Non-membership (much like Paedocommunion ideas) is a direct assualt on 1) the government of the church, 2) the officers of the church, and 3) the authority of Christ.
All of this also falls under church government ideas.
Quote:
|
I openly invite anyone and everyone to show me a church that takes church discipline more seriously that MBC.
|
Any church that has a membership.
As Fred said, "Further, if belonging to a church is a covenant act, where are the witnesses? The "documentation"?"
This is EXCEEDINGLY importnant. One should retrace Westminster and reread the Solemn Laegue and Covenant as a good example, or any of the witnesses in the OT propounding covenant rededication (such as with Josiah's Reformation in 2 Kings 22-23).
Dittos to Contra_Mundum.
Quote:
|
If someone attends MBC, then they are automatically under MBC's authority.
|
There is nothing in the recorded history of the church (i.e. includes the OT and NT) that demonstrate anything even remotely paralleling that statement. It is quite the opposite, even to the form of abuses seen in Episcopacy and Roman Catholicism. The Ethiopian Eunuch, after being baptized, was not part of any local body. Walking in or out of the synagogue would not have made him any more part of that synagogue than if he just stood where he was baptized for the rest of his life. The local rabbi would have laughed at the thought that someone could have just waltzed in and "individually" made the distinction that they are part of that body.
Scott syas, "The scriptures clearly distinguish between the local church and the universal body of Christ. There is a difference. One needs to establish this distinction first when trying to understand the doctrine."
This is critical. Without making the universal/local distinction, one will always miss membership (except in heaven). Also, be advised, this is exactly what the Federal Visionists do to propose thier theological view (which is abberant in terms of the local church).
Personally, I think the sin of individualism is always "evolving" to cope with society's current trends and attempts to market the church and the Gospel to a fallen world (no membership = no accountability). One of the ways in which the sin of individualism is continually breaking down the church of Jesus Christ is the manner in which Christians wield it as a sword or license to dictate how they may or may not live; both in the context of their own lives and also within the local church. There is a proper use of individualism, but oftentimes it is one of the sins that Christians must take captive, and mortify. Think about it - if the church has no members, and thye are not formally communicated, under the authority of the officers, etc., then they are "sorta excommunicated" and simply leave thier church for another. It winds up continually splintering the church.
Some churches include baptism as a privilege of membership. The Scriptures teach that membership in a church does not necessarily include baptism, as is with the case with Paul and the Ethiopian eunuch. However, other cases of mass conversion (3000 and 5000) demonstrate that those baptized were added to the church. In those instances careful record-keeping was done by Luke (the Spirit carried historian). Luke is meticulous in his account of gathering information about the early church. The early church knew exactly how many people professed to be saved. They knew the included number of the local visible church. You may want to check on your own the Scriptures in Acts 1:15; Acts 2:41; Acts 2:47; Acts 4:4; Acts 5:14. The inclusion of men in the church in these instances was not the invisible number of the elect redeemed for all ages, but in the visible manifestation of the local body at Jerusalem. Possibly, knowing the manner in which the covenant is established and propagated, this is a record of men as federal heads of their families, which would have made the covenanted members of the church quite larger, excluding Acts 5:14 since it specifically mentions both men and women. (It is wise to note that Luke is explicit and careful in each instance of recording events in the early church.)
The Scriptures make a distinction of those who belong to different churches, and who are associated in each location. They were publicly known to be visibly connected with a particular local body. Rom. 16:1 says, "I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea." Phil. 4:3 says, "And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life." Col. 4:9 states, "With Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you." In these instances Pheobe, Clement and Onesimus are singled out as those who are particularly involved and associated with the church at Rome, in Phillipi and Colossae. In Colossians 4:9, Paul is emphatic, "With Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you." Onesimus is not singled out as one of the elect of all ages, but on of those brethren at Colossae. The word Paul uses here is "ek" which is a primary preposition denoting origin (the point where action or motion proceeds). Onesimus origin, the place where he is out of or where he proceeds from is the unique relationship he has with the church at Colossae. If someone were to point you out, what church would you be associated with as a covenanted member?
The local meeting house (or local church) is the visible expression of a defined group of believers and their children in a given geographic location. (cf. Rev. 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14.) The geographic location defined the group of believers at that location. The church which is at Laodicea, Ephesus, etc. The letter sent by John to the seven churches was not written to believers in heaven. It was circulated among a specific geographic location in Asia Minor. This letter was not written to a structure or building, but a group of believers which made up the 7 churches in those geographic areas.
The Scriptures identify a visible organization within a given geographic location. This would not be possible if the sin of individuality was given permission. How could the church appoint anyone to a given office within a local church in a geographic position if they did not know the person, or, could not visibly identify their commitment to the body of believers? How could a minister be appointed over a specific group of people, and oversee a specific flock, if the sin of individuality was given license? It would be impossible. The hierarchy of the church becomes immediately irrelevant and chaos would reign if individuality were the norm. Preachers and deacons could then be self-appointed. However, the structure of the church necessitates the organization of the church. The basic structure of the church is Christ > Elders (Presbytery) > Deacons (Servants of the Presbytery) > Congregation. (Where Elders are grouped based on geographic local for purposes of oversight for a number of given churches.) Without a formal structure, any man, or woman for that matter, could appoint himself or herself. If they could appoint themselves what rights do the congregation have? How could they have any visible rights at all (such as electing officers in the church)? It would be impossible to exclude anyone from coming into the church and voting since there would be no definable fellowship.
More here...
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Puritan...Membership.htm http://www.apuritansmind.com/Puritan...rchMembers.htm
[Edited on 9-30-2005 by webmaster]