# Is Formal Church Membership Biblical?



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 21, 2019)

The churches I've attended in my life are split about 50-50 on whether they practiced formal church membership.  Half simply had informal membership whereby if one had a believable testimony of being a Christian and attended regularly, one was considered a member.  Not only was formal membership not required for any service or leadership positions in the church, formal membership was not defined or available.  The other half of churches I've attended have had some kind of formal membership process where joining included a testimony of salvation and baptism, and usually agreement with a statement of faith and often a membership covenant.

I can see how formal membership can be useful if the church has a congregational form of government or other democratic processes for decision making, selecting leaders, approving budgets, etc.  I've also seen churches use formal membership as a way to encourage greater accountability, giving, and service.  The biggest downsides I've seen are churches with formal membership often fail to see that a member's service to the kingdom of God may be outside of that specific local church, and that churches with formal membership are more likely to attempt accountability for legalisms and denominational peculiarities present in their covenants and statements of faith.  They may claim the Bible as their sole source of faith and practice, but then they use membership as an accountability tool for stuff that is not in the Bible.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 22, 2019)

We have no biblical model that could apply in this generation. The churches of biblical days were home churches. We don't even have a biblical tithe model. Even their givings were not for within, but rather to go to the poor.  I am not implying that what we see in churches today is wrong, only that it did not come from the bible. They had no power bill, payroll, cleaning, maintenance, etc, to cover.  I suspect it was more social, less man on the podium.


----------



## Madman (Oct 22, 2019)

If you are baptized then you are a member of the church.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 22, 2019)

Madman said:


> If you are baptized then you are a member of the church.



what if you are a believer, but not baptized?


----------



## Madman (Oct 22, 2019)

Do you desire to be baptized?

Why aren't you baptized?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 22, 2019)

Madman said:


> Do you desire to be baptized?
> 
> Why aren't you baptized?



I didn't say I wasn't.  I just wondered about your view on those who are not.


----------



## Madman (Oct 22, 2019)

My view does not matter, baptism has always been entry into the church.
Tertullian said if a man claimed to be a christian and refused to be baptized then he is of questionable faith.


----------



## bobocat (Oct 22, 2019)

Act 2 41,42

41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.


----------



## bobocat (Oct 22, 2019)

Baptism not required to be saved but is the first step of obedience when saved I truly believe.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 22, 2019)

> Then he brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.”



While I believe that baptism is a great step in your walk with God, I do not believe it to be necessary for salvation.  I am not sure I know what you mean by  ' entry into the church'

Apparently belief, confession and repentance is all that God requires for salvation.  Would you agree?


----------



## bobocat (Oct 22, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> While I believe that baptism is a great step in your walk with God, I do not believe it to be necessary for salvation.  I am not sure I know what you mean by  ' entry into the church'
> 
> Apparently belief, confession and repentance is all that God requires for salvation.  Would you agree?


I believe God's word agrees with that.


----------



## Big7 (Oct 22, 2019)

Dang.. I ALMOST bit.


----------



## welderguy (Oct 22, 2019)

There is a baptism of the Holy Ghost and then there is the symbol of that, which is the emersion in the water. If we have the former, we're told to do the latter.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 22, 2019)

welderguy said:


> There is a baptism of the Holy Ghost and then there is the symbol of that, which is the emersion in the water. If we have the former, we're told to do the latter.



I have always believed that baptism was the symbol of Christ dying, burial and resurrection from the dead.  

How do you see a believer being baptisted in the Holy Ghost?  How does one know?  And how would a good dunking emulate that baptism?   What scripture can you give me that backs up this belief?


----------



## Madman (Oct 22, 2019)

Big7 said:


> Dang.. I ALMOST bit.


Dont do it.


----------



## Madman (Oct 22, 2019)

God needs no e of the sacraments. 


bobocat said:


> Baptism not required to be saved but is the first step of obedience when saved I truly believe.


----------



## welderguy (Oct 22, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I have always believed that baptism was the symbol of Christ dying, burial and resurrection from the dead.
> 
> How do you see a believer being baptisted in the Holy Ghost?  How does one know?  And how would a good dunking emulate that baptism?   What scripture can you give me that backs up this belief?



Baptism of the Spirit is the transformation from death unto life. A spiritual resurrection. That is what, as you said, water baptism symbolizes. We are risen with Christ.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 22, 2019)

welderguy said:


> Baptism of the Spirit is the transformation from death unto life. A spiritual resurrection. That is what, as you said, water baptism symbolizes. We are risen with Christ.



I thought salvation was the transformation of death to life.

do you see baptism of the Holy Ghost as a separate event in the life of a follower, or is it instilled in every follower when they are saved?

I sure would like to see scripture to back that line of thought.  I haven't heard anyone say that baptism of the Holy Ghost was the transformation to life.


----------



## StriperAddict (Oct 23, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I thought salvation was the transformation of death to life.
> 
> do you see baptism of the Holy Ghost as a separate event in the life of a follower, or is it instilled in every follower when they are saved?
> 
> I sure would like to see scripture to back that line of thought.  I haven't heard anyone say that baptism of the Holy Ghost was the transformation to life.



When we were born again we were born/baptized into Christ and into His Spirit, so to say that such a (non-water) baptism is transformational is an accurate account of what Jesus did for us AND to us. 

1 Corinthians 12:13
For by *one* *Spirit* we were all baptized into *one* body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of *one* *Spirit*.

Rom 6:3 states ... Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?  

That's spiritual baptism, or non water immersion into Christ.  (Water baptism is the celebration of that!)


----------



## Madman (Oct 23, 2019)

Perhaps one should read the Church Fathers on this topic.  Much could be learned.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 23, 2019)

JMHO, but there's no such thing as the "Formal" church recognized in scripture.  There are those who call Christ, Lord, who's actions confirm He is their master, and those who don't. Those who He is their Lord, He knows, and they know him.   Those are The Church.  All the rest regarding doctrinal differences, weighing history and traditions, etc serves as nothing more than rabbit trails where the lost lead the lost, either knowingly or unknowingly to destruction.  The thief on the cross is the ONLY person in all of the NT that Christ assured would be with him in paradise.  He was not baptized, showed any sign of being filled by the HS, knew no doctrine, nor checked any other of the "boxes" we are so fond of touting for requirements for salvation.  We should all keep that in mind and be humbled by it.  God will save who he wants, when he wants, where he wants, and how he wants and all our "status" we impart on ourselves due to doctrinal interpretation, historical lineage, etc.  be d*mn*d, because that's just what it is in the best case scenario: The Holy being interpreted by the unloving, unholy= d*mn*d.


----------



## Madman (Oct 23, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> JMHO, but there's no such thing as the "Formal" church recognized in scripture.  There are those who call Christ, Lord, who's actions confirm He is their master, and those who don't. Those who He is their Lord, He knows, and they know him.   Those are The Church.  All the rest regarding doctrinal differences, weighing history and traditions, etc serves as nothing more than rabbit trails where the lost lead the lost, either knowingly or unknowingly to destruction.  The thief on the cross is the ONLY person in all of the NT that Christ assured would be with him in paradise.  He was not baptized, showed any sign of being filled by the HS, knew no doctrine, nor checked any other of the "boxes" we are so fond of touting for requirements for salvation.  We should all keep that in mind and be humbled by it.  God will save who he wants, when he wants, where he wants, and how he wants and all our "status" we impart on ourselves due to doctrinal interpretation, historical lineage, etc.  be d*mn*d, because that's just what it is in the best case scenario: The Holy being interpreted by the unloving, unholy= d*mn*d.


 
There is a formal church recognized in scripture.  Matthew 16:18 "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." 

Apparently Christ did form a formal church, he then gave Peter the keys, which represents the church's authority, until he returns.  Matthew 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 

We later see in Acts 15:24 the first council, which met in Jerusalem, 
Acts 15:24  "We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said."

