Jump to content

arachnogeek

Junior Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    100

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by arachnogeek

  1. arachnogeek
    Why do you think they are just a business?
  2. arachnogeek
    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
    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
    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
    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
    Neither can I demonstrate that wearing priestly robes during worship violates any tenet of biblical doctrine. But does it make it right?
  7. arachnogeek
    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
    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
    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
    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
    That's irrelevant since local church membership doesn't allow us to see into people's hearts either....
  12. arachnogeek
    Ok...this only proves 'election' of deacons, not membership.
  13. arachnogeek
    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
    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
    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.
  16. arachnogeek
    Yes, that's true. I'm only arguing for the removal of those who come without invitation.
  17. arachnogeek
    There are plenty of reasons why it would be a bad thing to invite goats into the sheepfold. Why would you want unbelievers and liberals creeping into your local church? A little leaven leavens the whole lump. A pastor should not have to look at the membership list to know who he's responsible to God for their spiritual well being. Sadly, many churches have their doors open to all sorts of people, and the leaders see them as dollar signs rather than their responsibility. Get rid of church membership and you'll solve this problem in a heart beat.
  18. arachnogeek
    The Didache has many practices that you and I would both frown upon, such as withholding baptism from a convert for years, until they are 'ready'. I'm not concerned about how church was done in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, unless it looks identical to that of the 1st. I don't see how persecution has anything to do with church membership, so I'll let you elaborate.
  19. arachnogeek
    I agree that it applies only to local church members....where we disagree is that I think all church attendees in the early church were members. If your interpretation of church membership is correct, then this would mean that some people in your church (i.e. non-members) would not have to follow Paul's commandments about the proper use of spiritual gifts. This argument doesn't hold water.
  20. arachnogeek
    Why does this assume membership?
  21. arachnogeek
    Once again, in a home church, everyone is a member, which means that everyone is under the authority of the elders by virtue of their attendance. Instead of creating membership procedures and benefits (such as voting rights), why not just treat all congregants (all of which would be confessing and baptized converts) as members?
  22. arachnogeek
    That's a great point, but I think you may be establishing a false dilemma. There must be a way of obeying church leaders and submitting to their authority without formal 'church membership', as we know it. This is another reason why I believe home churches would be superior. If local churches did not 'advertise' using property, billboards, websites, etc., there wouldn't be a need for church membership. Here's why: Churches that do not meet in homes are technically open to ANYONE who may be looking for a church. Inevitably, there will be non-believers and liberal christians who enter the church without a formal invitation. On the other hand, a healthy home church would have its members evangelize during the week and new converts would be brought into the fold. It would be extremely unlikely for a pedestrian to ring the doorbell to someone's house on a Sunday morning and invite themselves in, whereas it's easy for anyone to visit 'first baptist church' down the road. This first-century church model weeds out many of the people whom the typical church would have otherwise barred from membership. By no means does this model prevent liberal christians and wolves in sheep's clothing from entering the Church, but it sure is an improvement. In a functioning home church, the congregants would submit to their elders without having to be official 'members', because everyone would be a member. In this scenario, non-members are simply those that do no attend the church. It's that simple, and it's the way God intended it to be.
  23. arachnogeek
    How can you be certain of this when you don't view scriptures as infallible, inerrant and authoritative? You wouldn't have a clue about the character of God and his Son Jesus if it weren't for his Word, which you put into question. How can you be so sure that you have a personal relationship with God through Jesus if this very reality stems from the scriptures? You are contradicting yourself.
  24. arachnogeek
    I have no idea how this thread morphed into what is is now, as I never addressed homosexuality in my original post. However, I'm sure it is beneficial for some. Something I'd like to bring up is church membership. This has come up over and over again in this discussion and I think it's worth exploring. Is Church membership biblical? People keep saying that a gay person can attend church...so long as he isn't a member of that church. Why is this? What is the difference between a member and a non-member in any given congregation? I personally don't think church membership has any biblical precedent, but I'd love to hear what y'all have to say about that.
  25. arachnogeek
    You've imposed yourself into this thread; it is not I who have imposed my views. You, out of your own free will, joined this conversation. Therefore, you have no basis on which to say that I am imposing my views on you. Besides, there are plenty of people in this thread who disagree, yet haven't complained that I am imposing on their views.
×
×
  • Create New...