Is there a better way to 'do Church'?

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, arachnogeek said:

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. 

 

 

Who said anything about a million $$ building?  Any building will do.   And any way that we encounter a lost person is good whether it is on the street, or if they come to us.   

[Guest shiloh357]

17 minutes ago, arachnogeek said:

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. 

No, that is not the case.  Visitors have to follow the house rules just like everyone else.   Whether every person was a member in a first century church or not, at any given time, there was a form of membership and it is clearly implied in Scripture.

[Guest shiloh357]

22 minutes ago, arachnogeek said:

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? 

So why are you against membership if you also say that everyone in home church is a member?  

The reason why we don't treat everyone who walks through the door as a member right off the bat is because we need time to get to know them and learn about why there are with us and to make sure that they dont' have a nefarious agenda of any kind.

[arachnogeek]

1 minute ago, shiloh357 said:

No, that is not the case.  Visitors have to follow the house rules just like everyone else.   Whether every person was a member in a first century church or not, at any given time, there was a form of membership and it is clearly implied in Scripture.

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. 

[Guest shiloh357]

24 minutes ago, arachnogeek said:

Why does this assume membership? 

Because they elected the deacons.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, arachnogeek said:

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. 

  You are moving the goal posts here and trying to refute an argument I never raised.  We are talking about local church membership not, membership in the Body of Christ.    Don't change the subject.

[arachnogeek]

8 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

You are moving the goal posts here and trying to refute an argument I never raised.  We are talking about local church membership not, membership in the Body of Christ.    Don't change the subject.

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. 

[arachnogeek]

12 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Because they elected the deacons.

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

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, arachnogeek said:

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. 

No, you don't have any Scripture to back that up.  Nowhere in the NT was being a believer an automatic membership into a local church.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, arachnogeek said:

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

Members of any group "vote."  Hence their election of the deacons implies some form of leadership.