Is there a better way to 'do Church'?

[arachnogeek]

51 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

you cannot demonstrate that being a "member" of a local congregation violates any tenet of biblical doctrine

Neither can I demonstrate that wearing priestly robes during worship violates any tenet of biblical doctrine.

But does it make it right?  

Edited July 7, 2018 by arachnogeek

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, arachnogeek said:

I don't want to demonstrate that it violates anything scriptural because it doesn't.

Then there is no problem (other than the one you are trying to create). 

Quote

What YOU need to demonstrate is that there is a difference between church membership and being a member of the Church.

One is local and practical in nature and the other is spiritual and positional. 

 

Quote

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?

A local church is part of the Body.  It is not the whole Body of Christ.

 

Quote

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.

Nothing in the Bible say that.   You are conjecturing that. 

Quote

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. 

And I never said that either. I don't have to prove something I never said.

 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, arachnogeek said:

Neither can I demonstrate that wearing priestly robes during worship violates any tenet of biblical doctrine.

But does it make it right?  

Who cares if someone wears the robes or not?

[arachnogeek]

1 minute ago, shiloh357 said:

One is local and practical in nature and the other is spiritual and positional.

I'll stick with what is spiritual rather than pragmatic. 

 

2 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Nothing in the Bible say that.   You are conjecturing that. 

You'll have to prove that with scripture. 

 

2 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

And I never said that either. I don't have to prove something I never said.

Are you denying that you don't believe the local church is made up of members and non-members?

 

2 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Who cares if someone wears the robes or not?

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?) 

[Guest shiloh357]

4 minutes ago, arachnogeek said:

I'll stick with what is spiritual rather than pragmatic. 

Then you will have to avoid evangelism, discipleship, and virtually every form of outreach.

Quote

You'll have to prove that with scripture. 

No, you are the one making the claim.  You are the one that needs to show it from Scripture. 

Quote

Are you denying that you don't believe the local church is made up of members and non-members?

The local church is made up of members.   The Body of Christ is made up of members.   I have non-members that attend my church on a regular basis.  They are still deciding.   They are not part of our local church, so they are not members of our congregation.

Quote

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?) 

My point is that if some denominations use Anglican robes, who cares?

[john1]

On 7/6/2018 at 10:07 AM, shiloh357 said:

That has nothing to do with homosexuals.  

It has everything to do with homosexuals, read it again.

 

Read these next verses very carefully and try to understand them.

Romans chapter 9 verses 30-Romans chapter 10 verse 4

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. As it is written: See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame. Brothers my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are Zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own the did not submit to God's righteousness, Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. 

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, john1 said:

It has everything to do with homosexuals, read it again.

 

Read these next verses very carefully and try to understand them.

Romans chapter 9 verses 30-Romans chapter 10 verse 4

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. As it is written: See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame. Brothers my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are Zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own the did not submit to God's righteousness, Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. 

I understand them just fine.  They have nothing to do with homosexuals.

Are you a homosexual?

[john1]

7 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

I understand them just fine.  They have nothing to do with homosexuals.

Are you a homosexual?

I don't think you do understand them.

Are you a homosexual?

 

If we're under law, we're all doomed.

 

Ephesians chapter 2 verses 14-19
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two. thus making peace and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. Consequently , you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, john1 said:

I don't think you do understand them.

Are you a homosexual?

No.   Are you a homosexual?   Yes or no?

[john1]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Are you a homosexual?   Yes or no?

No I am not a homosexual.

But look what they said about Jesus, he condemned no one for sin.

John chapter 9

¹⁶ Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.”