It appears that Christ did set up a church and gave it authority. 

As for the thief on the cross, he had the desire to be baptized but because of his predicament, was unable.  The church has shown 3 methods of baptism which is baptism with water, baptism of desire, (as the thief desired), and baptism of blood, (the martyrs).  God does not need baptism to save us we need baptism if possible.

Acts 29:16 "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name." 

Baptism washes away our sins, and gives us entry into the church.  At least that is what the church has always taught, the Scriptures point to, and what the church fathers wrote about.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> There is a formal church recognized in scripture.  Matthew 16:18 "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."



Just what was Christ calling 'this rock'?  It wasn't a man name Simon Bar Jonah.  

maybe it was this foundational truth....  Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 

the church has to be anchored on the truth of the statement that Peter made, that Jesus is the Christ. 

I know the teaching of the RC church and I believe the Orthodox church has been that Jesus conferred to Peter the power to forgive sins. I don't hold to that belief though.


----------



## StriperAddict (Oct 24, 2019)

Outside of the epistles and the scriptures themselves we find we can put over emphasis on man and especially early church so called fathers. They were not infallible. The simultaneous saint/sinner is nowhere found in cannon but comes along as some seem to not take account of what is the flesh and its influence on believers and their often stumblings. 
Perhaps that's for another time.
God is building His church with jars of clay that He qualifies in His covenant, by the work of His Spirit in renewed, no longer stone ... hearts.


----------



## Madman (Oct 24, 2019)

If


NE GA Pappy said:


> Just what was Christ calling 'this rock'?  It wasn't a man name Simon Bar Jonah.
> 
> maybe it was this foundational truth....  Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
> 
> ...


If the apostles were not given authority then who was Jesus speaking of?

The church, east and west, has always believed this because it is biblical.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 24, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> JMHO, but there's no such thing as the "Formal" church recognized in scripture.  There are those who call Christ, Lord, who's actions confirm He is their master, and those who don't. Those who He is their Lord, He knows, and they know him.   Those are The Church.



Have you changed your view espoused so clearly in June and July that the scripture "Do not give up meeting together as some are in the habit of doing" is best fulfilled through attendance in a formal church context - that it is not really fulfilled in meetings of believers in other contexts?  The main question in that thread was "Is Church attendance required by Scripture?"  At that time you seemed adamant that Christian fellowship outside of church was insufficient.  But your former view requires a distinction between meetings of a formal church and meetings of believers outside of a formal church context.

Further, if there is no such thing as a "formal church" then what is the body that the church elders "direct the affairs" of per 1 Timothy 5:17?  Are we to understand that the church elders direct the all the affairs of everyone who serve Christ as their Lord and master?  My understanding is that every local body of elders directs the ministries of their local church.  But since the "head of every man is Christ", every Christian man directs the affairs of his household, including any ministries he has that are not part of his local church.  But your view would give the local eldership much broader authority.  One practical example is what kind of school a family's children attend - home school, public school, or private school.  My view is that this is a family decision and that a local church is overstepping the bounds of their authority to attempt to issue directives here.  But if there is no formal church, my understood boundaries between parental and elder authority do not exist.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 24, 2019)

I remember a lot of good threads on this and attendance way back when.  The "head pastor" is not a biblical position.  There is no local head pastor in the bible.  The biblical "church" was a community of believers with regional structure to coordinate efforts.  I do think there was regularly structured gatherings where reading occurred, just not sure how it all went.  I don't think membership to a local body is required biblically.  It has been over 10 years since I have participated in that.  But, I never stopped giving and serving as part of "the church," just not involved with "a" church.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 24, 2019)

Matthew 16:19 
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Isaiah 22:22
I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. What he opens, no one can shut; what he shuts, no one can open.

Revelation 3:7
To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of the One who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What He opens, no one will shut; and what He shuts, no one will open.


----------



## StriperAddict (Oct 24, 2019)

Can believers be equipped by other believers workout buildings made with hands?
The deepening of that which brings life is what our Lord is doing, is ultimately responsible for and is why in someplace the written word says, you need no one to "teach" you, and that we have an unction, or better, filling in the Spirit by the One who builds up the BOC by grace thru faith.
Paul had to address that carnal group of Corinthians much for horrendous doctrine and defaming the bread and cup celebration because of their drunkenness etc., (and still called them SAINTS.)   It wasnt hallowed halls of liturgical structure that redirected the Corinthians but elders, leaders and an early church apostle who drove truth into their mind in much need of renewal. 
Passion, truth, love and the real knowledge of the grace of God with the power and freedom of the gospel is welcomed wherever saints find themselves. That is church happening by the power of the Spirit  ...  within every believer. 

Even 2 or more. That spells church also.


----------



## Madman (Oct 24, 2019)

JB0704 said:


> I remember a lot of good threads on this and attendance way back when.  The "head pastor" is not a biblical position.  There is no local head pastor in the bible.  The biblical "church" was a community of believers with regional structure to coordinate efforts.  I do think there was regularly structured gatherings where reading occurred, just not sure how it all went.  I don't think membership to a local body is required biblically.  It has been over 10 years since I have participated in that.  But, I never stopped giving and serving as part of "the church," just not involved with "a" church.


you might want to read source documents from the first few centuries.  We can see in Acts that there was a group, who at least believed they had been given authority over the flock.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> you might want to read source documents from the first few centuries.  We can see in Acts that there was a group, who at least believed they had been given authority over the flock.



Elders.  Yes.  No “head pastor.”


----------



## Madman (Oct 24, 2019)

JB0704 said:


> Elders.  Yes.  No “head pastor.”



So do we agree that Christ set up a church and gave it the keys of the kingdom before he ascended?


----------



## Madman (Oct 24, 2019)

Not sure how we got from church membership to baptism to head pastor.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> So do we agree that Christ set up a church and gave it the keys of the kingdom before he ascended?



Yes.  But the current configuration does not look like the NT church.  When one man “plants” a church n claims God anointed him and his vision is the supreme directional driver then something is horribly awry.  That scenario represents most modern churches, which are filled with congregants who don’t care.  I found other ways to gather with believers, give, share, etc.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> Not sure how we got from church membership to baptism to head pastor.



I have a history of derailing the best of threads in here.  Been a while.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 24, 2019)

JB0704 said:


> I have a history of derailing the best of threads in here.  Been a while.




JB = CTD.  certified thread derailer.   He holds the patent.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 24, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> JB = CTD.  certified thread derailer.   He holds the patent.



Heck yea, I like that title!


----------



## Madman (Oct 24, 2019)

JB0704 said:


> Yes.  But the current configuration does not look like the NT church.  When one man “plants” a church n claims God anointed him and his vision is the supreme directional driver then something is horribly awry.  That scenario represents most modern churches, which are filled with congregants who don’t care.  I found other ways to gather with believers, give, share, etc.


They aren't the church at least not the church that Christ started.  We have Biblical and historical evidence of what that looked like and what it.is today.  Those teachings, writings, and traditions have been passed down for 2000 years.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 25, 2019)

Israel said:


> In the interest of understanding you better...when you say "local church" do you mean that which is identified by its locale? That group of believers that occupy whatever given area they happen to find themselves in, and not according to denominational (or even "non-denominational") banners?
> 
> Along the lines of what _may be_ interpreted here?
> 
> For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:



By "local church" I mean a group of believers that meets together, understands itself to be a church, has elders fulfilling the basic leadership functions, and seeks to fulfill the Great Commission and "prepare God's people for works of service."

The proliferation of many local churches and denominations, often present in a single town, is an unfortunate result of fallen human nature.  But I don't see any Biblical basis for this invalidating the status of individual local churches as long as they fulfill the basic criteria outlined above.  

