Jump to content

arachnogeek

Junior Member
  • Content Count

    100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

43 Excellent

1 Follower

About arachnogeek

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

145 profile views
  1. arachnogeek

    Is there a better way to 'do Church'?

    Why do you think they are just a business?
  2. arachnogeek

    New Testament Inerrancy

    You're not actually suggesting that Jesus was created....are you? Do you believe Christ has coexisted with the Father and the Spirit in eternity past?
  3. arachnogeek

    New Testament Inerrancy

    When you say: "just as he did Jesus", do you mean, "Just as he did [create] Jesus and every other man that ever lived"? I might be completely misreading what you've written, but it just seems that you're saying that Jesus is a created being. Am I understanding this correctly?
  4. arachnogeek

    New Testament Inerrancy

    This is a false analogy. Here's why: Your relationship to your wife isn't defined by those letters. Our relationship to God is defined within the confines of scripture. You and I have no clue how to relate to our creator aside from what the Bible tells us. You and I have no clue who Jesus is, aside from what the Bible tells us. If divine revelation didn't exist, neither would your relationship to God. End of story. Personal relationships trump written letters, UNLESS those 'letters' ARE that relationship. Think about the way your wife communicates with you. Unless your relationship is highly dysfunctional, you two have conversations like normal married couples. With the Lord, however, unless you're a charismatic pentecostal, he speaks to you through his Word. You speak to Him through prayer, and he answers through his Word. There's just no reason to think that romantic letters between a man and a woman can be compared with the way God uses his Word to speak with his people. The Bible isn't just a foundation for our relationship to God; it is the very essence of how we commune with Him.
  5. arachnogeek

    Is there a better way to 'do Church'?

    I'll stick with what is spiritual rather than pragmatic. You'll have to prove that with scripture. Are you denying that you don't believe the local church is made up of members and non-members? Your convention and your congregation cares. If you showed up to church in RC robes or Anglican robes, you'd be out of a job soon thereafter. (I'm assuming you're baptist?)
  6. arachnogeek

    Is there a better way to 'do Church'?

    Neither can I demonstrate that wearing priestly robes during worship violates any tenet of biblical doctrine. But does it make it right?
  7. arachnogeek

    Is there a better way to 'do Church'?

    I don't want to demonstrate that it violates anything scriptural because it doesn't. What YOU need to demonstrate is that there is a difference between church membership and being a member of the Church. The Bible makes it clear that as soon as a person repents and believes and is baptized, they are a member of his Body. The local Church IS His body. What is so difficult to understand about this? Being a member of a local church is not prohibited in the Bible precisely because the NT assumes that Christians are automatically members of a local church when they assemble together. There is NOTHING in scripture indicating that the local church is made up of members and non-members. You still have not backed up your argument through scripture. Sorry, your argument does not hold water, and the burden of proof falls upon you.
  8. arachnogeek

    Is there a better way to 'do Church'?

    I'm conflating two terms precisely because one is an invention and the other is biblical. Show me some scripture that clearly makes a distinction between the two types of membership. You can't.
  9. arachnogeek

    Is there a better way to 'do Church'?

    Let's worry about what God thinks, not what skeptics, 'seekers' and unbelievers think. Furthermore, if 'entertaining their presence' is of utmost importance to you, you and I have a radically different ecclesiology. Besides, they'll always be offended at some point anyway; the Lord's supper is only for believers (in some churches it's only for members, or baptized believers) and some people take offence to that. It's not our problem to worry about how visitors might be offended.
  10. arachnogeek

    Is there a better way to 'do Church'?

    Yes, I do. The whole book of Acts is my Scripture to back it up. How about the ethiopian eunuch? If that wasn't automatic, I don't know what is.
  11. arachnogeek

    Is there a better way to 'do Church'?

    That's irrelevant since local church membership doesn't allow us to see into people's hearts either....
  12. arachnogeek

    Is there a better way to 'do Church'?

    Ok...this only proves 'election' of deacons, not membership.
  13. arachnogeek

    Is there a better way to 'do Church'?

    I am arguing that the two are one in the same according to scripture. The difference between local church membership and membership in the body of Christ is a man-made one, not a scriptural one.
  14. arachnogeek

    Is there a better way to 'do Church'?

    Even if we grant that it is clearly implied in Scripture, I am the one who is advocating for church membership, not you. I believe that ALL Christians are members of the body of Christ, whereas you believe only Christians who are members in the formal sense of the word are true members. You are the one who's ok with having a congregation where not 100% of your congregants are members. I am advocating for a 100% membership ratio.
  15. arachnogeek

    Is there a better way to 'do Church'?

    Anyone outside of the Church is a vile sinner, and can be evangelized by a local church member any day of the week. There is no good reason to think that we need million-dollar church buildings to facilitate their salvation. Beautiful are the feet of those who bring the gospel. Waiting for sinners to darken the doors of our edifices is spiritual laziness and negligence.
×