modern local NT church follows the NT church to vote in members.

Good catch though.

 

I believe that it is good "order". Just as most Baptist thinks that Robert's Rules of Order should be canonized.

 

Dear APuritanMindSet,
I was speaking of common accepted practice as it is TODAY in most Baptist Churches.What occurrs in many Baptist as well as other churches cannot be found in the Bible.I don't read about church chiors, special guest singers,Sunday school classes or teachers,bus ministries,or many other perfectly fine activities in the Bible but they are normal practice.

 

Thankyou GoldenDragon. I just thought I would give a clear answer myself to remove all doubt about my frame of reference.

 

I think most churches vote in members based on their profession of faith, move their letter, or by baptistm.

 

Happy to accomodate.

 

While voting in is not a commanded nor prohibited Scriptural practice, I do believe the practice of immediate voting in of a member (that is, a person walks the aisle and is voted in on the spot) should be shunned and is antithetical to Scripture, not to mention a relatively new phenomenon. The old norm for Baptists was screening membership candidates. The Baptist church is now the easiest organization in the world to join. It should be the hardest. It's harder to be a Rotarian, Kiwana, et.al., than it is to be a part of a local church. In Acts, it was said that people feared association with the church because of how mighty God was working in their midst. Hardly said of us today

 

I hope all the churches that are busy playing politics with votes will consider that the majority is not always right. Someone said "Majority rule is the Baptist way!" If that be so, then the Baptist way ain't God's way. Because sometimes God is in the minority. The majority cried "Crucify him." Whether your church is democratic, theocratic or whatever, the decisions of the church should always seem good to the Holy Spirit and the whole church. See Acts 15:55-28! Has someone ever checked if Roberts Rules of Order are really scriptural? So when you vote at church, be sure you don't vote against the will of God. I still like the Ethiopian eunuch! He got baptized scripturally without a vote, without "church authority". They just went ahead and did it on the eunuch's profession of faith! Amen! God's will had to be done and there had to be no business meeting about it. When the Lord wants something done, it's gonna get done without a vote. Sometimes the Lord wants something done quick, and He doesn't have time till the next business meeting. Isn't that right? Sometimes the Lord wants instant church obedience.

 

Acts 2:41 "...and that day there were added about three thousand souls."

Lots of voting that day

Rob

 

Well said Ingo!

 

Although isn't the "voting in" part of becoming a member more of a ritual these days? I agree with Ingo, but Ive never been in a church where any membership vote ever had a negative response. Every membership vote Ive ever been in has been unanimous.

 

How would you feel if a "MAJORITY" of Homo's showed up at your next "business meeting" voting for their agenda???

"Membership" has it's purposes.

 

Shouldn't the "vote" to grant church membership to someone simply be an acknowledgement that as far as those examining the candidate can tell, the applicant is indeed a member of the body of Christ?

 

Common statement: "One man and God make a majority." Not quite correct: God is a majority by Himself; those on God's side are automatically in the majority, "where two or three are gathered together" in His Name, that is, under His authority. Speaking of authority: Philip gladly recognized the authority of the Lord expressed through the Jerusalem church, of which he was a member and by which he was sent out. Note Acts 8:
14-16; he did not tell Peter and John, who were sent by the Jerusalem fellowship, "This is my ministry; no help wanted"; instead, he recognized the need for good church continuity and order. No way to phone or telegraph back when he baptized the eunuch; but how did the account get in the Bible if he did not report it back to his home church? Is not Peter's question at the home of Cornelius a form of "voting"? "Can any man forbid water that these should be baptized . . .?"
Does this not imply that a negative "vote," if sustainable by reason, would have prevented the baptism? No, we should seldom see a negative; but if we do not in some fashion receive members by mutual agreement, Me4Him's point is just one aspect of what might happen. Romans 14:1 is an authorization to receive or reject members, on a doctrinal basis. Some form of vote was taken in Acts 6, for "the saying pleased the whole multitude." How else would that be known?

My wife's brother (now with the Lord) was a minister in a group that refused to have a
"church roll." I once told him, in Christian friendship, that since there were more Baptists in the family living close than he had total people in his group, we might all show up in one business meeting, vote him out, vote me in and make it a Baptist church. He was quite put out, and said "You can't do that! You're not members!" And my obvious question was - how do you know we're not? Not all Greek authorities would agree here, but the language is accurate whether my translation is or not: Acts 1:15;
"The number of names [not people - RCB] upon the it were about a hundred and twenty." It is an idiom, of course, but would it not bear the idea
"upon the list" since it is "names"? This was a business meeting, and the action was based directly on 3 OT Scriptures (all from Psalms).
'
On a slightly related notion; is there any record of a successor to any other apostle except Judas?
The qualifications set forth here preclude any after the death of those who saw the risen Lord,
and actually any not baptized by John the Baptist (v. 22). Paul acknowledged the irregularity of his apostleship, I Cor. 15:8-9 - "out of due season." Whatever else that may mean, it is clearly not a claim to be a "successor" to any of the other 12. Aren't today's "apostles" even more irregular?

Well, this topic has already covered "a multitude of sins," so let's put on our nightcaps and pray for great days in the Lord tomorrow. Best to all - Charles - Ro. 8:28

 

Strangely enough, I visited a Brethren church this morning. They have no membership roll, no paid pastor either (for them to vote out). It's been in existance for nearly sixty years seemingly without the chaos your hypothetical scenario above suggests.

All they do is acknowledge that a person who evidences true faith in Christ is a member of the body of Christ, and thus all true believers are members of the local church by virtue of their fellowship and participation within the church.

It simply sounds biblical to me.

 

Every single person who shows up to vote at our business meetings is a homo. I wouldn't have it any other way. I wouldn't want Canis familaris voting in our church...or even in our church in most cases.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Joseph you are a funny guy.