There does seem to be a Biblical pattern of only having a single church in each city.  This is descriptive of how things were rather than prescriptive of how things always need to be.  The Apostles in Scripture saw part of their work as establishing a church in each city.  This is not the same as a Scriptural directive that there can only be one church in each city.  Suppose, for example, that a group who rejected the teaching of Jezebel had wanted to split from the original church in Thyatira.  There would be liberty in Christ for them to do that.  When Barnabas and Paul had a disagreement in ministry, they went their separate ways.  Scripture says, "Surely there must be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval."


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> The proliferation of many local churches and denominations, often present in a single town, is an unfortunate result of fallen human nature.



Men refusing to submit to the word of God.
Men refusing to submit to the correct teaching of the church as it has been passed down since the Apostles.
Men choosing to believe what feels good to their "itching ears".
Men desiring to elevate themselves.
Men wanting to fill their own pockets.
Etc., Etc., Etc.



LittleDrummerBoy said:


> But I don't see any Biblical basis for this invalidating the status of individual local churches as long as they fulfill the basic criteria outlined above.



What if they are not "valid"?  The above fits several groups that do not follow Christian doctrine as laid out since the Apostles and many chose to call those groups non-christian.  Many modern groups chose not to follow the teachings as laid out since the Apostles and yet call themselves christian.

It is all a little to schizophrenic for me.

It is impossible to look at nothing but Holy Scripture and develop a clear view of what the church that Christ started looks like.  Scripture is not a "playbook" for absolutely everything that should be done.  Vast amounts of historical documents show us exactly the form and practice of the ancient Christian Church, but many chose to discount these documents because they do not fit what we would like them to fit.


God's peace.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 25, 2019)

Is the  Cowboy Church movement of the Baptist Church the result of fallen human nature or a venue to minister the Great Commission? The Methodist Church was once a movement within the Anglican Church. What about them? The Church of Christ was once an effort to regroup all differences under one worship. Fallen nature? Lutherans were once Catholics. etc....


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 25, 2019)

Madman said:


> Men refusing to submit to the word of God.
> Men refusing to submit to the correct teaching of the church as it has been passed down since the Apostles.
> Men choosing to believe what feels good to their "itching ears".
> Men desiring to elevate themselves.
> ...



It seems to me that you believe that each service should be done and run exactly as the apostles ran their services.  I don't think that is mandated in scripture.

Is it possible that one man's itching ear is another man's revelation of scripture?


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> It seems to me that you believe that each service should be done and run exactly as the apostles ran their services.  I don't think that is mandated in scripture.
> 
> Is it possible that one man's itching ear is another man's revelation of scripture?


I think it should be run according to how Christ mandated it be run.

There is a lot more to Christianity than just what is in Scripture.   A lot of history.

Sounds like you believe if it is not in Scripture then it didnt happen.

So 20000 "christian" denominations are all right?  After all they are just "another man's revelation ".  I'll stand with 2000+ years of belief and Holy Scripture" over "another man's revelation".


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 25, 2019)

Madman said:


> I think it should be run according to how Christ mandated it be run.
> 
> There is a lot more to Christianity than just what is in Scripture.   A lot of history.
> 
> ...


Even if only half of them turn out to be right, look how many more souls will be saved in the process! This from all of those various denominations and their missionaries.
A soul brought from God through Jesus, is a saved soul!


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2019)

We do realize that just because it is either in Scripture or not in Scripture has nothing to do with what some people really believe.  I have yet to see where the passing of the plate is in the bible.


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> Even if only half of them turn out to be right, look how many more souls will be saved in the process! This from all of those various denominations and their missionaries.
> A soul brought from God through Jesus, is a saved soul!


 what if none of them turn out to be right?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 25, 2019)

Madman said:


> what if none of them turn out to be right?


They would still deliver souls to God. Most denominations at least offer salvation by grace in some form or faction.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 25, 2019)

gordon 2 said:


> Is the  Cowboy Church movement of the Baptist Church the result of fallen human nature or a venue to minister the Great Commission? The Methodist Church was once a movement within the Anglican Church. What about them? The Church of Christ was once an effort to regroup all differences under one worship. Fallen nature? Lutherans were once Catholics. etc....




The Reformation was brought about more from the fallen human nature of the Catholics than the fallen human nature of the reformers.  

But not every new church is attributable to the fallen nature of one party of another.  Sometimes, it is just a good faith effort to apply the Great Commission in a new circumstance or to an unreached audience.  But then one can always ask, "Why have existing churches failed to reach that audience?"  It doesn't matter.  The gospel is for every people, tribe, nation, and tongue.  If existing churches fail to reach a given audience, God will raise up a new group that will.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 25, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> The Reformation was brought about more from the fallen human nature of the Catholics than the fallen human nature of the reformers.
> 
> But not every new church is attributable to the fallen nature of one party of another.  Sometimes, it is just a good faith effort to apply the Great Commission in a new circumstance or to an unreached audience.  But then one can always ask, "Why have existing churches failed to reach that audience?"  It doesn't matter.  The gospel is for every people, tribe, nation, and tongue.  If existing churches fail to reach a given audience, God will raise up a new group that will.




How about if the "unreached audience"  has always been the motivation since Paul... and also the need of rereach,  the sinner-saint-in error-audience.

What is serious is when the revivalists needs revival, but in the name of the Great Commission, continue with outreach. Or when the fallen don't know they are and still think with misplaced certainty that they know what is bound or loosed in heaven.

The Hebrews were an up and down people. You would think that Christians would not suffer this .... yet God does say he will meet out judgement after his people are redeemed.  So the up-down nature of man has not changed much due to being Christian. And this is the justification for many denominations-- many revivals perhaps: God's people still loose their saltiness and on many occasions they don't know or accept it well -- even being stiff necked about it.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 25, 2019)

gordon 2 said:


> How about if the "unreached audience"  has always been the motivation since Paul... and also  the need of re-reached-sinner-in error- audience. What is serious is when the revivalists needing revival, but in the name of the Great Commission, continue with outreach. Or when the fallen don't know they are and still think with misplaced certainty that they know what is bound or loosed in heaven.



15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 25, 2019)

Madman said:


> I think it should be run according to how Christ mandated it be run.
> 
> There is a lot more to Christianity than just what is in Scripture.   A lot of history.
> 
> ...



so you think that every service should be done in Greek or Hebrew?  That is how the apostles did.  And everyone needs to wear those long robes.  And service needs to be on the sabbath?  

It appears that you believe that only one denomination is right.  Surely there are some truth in others.


----------



## Madman (Oct 25, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> so you think that every service should be done in Greek or Hebrew?  That is how the apostles did.  And everyone needs to wear those long robes.  And service needs to be on the sabbath?
> 
> It appears that you believe that only one denomination is right.  Surely there are some truth in others.


I believe the church that Christ instituted is the right church.  People can worship in whatever language they choose, I would prefer the language common to the people in the area.

Sabbath worship?  No Christian worship on the Lord's Day not the Sabbath, but the Sabbath should be kept holy if possible.

Long robes?  I suppose you mean vestments, if they are worn that is fine.  I do think them more appropriate than blue Jean's with holes in the knees and your shirt untucked.

There are many things you assume that are incorrect.  All I am saying  is that Christ started a church and I believe it should be followed as closely as possible.

Of you dont.  Ok


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 26, 2019)

Madman said:


> I believe the church that Christ instituted is the right church.  People can worship in whatever language they choose, I would prefer the language common to the people in the area.
> 
> Sabbath worship?  No Christian worship on the Lord's Day not the Sabbath, but the Sabbath should be kept holy if possible.
> 
> ...



How does Indulgence figure into the Church that Jesus started? Is that something from scripture or is that from the "history" part of the Church that Jesus started? 

I think that was a big part of the "Protest."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 26, 2019)

Madman said:


> I believe the church that Christ instituted is the right church.  People can worship in whatever language they choose, I would prefer the language common to the people in the area.
> 
> Sabbath worship?  No Christian worship on the Lord's Day not the Sabbath, but the Sabbath should be kept holy if possible.
> 
> ...



