What to say to someone who has "deconverted"

Yes we can. Most people don't get saved sitting in the pew. As members of the body of Christ (the Church) we are to take the gospel outside of the walls of the church and bring saved people in. Although unsaved people should certainly be allowed to attend worship, the church is made up of saved people. When we assemble as a church, it is to worship, fellowship and be discipled, so that we are equipped to preach to the lost. I think you may be confusing the Church with the church building.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head, Johnathan, and I think you're quite right. I beleive we ARE arguing the same point.

I don't know about that. Many will argue that people who are saved get witnessed to outside, but come to a church prior to making a commitment to follow Christ. I myself accepted the Lord after attending church.

Uhhh, isn't that exactly what I said?

 

And again 1+1=2 has to be explained. :BangHead:

 

Yet another backhanded revmitchell attempt at being insulting.

 

Then leave the non-Christian kids at home.

 

Then I guess the New Testament church isn't based on the word of God, because the model we see in the NT is the church going out into the world to do evangelism, not inviting the world into the church.

It's actually the conclusion of a poem that's used in philosophy classes to illustrate what happens when one makes a silly argument like you did.

Why? They're not family.

 

Apples an skyscrapers. I never once made a criticism about evangelism. I address the notion that unsaved people shouldn't be allowed in the pews. A church that doesn't allow unsaved people to come to church is not a scriptural church.

I'm aware of that. I noted that Jesus dined so often with sinners that he was called a drunkard and glutton. It's in scripture, yet you thought it was silly.

Remind me never to accept an invitation to dinner at your house. If you come to dinner at my house, you'll be treated like family. "When I was a stranger, you welcomed me".

 

Straw man. Several of us have already explained to you that nobody is talking about not allowing the unsaved to visit.

Just to clarify, I said that your argument and your claim was silly, not the scripture we're still waiting on you to provide.

Oh, I don't think you have to worry about a dinner invitation from me.

Thanks, I think I'll pass.

 

It is a sick church in need of serious help or destruction.

 

?? I likewise have said the exact same thing as everyone, yet you're still arguing that my point is wrong. It is your evangelism comment that is the straw man. I think your'e arguing just for the same of arguing.

Yet just above, you said the exact same thing. And you're asking me to privide scripture when your'e saying the same thing that I am? Whassupwiddat?

Now THAT's a silly argument.

Indeed. A church that doesn't allow unsaved people to come to church is a sick church in need of serious help itself.

 

How about the Lord's Supper? Do you think we ought to invite the lost to participate?

 

I think that's a topic better suited for another thread.

 

Dizzy yet?

 

Amen.............

 

Are you done with yor loppipop yet?

 

No, not dizzy. Just sad for his church and concerned for his pastor.

 

Oh well the merry go round will get you that way if you stay on it long enough.

 

You're the one who's accusing me falsely and making an argument about it. I never once said it was okay to accept nonbelievers as members. As with you, my church doesn't allow people to join our church unless they have a testimony, and/or born visible fruit, are baptized, and have been under guidance. Yet you're accusing me of being unbiblical on that topic.

 

No, I think it's getting close to where I get off.

To be fair to JohnV, sometimes, when you're in the middle of something, it's hard to see it objectively. So he may sincerely think he's on the right track.

I know we did. I don't know how much you know about my church's history, but we broke off from another church when that church fell into heresy, due in large part to becoming very seeker sensitive. We found that we were so concerned with entertaining the goats and making them feel welcome, that they were having more of an affect on us than we were on them.

Like the proverbial frog in the kettle, the water would get just a little hotter every time we compromised (you know, to make the lost feel more comfortable). It really was so gradual that we just didn't notice.

Sadly, by the time we did notice, the church was in shambles, we spent more time entertaining goats than we did feeding sheep, and the twenty-four of us who tried in vain to bring our concerns to the leadership had no choice but to leave.

It took us many months of prayer and Bible study to realize what we'd done wrong and what we should have been doing. Those stringent membership requirements I mentioned earlier were one result of that.

Our purpose is not to ostracize anyone or embarrass anyone or even to make anyone feel bad, but to keep our membership limited to those who meet Biblical requirements for membership. I don't understand when that became a bad thing.

 

I concur.

That's almost exactly my church's story. We started as a church plant, but made a move to be autonomous after a pastoral change who wasn't adhering to baptist disctinctives. I wouldn't go so far as to call them heretical, but compromising baptist doctrine was a red flag.

I think I understand your concern much better now. Thank you for sharing. I think it's possible to feed the goats without infecting the sheep, but it's often a challenge. Not all churches are necessarily up to that challenge.

I don't think it is, and you have my apologies if I gave you that impression.