I've always wondered about the "extra" stuff that was added after the Church was started. The stuff beyond scripture. Each and every denomination has a bit or a lot of stuff they added. Some Churches do add more such as the Catholic Church, Mormon Church, and the JW's. They all believe it all to be 100% inspired by God.

My question is, is there a time after the Resurrection that no more "stuff" was to be added or inspired?  Was it 50 years after the Resurrection or is God still inspiring stuff to be added beyond scripture?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 26, 2019)

Madman said:


> I believe the church that Christ instituted is the right church.  People can worship in whatever language they choose, I would prefer the language common to the people in the area.
> 
> Sabbath worship?  No Christian worship on the Lord's Day not the Sabbath, but the Sabbath should be kept holy if possible.
> 
> ...



you leave so much of your answer so vague that I can't really tell what you think.  Saying that the church that Christ started should be followed as closely as possible doesn't give a lot of information.

Do you believe the Orthodox church has it right?

The Catholic church?

do any of the Protestant churches come close?


----------



## Madman (Oct 26, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> How does Indulgence figure into the Church that Jesus started? Is that something from scripture or is that from the "history" part of the Church that Jesus started?
> 
> I think that was a big part of the "Protest."


The church has never claimed indulgences were required.  Might want to do a little more investigation.  I will admit the western church was off the rails a little, but I would never leave Jesus because of Judas. The western church had been in the throws of reformation for at least 100 years before luther arrived.  

Now what about the church in the east, or the coptic church, or the anglicans, or the Syrian orthodox, or the Greek orthodox, or any other of the multitude?  Why abandon the world wide church because a few in the west needed to be reined in?

As for luther.  It is good that his additions to Scripture were left out even though some hold to them as biblical truth.  His removal of James and revelation was a problem. 

But all of this is off topic.  The formal church is shown in Scripture, it was built by Christ and the apostles were put in charge of it.  They passed that responsibility to others, we see that in Scripture.  If someone wants to sit at home, I really could not care less, but please do not try to force some biblical justification for it.

And let's not get back into reformation discussions,  I for one would rather repair a marriage than to celebrate a divorce.


----------



## Madman (Oct 26, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> you leave so much of your answer so vague that I can't really tell what you think.  Saying that the church that Christ started should be followed as closely as possible doesn't give a lot of information.
> 
> Do you believe the Orthodox church has it right?
> 
> ...


If you read all the documents, up to and including the 7th ecumenical council. All the writings of the church fathers and the doctors of the church, you will see that the worldwide church was in one accord.

There are discussion over things between them but they are primarily cultural not doctrinal. 

Most of the protestant church used to be a lot closer at the time of the reformation.  They threw out the priesthood because luther convinced some it was corrupt.   Luther believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Calvin called Mary the mother of God and I think believed in her assumption after her death.

The bible we read was canonized by these men who in large councils lived, prayed, argued, etc. For months over what this belief system meant, how to articulate it and how to properly convey it to the world.  New words had to be formed because there was no language that had discriptures. 

The reformation was not a reformation, reformation was already in the works.  It was a schism that left the bride of Christ fractured.

I was broken hearted at the 500 year celebration of nothing more than a divorce


----------



## Madman (Oct 26, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> They would still deliver souls to God. Most denominations at least offer salvation by grace in some form or faction.


What about non christian organizations that claim to be christian?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 26, 2019)




----------



## Madman (Oct 26, 2019)

That is cute.  


NE GA Pappy said:


>


It's not true nor Biblical but cute.  Going to need to  come up with more than Festus.

Show me something beside a meme. 

What is the purpose of the church?  Did Christ institute a church? 
If he did should we not desire to be a part of it?

Show me in Scripture where individuals are the church.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 26, 2019)

Madman said:


> That is cute.
> 
> It's not true nor Biblical but cute.  Going to need to  come up with more than Festus.
> 
> ...



I just saw it on a FB post, and thought it was cute.... Didn't mean anything by it, or to insult anyone.

Yes Christ instituted a church, but I don't believe he set up Peter as the head of the church.  I believe the scripture quote from Mt 16:18 refers to the truth that Peter spoke, not Peter the person.

I believe the purpose of the church is stated best in Ep 4:12 and to equip the saints for works of ministry, and building up the body of Christ.

I also believe that 1 Cor 12:12 gives us a reference that there are many body parts that make up the body or church of Christ.

I may be a foot, and you a hand.  Or maybe you are the eye, seeing what I can't.


----------



## Madman (Oct 26, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I just saw it on a FB post, and thought it was cute.... Didn't mean anything by it, or to insult anyone.
> 
> Yes Christ instituted a church, but I don't believe he set up Peter as the head of the church.  I believe the scripture quote from Mt 16:18 refers to the truth that Peter spoke, not Peter the person.
> 
> ...



Whether Peter was the head or not is not relevant.

So we agree that Christ instituted his church and I would add that he put the apostles in charge of it, as seen in Acts, and we agree that the purpose of the church is for the teaching and edification of the saints for the purpose of spreading the Gospel.  So if that is the purpose of the church then question arises; what should it teach for the edification of the body for the purpose of spreading the gospel.  

Some must choose which of 20000 denomination are teaching "truth" , from Jommy Swaggert to Joel Osteen,  I only have to follow the teachings of Holy Scripture and Christ as the faith has been practiced by the world wide church for 2000+ years.

By the way I am not Roman Catholic.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 26, 2019)

Madman said:


> By the way I am not Roman Catholic.




yeah, I am guessing you are probably Orthodox.  I have a few friends who are in that movement, and we discuss the differences between their services and ours all the time.  They are really into the liturgical methods of their church.  I couldn't stand going to a church that was run that way, but hey, more power to them if that is the way they chose to worship.  

I think Phil 1:18-19 says it well

The former, however, preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can add to the distress of my chains. What, then, is the issue ? Only that in every way, whether by false motives or true, Christ is preached. And in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice,


----------



## Madman (Oct 26, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> yeah, I am guessing you are probably Orthodox.  I have a few friends who are in that movement, and we discuss the differences between their services and ours all the time.  They are really into the liturgical methods of their church.  I couldn't stand going to a church that was run that way, but hey, more power to them if that is the way they chose to worship.
> 
> I think Phil 1:18-19 says it well
> 
> The former, however, preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can add to the distress of my chains. What, then, is the issue ? Only that in every way, whether by false motives or true, Christ is preached. And in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice,



I figure you are protestant probably believers baptism by immersion to be valid.   I admire someone desiring to follow what they believe to be they have been taught.

I would just question the teacher.

I would asked that you read the history of the church. 

Since we are batting around Scripture, when it comes to this topic I am partial to Acts 8:30-31.
The euneuch trusted an Apostle, so do I.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 26, 2019)

Madman said:


> I figure you are protestant probably believers baptism by immersion to be valid.   I admire someone desiring to follow what they believe to be they have been taught.
> 
> I would just question the teacher.
> 
> ...



well, first we would have to figure out if Philip was an apostle, was Philip a deacon or was Philip an evangelist?   Or were there 2  Philips?


----------



## Madman (Oct 26, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> well, first we would have to figure out if Philip was an apostle, was Philip a deacon or was Philip an evangelist?   Or were there 2  Philips?


That is very easy.  Yes he was.  All three that is.
He was an apostle, therefore an episkapoi, or bishop, therefore he is a deacon, and therefore an evangelist. 

So that is now settled.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 26, 2019)

Madman said:


> I figure you are protestant probably believers baptism by immersion to be valid.   I admire someone desiring to follow what they believe to be they have been taught.



Oh, and I don't mind telling you my history.  My Mom was saved in a Salvation Army revival right after I was born.  When we moved, she took us to a Congregational Holiness church where the pastor was the son of the preacher who married my mom and dad.... I attended there until I was probably 19 years old.  Then I dropped out of church for about 5 years.  I got married, and when our first child was born, I figured I better try my best to raise my kids. 

We started attending an A.G. church where a friend of mine was the pastor.  We stayed in that church for several years. I was a deacon there for a time.  

Then we went to an independent church in Toccoa.   I was a deacon in that church also.  After being in that church for several years, we felt we needed a time of rest from the church work, since we were fostering children.  We had has many as 9 children in our home at one time.  

Anyway, in 2003, we started attending Baldwin Church of God... which, after a move to a new building, changed it's name to The Torch...  Been there for 16 years now.

so there you have it... the complete and condensed history of Pappy's church history


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 26, 2019)

Madman said:


> That is very easy.  Yes he was.  All three that is.
> He was an apostle, therefore an episkapoi, or bishop, therefore he is a deacon, and therefore an evangelist.
> 
> So that is now settled.



you feel that Philip, the disciple and follower of Christ, was the same Philip in Acts 8?   Interesting


----------



## Madman (Oct 26, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> you feel that Philip, the disciple and follower of Christ, was the same Philip in Acts 8?   Interesting


I have no proof I only know what the church has taught for 2000 years.  If modern man has told you differently, so be it.

BTW I have never said this is a salvation question only a following Christ question.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 26, 2019)

Madman said:


> I have no proof I only know what the church has taught for 2000 years.  If modern man has told you differently, so be it.
> 
> BTW I have never said this is a salvation question only a following Christ question.



I don't know if it was the same man or not.  I have wondered that before.  There is really nothing in scripture to give us the answer.  I don't know that it really matters either.   I think what matters is that the gospel was shared, accepted and a life changed.


----------



## Madman (Oct 26, 2019)

I was serious about reading the church fathers, the ancient writings of the church, the didache, and the doctors of the church. 

Lot of great info on what the early church looked like when it was still one.
Got to.go to bed, early day tomorrow.
God's peace.


----------



## Madman (Oct 27, 2019)

Israel said:


> The end of salvation is the revelation of the means of salvation, the manifestation of Jesus Christ through the sons of God. To this end God gives apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers...all and _every_ one...in the church.
> 
> But (and do not doubt the saliency of that "but") this was most clearly enunciated through an apostle in his writings of his revelation. The same one who said "If I be not an apostle to others..."
> 
> ...


I apologize I became lost in some of the wordiness.
According to the church apostleship comes in only one way, the laying on of hands by at least 3 bishops.   
The purpose of 3 is to insure as much conformity to original doctrine as possible, it is by the voice of at least three to agree on the knowledge, character, and vocation of another.
Paul trained Timothy and it may have only taken one to ordain at that time but they were much closer to the Lord, it was easier to remember and recognize the true teaching at that time.

Paul encourages the church in 1 and 2 Thessalonians to hold to the writings and traditions,  these are taught by bishops traveling the world for the sake of the gospel.

For "where the bishop is, so is the church".


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 27, 2019)

Israel said:


> The end of salvation is the revelation of the means of salvation, the manifestation of Jesus Christ through the sons of God. To this end God gives apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers...all and _every_ one...in the church.
> 
> But (and do not doubt the saliency of that "but") this was most clearly enunciated through an apostle in his writings of his revelation. The same one who said "If I be not an apostle to others..."
> 
> ...



Very well articulated.  Thank you.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 27, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> By "local church" I mean a group of believers that meets together, understands itself to be a church, has elders fulfilling the basic leadership functions, and seeks to fulfill the Great Commission and "prepare God's people for works of service."





Madman said:


> What if they are not "valid"?  The above fits several groups that do not follow Christian doctrine as laid out since the Apostles and many chose to call those groups non-christian.  Many modern groups chose not to follow the teachings as laid out since the Apostles and yet call themselves christian.



Are you saying that the criteria I laid out for "local church" is not necessary, or that it is not sufficient?  

Can you give concrete examples of purported local churches that meet all the criteria I articulate above, yet fail to be a valid local church?

Are you really saying that no group that adheres closely to "Sola Scriptura" can be a valid Christian church?


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 27, 2019)

Israel said:


> And apostles and prophets smell it.


Smells like man flesh.


----------



## Madman (Oct 27, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Are you saying that the criteria I laid out for "local church" is not necessary, or that it is not sufficient?
> 
> Can you give concrete examples of purported local churches that meet all the criteria I articulate above, yet fail to be a valid local church?
> 
> Are you really saying that no group that adheres closely to "Sola Scriptura" can be a valid Christian church?


I am saying that sola Scriptura is not Biblical nor historical by tradition.  Luther changed Holy Scripture by attempting to add the word "alone".


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 27, 2019)

Madman said:


> I am saying that sola Scriptura is not Biblical nor historical by tradition.  Luther changed Holy Scripture by attempting to add the word "alone".



I don't believe that speaking in tongues was historical or traditional until it happened in Acts 2.

As far a no apostle unless ordained by 3 bishops..... I sure would like to see scripture for that.  It sounds to me like a mandate that was applied to others after Jesus left this earth.  If it were important enough to church leadership to have appointed bishops, apostles and such, wouldn't God think it fit to give instructions on bestowing those titles on others??


----------



## Madman (Oct 27, 2019)

Israel said:


> Was it? Is it?
> 
> When I read this:
> 
> ...


On this The Feast of Our Lord Jesus Christ, King we are reminded that the oldest creed that the apostles used to proclaim the Gospel was "Jesus Christ is King".  And many were martyred for it.


----------



## Madman (Oct 27, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I don't believe that speaking in tongues was historical or traditional until it happened in Acts 2.
> 
> As far a no apostle unless ordained by 3 bishops..... I sure would like to see scripture for that.  It sounds to me like a mandate that was applied to others after Jesus left this earth.  If it were important enough to church leadership to have appointed bishops, apostles and such, wouldn't God think it fit to give instructions on bestowing those titles on others??


I believe he did, the church has been ordaining since day one.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 27, 2019)

Madman said:


> I believe he did, the church has been ordaining since day one.



ok.. so show me in scripture


----------



## Madman (Oct 27, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> ok.. so show me in scripture


Paul ordained Timothy and Titus


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 27, 2019)

Madman said:


> Paul ordained Timothy and Titus





Madman said:


> Paul ordained Timothy and Titus



where are the 3 bishops, and what did he ordain them to?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 27, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I don't believe that speaking in tongues was historical or traditional until it happened in Acts 2.
> 
> As far a no apostle unless ordained by 3 bishops..... I sure would like to see scripture for that.  It sounds to me like a mandate that was applied to others after Jesus left this earth.  If it were important enough to church leadership to have appointed bishops, apostles and such, wouldn't God think it fit to give instructions on bestowing those titles on others??


Also think of the implications of what becomes ordained by man instead of God!


----------



## Madman (Oct 27, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> Also think of the implications of what becomes ordained by man instead of God!


In every denomination men ordain men.


----------



## Madman (Oct 27, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> where are the 3 bishops, and what did he ordain them to?


We use 3 to I sure apostolic succession and assurance of the beliefs.  I imagine Paul could handle all of that on his own.  Read the ancient text as to how and why.


----------



## Madman (Oct 27, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> where are the 3 bishops, and what did he ordain them to?


Do we agree that Paul ordained Titus and Timothy.


----------



## Madman (Oct 27, 2019)

Israel said:


> For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his office let another take.
> Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.


This post contains a lot, but the passages you have referenced are referring to the election of Mathias not Paul.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 27, 2019)

Madman said:


> This post contains a lot, but the passages you have referenced are referring to the election of Mathias not Paul.


and speaking of Mathias... it appears the disciples missed the mark in choosing him. Or do you think they got it right?


----------



## Madman (Oct 27, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> and speaking of Mathias... it appears the disciples missed the mark in choosing him. Or do you think they got it right?


How did they miss the mark?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 27, 2019)

Madman said:


> How did they miss the mark?



do you see anything in scripture that mentions him or any work he did?


----------



## Madman (Oct 27, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> do you see anything in scripture that mentions him or any work he did?


I do not believe that everything must written in Scripture to be true.  I do believe that everything nesaccery for salvation is written.

Do you think the disciples missed the mark is a better question.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 27, 2019)

Madman said:


> I do not believe that everything must written in Scripture to be true.  I do believe that everything nesaccery for salvation is written.
> 
> Do you think the disciples missed the mark is a better question.



yep, I sure do


----------



## Madman (Oct 27, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> yep, I sure do


How so?


----------



## Madman (Oct 27, 2019)

That is very interesting.  Christ has been crucified, died, buried, and resurrected.   The Holy Spirit has been sent, fulfilling the prophecy and you think that Christ would not protect his bride. 

WOW


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 27, 2019)

Madman said:


> How so?




It seems to me that Paul was to be the next apostle to replace Judas, and that the disciples jumped the gun on their throwing of the lots to decide that Mathias was the next in line.
They put limitations on the selection process, ( being with us since the beginning of John's baptism) and then the idea of casting lots to determine God's will just seems out of sorts to me.  It is like putting God in a box, saying here are your choices, make sure you pick the right one out of the ones we have selected for you....

I don't see anything accomplished by Mathias in scripture, but I see a world of things that Paul did... maybe I am wrong.  Convince me.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 27, 2019)

Madman said:


> That is very interesting.  Christ has been crucified, died, buried, and resurrected.   The Holy Spirit has been sent, fulfilling the prophecy and you think that Christ would not protect his bride.
> 
> WOW



I think men have been rushing ahead of God and his will since Adam.  You know as well as I that Peter had a stubborn streak a mile wide, and would rush into things without considering the outcome.    

Who is to say that God wasn't using this to teach Peter to slow down and listen a bit more?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 27, 2019)

Madman said:


> The Holy Spirit has been sent, fulfilling the prophecy.



not when Mathias was selected.  This was done between the Ascension and Pentacost.  The Holy Spirit wasn't sent until Pentacost.


----------



## Madman (Oct 27, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> not when Mathias was selected.  This was done between the Ascension and Pentacost.  The Holy Spirit wasn't sent until Pentacost.


True I mistyped


----------



## Madman (Oct 27, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> It seems to me that Paul was to be the next apostle to replace Judas, and that the disciples jumped the gun on their throwing of the lots to decide that Mathias was the next in line.
> They put limitations on the selection process, ( being with us since the beginning of John's baptism) and then the idea of casting lots to determine God's will just seems out of sorts to me.  It is like putting God in a box, saying here are your choices, make sure you pick the right one out of the ones we have selected for you....
> 
> I don't see anything accomplished by Mathias in scripture, but I see a world of things that Paul did... maybe I am wrong.  Convince me.



Seems you have this figured out.  Why was Paul next?  What I Scripture would lead you to believe that?  Could God not direct the "casting of lots"? What process did they put limitations on?  When men select pastors are they putting limitations on the process?
Would Christ not protect his bride?  
I suppose that was the beginning of the downfall until the reformation saved the church.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 27, 2019)

Madman said:


> Seems you have this figured out.  Why was Paul next?  What I Scripture would lead you to believe that?  Could God not direct the "casting of lots"? What process did they put limitations on?  When men select pastors are they putting limitations on the process?
> Would Christ not protect his bride?
> I suppose that was the beginning of the downfall until the reformation saved the church.



I always figured that God could do exactly what He wanted to do.  Even if Peter and company chose the wrong man, God isn't limited by that.  Paul certainly was the most influential person to come on the scene after Pentacost.  It doesn't seem to me that God would chose a replacement apostle, and then have him never mentioned again in scripture, as Mathias was.  

When the disciples chose 2 men, and then cast lots expecting God to chose from the pre-approved 'next disciple' list, they were limiting what they were expecting to hear from God.  Or would you disagree with that?  

What makes you think that Christ hasn't protected the church, even though fallible men make decisions that may not be his will?  Either He is big enough to bring his will to fruition, or He isn't God.  

If you think that the Catholic church didn't need reformation, you are reading a different history than I.


----------



## Madman (Oct 27, 2019)

The reformation is another topic that we can move to another op.

It is your premise that the disciples messed up.  How did they mess up?  Do you know the entire story of how the list was narrowed to two?  I dont see in Scripture where they jumped the gun, if they had I am sure it would have been noted, after all everything is in Scripture that needs to be known.

Dont forget to note where Paul was next in line.  And let me know if men ordain other men are they getting ahead of God.

Do you think your pastor could have been "rushing ahead of God "? If he was what would that mean?  If not, how do you k ow he wasn't?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 27, 2019)

Madman said:


> The reformation is another topic that we can move to another op. you are the one that brought it up.  I was only responding.
> 
> It is your premise that the disciples messed up.  How did they mess up? I answered this question twice already. Do I need to answer it again?   Do you know the entire story of how the list was narrowed to two? I know what the scriptures say.  They were in the upper room praying and decided someone needed to replace Judas.  They chose 2 men, and cast lots.  That is how scripture records it.
> I dont see in Scripture where they jumped the gun, if they had I am sure it would have been noted, after all everything is in Scripture that needs to be known.  Aren't we being a bit snippy here?
> ...


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 27, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> It seems to me that Paul was to be the next apostle to replace Judas, and that the disciples jumped the gun on their throwing of the lots to decide that Mathias was the next in line.
> They put limitations on the selection process, ( being with us since the beginning of John's baptism) and then the idea of casting lots to determine God's will just seems out of sorts to me.  It is like putting God in a box, saying here are your choices, make sure you pick the right one out of the ones we have selected for you....
> 
> I don't see anything accomplished by Mathias in scripture, but I see a world of things that Paul did... maybe I am wrong.  Convince me.




notice the red text above.. and no, it isn't read because it was the words of Jesus.


----------



## Madman (Oct 27, 2019)

Everybody gets to ask where something is in Scripture but me?  That doesn't seem very fair.  When I asked I am being snippy. 

So it is just a feeling.  OK.  I dont like to run my theology through feelings.

I can't tell you of I ever rushed ahead of God or not.  I just don't know.


----------



## Madman (Oct 27, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> notice the red text above.. and no, it isn't read because it was the words of Jesus.


Red words of Jesus I like that.  I dont mean to sound snippy, i love this type of conversation.  I just wish we sitting in my livingroom having it.
 it is your premise you can believe as you choose.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 27, 2019)

Madman said:


> Everybody gets to ask where something is in Scripture but me?  That doesn't seem very fair.  When I asked I am being snippy.
> 
> So it is just a feeling.  OK.  I dont like to run my theology through feelings.
> 
> I can't tell you of I ever rushed ahead of God or not.  I just don't know.



I don't run my theology thru feeling either.  I use scripture.  If scripture doesn't have a specific answer, then all I have left is my  intuition, and it is fallible at best. 

You know you were being snippy with that comment about 'scripture has everything that needs to be known' comment.    I have never said that.  I do believe where there is a need to know something, scripture has the answer.

I have asked multiple times for you to show me where I am wrong, but it doesn't seem that you wish to have that discussion.  and that is fine with me.  I am just trying my best to live and 'work out my own salvation, with fear and trembling' as scripture teaches.

Maybe your walk with God  is far advanced in relation to my walk with God, and He is trying to refine you beyond what I am able to become now.  Maybe not.


----------



## Madman (Oct 27, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I don't run my theology thru feeling either.  I use scripture.  If scripture doesn't have a specific answer, then all I have left is my  intuition, and it is fallible at best.
> 
> You know you were being snippy with that comment about 'scripture has everything that needs to be known' comment.    I have never said that.  I do believe where there is a need to know something, scripture has the answer.
> 
> ...


Come on Pappy dont get snippy.  I have said there is no way to know and I will add it appears to have worked out for the best.

I doubt my walk is  refined beyond anyone especially yours.  God's peace my friend
I think we have wore this one out.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 27, 2019)

Madman said:


> Come on Pappy dont get snippy.  I have said there is no way to know and I will add it appears to have worked out for the best.
> 
> I doubt my walk is  refined beyond anyone especially yours.  God's peace my friend
> I think we have wore this one out.



I know that God is in control, and any errors that I or anyone else makes will not affect the ultimate outcome.  His will must be accomplished.   Rom 8:28, all things work together for good to them that love God, to them that are the called according to his purpose.

My walk with God is full of potholes, rough spots and  detours that most men would have been able to avoid.  I am hard headed, stubborn and blind to some of my most destructive faults.  

I do desire a closer walk with God, and a close relationship so that I don't make the mistakes I have in the past.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 27, 2019)

Romans 8:38-39
For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor principalities, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers,   39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 27, 2019)

Even though the disciples were prophets, didn't they also make non-prophet decisions? Reading Paul as well, it was like sometimes he was speaking as Paul the man and sometimes speaking as revelation from God.
What I was trying to figure out was, if the disciples were prophets, could they act as men and choose the wrong replacement for Judas?

I could imagine I could draw lots and choose a wrong preacher but then I don't have any insider information that a prophet my have.  Then again, a prophet only knows revelation from God. Beyond that he is speaking as a man.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 27, 2019)

I would also think that since Jesus chose Judas, he would also have to choose his replacement. And no, he didn't make a mistake either time.


----------



## Madman (Oct 27, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I know that God is in control, and any errors that I or anyone else makes will not affect the ultimate outcome.  His will must be accomplished.   Rom 8:28, all things work together for good to them that love God, to them that are the called according to his purpose.
> 
> My walk with God is full of potholes, rough spots and  detours that most men would have been able to avoid.  I am hard headed, stubborn and blind to some of my most destructive faults.
> 
> I do desire a closer walk with God, and a close relationship so that I don't make the mistakes I have in the past.


I am with you brother.  My theology, and christology, very well be all wrong.  All I know is I follow the risen Lord with all I have.  My avatar is the madman from Luke, I will never be able to repay my Lord for where he brought me from, but I am out and I will proclaim the Gospel until he, hopefully brings me home.

Never interpret anything I say as though I think that I know more, if I came across that way I sincerely apologize.  

It would be my honor to meet you one day.

May the peace of God which passes all understanding keep our hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of God and of his son Jesus Christ.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 27, 2019)

Not being judgemental by seeing into both points of views and assessments on the Church that :

A)  Or the Church is an institution of  essential sacraments...

B)  Or the Church is a institution of essential bible study...

Some say A and some say B and the two will need a few centuries to meet but yet only partly. Only part of  A will meet with B, and so only part of B with A. Some of A and B will never meet.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 28, 2019)

"Brother Saul, the Lord, _[even]_ Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost."[Acts 9:17]

Did Paul become an apostle because the Lord appeared to him?,,, or because he was informed by the Holy Spirit provided by the ministry of the Church, via Ananias et al?

When Paul says this:


"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, in keeping with the promise of life that is in Christ Jesus,...)

What does he mean " in keeping with the promise of life that is in Christ Jesus".?

Paul says he was appointed a preacher and apostle. Who appointed him? Did Jesus appear to him a second time?

Did Paul know that he would be an apostle before he was baptized and received the Holy Spirit? If not, how was he appointed an apostle equal to the others...?

This is what I get:

God told Ananias that Paul was a chosen vessel. Ananias ministered his hand on Paul and baptized Paul. ( It is understood that he received the Holy Spirit at this point.) Paul spent some time with the redeemed in Damascus and from this point began to preach that Jesus was the son of God... in the Synagogues. ...

So God chose Paul via a member and the body of believers...???  Jesus was not informed of his commission directly by Jesus, but rather through the Church, it's ministering baptism, and Paul receiving the Holy Spirit and from the time he spent with others now like him.  So Paul can say  that Christ chose him an apostle and what Paul means is that the body of Christ informed and confirmed him of his appointment. The instruments of this choosing was ministered by the comfort and the sacraments within the Church. God chose to inform the church first of Paul's calling... not Paul first and because it happened this way... Paul can say Jesus chose him...preacher and apostle, yet it was God's witness within the church appointed him such.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 28, 2019)

Israel said:


> I see several apostles not mentioned after the Gospels. Did Jesus miss the mark in their choosing?


True but if Mathias was one of "the" twelve, wouldn't you think he'd be mentioned more as to how God used him like the other eleven?

Then Paul comes along and  his revelation and purpose is super important. He wasn't even seeking God and was chosen by grace and not of works. It would be like the Church grabbing someone off the street to be the Priest. Someone who had never done any works.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 28, 2019)

Of the twelve original disciples, are they all mentioned as much as the main ones? Like Simon the Zealot, what did he do according to scripture? 
Still though he is an arm or leg of the body.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 29, 2019)

Wow!  Seems like we've danced around the question of the OP very thoroughly, but not made much headway in answering it.  Setting aside the important question "What is a valid church?"  for now, let's assume we're talking about a valid church.  So, is formal church membership a Biblical component of a valid church?

My view is that it can be, but isn't required.  Since there is nothing in Scripture prohibiting formal membership in a local church, and Scripture describes the job of the elders to "direct the affairs of the church" then a specific local body of elders may reasonably decide to have formal membership in their church.  Of course, since it is also not required by Scripture, another local body of elders may reasonably decide NOT to have formal membership in their church.

The great liberty that individuals and families have in Christ also applies to local bodies of elders in directing the affairs of their specific churches.  If a practice is neither prohibited by Scripture or required by Scripture, then it is a reasonable exercise of discretion by the appropriate party - as guided by wisdom, experience, and the Holy Spirit.  This principle applies to individuals for matters subject to their discretion, to heads of households for family matters, and to bodies of elders for church matters.


----------



## Madman (Oct 29, 2019)

My answer to the OP is yes.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 30, 2019)

I don't believe that Heaven waits for only those that congregate! Don Williams.

Is formal or valid Church biblical? Yes, didn't Paul write letters to valid Churches?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 30, 2019)

Oh, formal membership? Not the Churches themselves. Wouldn't a valid Church have to have valid members?


----------



## j_seph (Nov 4, 2019)

Sad part is there will be some "Members" of the physical church who will still die in the same lost condition they were in when they became a "Member".


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Nov 4, 2019)

j_seph said:


> Sad part is there will be some "Members" of the physical church who will still die in the same lost condition they were in when they became a "Member".



Why?

I wonder why a church would let someone be a member that has not proven their walk for a while, or someone that is not following the teachings of the church.

Sad isn't it?


----------



## j_seph (Nov 4, 2019)

Like your post, we are not supposed to Judge them. All we can go by is their profession of salvation. We had a girl saved at fall revival who was a church member, she joined our church under the profession of salvation and was baptized as well. She would sing like an angel at church and had at several churches as well as given her testimony. However that night at revival Jesus came to her home and revealed to her her that she was lost as lost could be. I know some others who were in same boat. We have heard it preached many times, if there is doubt then you may wanna checkup. God will reveal to you. I have had my doubts more often than not and have to checkup. Then have things revealed to me, and brought back to my remembrance.  Bethel will not change.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 4, 2019)

j_seph said:


> Like your post, we are not supposed to Judge them. All we can go by is their profession of salvation. We had a girl saved at fall revival who was a church member, she joined our church under the profession of salvation and was baptized as well. She would sing like an angel at church and had at several churches as well as given her testimony. However that night at revival Jesus came to her home and revealed to her her that she was lost as lost could be. I know some others who were in same boat. We have heard it preached many times, if there is doubt then you may wanna checkup. God will reveal to you. I have had my doubts more often than not and have to checkup. Then have things revealed to me, and brought back to my remembrance.  Bethel will not change.



I've never heard of Jesus visiting someone in this age to reveal to them they lost their salvation. The Holy Spirit maybe, but Jesus? Although Jesus himself did visit Saul at his conversion, so it is possible.


----------



## j_seph (Nov 4, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> I've never heard of Jesus visiting someone in this age to reveal to them they lost their salvation. The Holy Spirit maybe, but Jesus? Although Jesus himself did visit Saul at his conversion, so it is possible.


Can't lose something you never had? So do you not pray to God? Do you not wait till you get am answer from him?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 4, 2019)

j_seph said:


> Can't lose something you never had? So do you not pray to God? Do you not wait till you get am answer from him?


Oh, I thought they had lost their salvation. Jesus showed up spiritually to let them know they never had it. Sorry I misread you.
I thought that's what happens at conversion. But I do see now you are describing a false conversion with Jesus later confirming to that person.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 6, 2019)

j_seph said:


> Like your post, we are not supposed to Judge them. All we can go by is their profession of salvation. We had a girl saved at fall revival who was a church member, she joined our church under the profession of salvation and was baptized as well. She would sing like an angel at church and had at several churches as well as given her testimony. However that night at revival Jesus came to her home and revealed to her her that she was lost as lost could be. I know some others who were in same boat. We have heard it preached many times, if there is doubt then you may wanna checkup. God will reveal to you. I have had my doubts more often than not and have to checkup. Then have things revealed to me, and brought back to my remembrance.  Bethel will not change.



This seems like you base your salvation on your feelings, rather than the finished work of Christ. As if your "checking up"(?) changes it in any way. That's bondage. Where's the peace in any of that?


----------



## j_seph (Nov 6, 2019)

welderguy said:


> This seems like you base your salvation on your feelings, rather than the finished work of Christ. As if your "checking up"(?) changes it in any way. That's bondage. Where's the peace in any of that?


If your SALVATION has no feeling to IT..................I would probably suggest that you check-up. If you cannot commune with the one who saved you and he cannot show you things....................might want to check-up. This carnal body is separate from the spiritual soul. Have you ever hit the bottom, got out of church, out of Gods will? Have you ever not questioned your salvation because of somewhere you had let Satan lead you to which was far out of Gods will?


----------



## welderguy (Nov 6, 2019)

j_seph said:


> If your SALVATION has no feeling to IT..................I would probably suggest that you check-up. If you cannot commune with the one who saved you and he cannot show you things....................might want to check-up. This carnal body is separate from the spiritual soul. Have you ever hit the bottom, got out of church, out of Gods will? Have you ever not questioned your salvation because of somewhere you had let Satan lead you to which was far out of Gods will?



".....he cannot show you things.......might want to check up...."


When we fall into those situations, God not only can show us things, He will show us things. He promised. And He doesn't need our help to do it.


----------



## j_seph (Nov 6, 2019)

welderguy said:


> ".....he cannot show you things.......might want to check up...."
> 
> 
> When we fall into those situations, God not only can show us things, He will show us things. He promised. And He doesn't need our help to do it.



So answer this please. Is there no feeling in YOUR salvation?


----------



## welderguy (Nov 6, 2019)

j_seph said:


> So answer this please. Is there no feeling in YOUR salvation?



My feelings are irrelevant to whether I'm saved or not. They are deceiving. They cannot be trusted. They cause a man to waver like the waves in the sea. Up today down tomorrow.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 6, 2019)

welderguy said:


> My feelings are irrelevant to whether I'm saved or not. They are deceiving. They cannot be trusted. They cause a man to waver like the waves in the sea. Up today down tomorrow.


Yelp, been there, done that. It's like a Religious Roller Coaster.


----------



## Madman (Nov 6, 2019)

The OP: Is formal Church Membership Biblical?

Yes. 

At #116 NE GA Pappy makes an excellent observation.  "My walk with God is full of potholes, rough spots and detours that most men would have been able to avoid. I am hard headed, stubborn and blind to some of my most destructive faults. "

I would argue that no man can avoid these "potholes" outside of the church.  The very purpose of the church is  _*Eph 4:12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ. 14 We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. 15 But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knitted together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love.*_

 None of that can happen outside of the church.

and the answer is not me and my Bible.  *Acts 8:30 So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ 31 He replied, ‘How can I, unless someone guides me?’ And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him. *

The church has been given the responsibility to teach the body.


----------



## j_seph (Nov 6, 2019)

welderguy said:


> My feelings are irrelevant to whether I'm saved or not. They are deceiving. They cannot be trusted. They cause a man to waver like the waves in the sea. Up today down tomorrow.


The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.

Is not to have a broken heart a feeling"
To stand up from an alter from being saved, born again, a new person with the weight of this world lifted off of you not a feeling?


----------



## welderguy (Nov 6, 2019)

j_seph said:


> The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.
> 
> Is not to have a broken heart a feeling"
> To stand up from an alter from being saved, born again, a new person with the weight of this world lifted off of you not a feeling?



I think you have misunderstood my whole point, taking it on a tangent it never was intended for. I'm not denying we have feelings. Even Jesus had feelings. I'm saying don't rely on your feelings as a proof of your salvation. Because they will sometimes cause you to despair unnecessarily.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Nov 6, 2019)

welderguy said:


> I think you have misunderstood my whole point, taking it on a tangent it never was intended for. I'm not denying we have feelings. Even Jesus had feelings. I'm saying don't rely on your feelings as a proof of your salvation. Because they will sometimes cause you to despair unnecessarily.



I think "feelings" tends to have many more folks headed for **** singing "Amazing Grace", "I Can Only Imagine", or "When We All Get to Heaven."  Jesus said we can judge the tree by the fruit.  That begins with ourselves.  Do our actions accord with our testimony of salvation, or not?


----------



## j_seph (Nov 6, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> I think "feelings" tends to have many more folks headed for **** singing "Amazing Grace", "I Can Only Imagine", or "When We All Get to Heaven."  Jesus said we can judge the tree by the fruit.  That begins with ourselves.  Do our actions accord with our testimony of salvation, or not?


So are you saying our actions are always righteous good true and perfect if we are saved?


----------



## welderguy (Nov 7, 2019)

j_seph said:


> So are you saying our actions are always righteous good true and perfect if we are saved?



There's some strong meat in Romans 8:1 that can help you with this. If you can receive it.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 7, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> I think "feelings" tends to have many more folks headed for **** singing "Amazing Grace", "I Can Only Imagine", or "When We All Get to Heaven."  Jesus said we can judge the tree by the fruit.  That begins with ourselves.  Do our actions accord with our testimony of salvation, or not?



If you're honest, you will admit that those actions do not accord........

...but then there's grace.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 7, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> I think "feelings" tends to have many more folks headed for **** singing "Amazing Grace", "I Can Only Imagine", or "When We All Get to Heaven."  Jesus said we can judge the tree by the fruit.  That begins with ourselves.  Do our actions accord with our testimony of salvation, or not?


Do those fruits come from the individual or the Holy Spirit within?


----------



## CarsonRobles (Aug 28, 2022)

It seems to me that it is not meetings that make us closer to God but the strength of our faith. When our faith is strong and inclined to rely on God's plan, our soul immediately becomes more pure and bright. But at the same time, you are right that this happens when people of the same religion come together. This is a kind of unity of something light and powerful. I came to understand such things when I met with https://firstchurchlove.com. In many ways, this has changed my life. Now I began to turn to the inner God more often and find answers to my questions. Now in my soul, a compass shows me the right path and does not let me get lost.


----------

