How does one become a member of the church?

[Jude3b]

Different denominations have different rituals for church membership. What is the Bible basis for these rituals and what is the Bible teaching on church membership?

[Jude3b]

Is there any Bible basis for formal church membership in a denomination or even a local church?

[rmwilliamsjr]

i would offer the following as the best essay i've seen online on the topic




from:
http://www.modernreformation.org/mr98/julaug/mr9804sixth.html
a very good article, you ought to read it long before you look at my scribblings.

A Sixth Sola?

By John R. Muether

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. There is no salvation outside the Church. In the good old days of American religious warfare these were perhaps fighting words for many Protestants, as they smacked of the mysterious and repressive haughtiness of Catholic sacerdotalism. Today, claims of the Church's exclusivity seem quaint and inconceivable, not least among Roman Catholics themselves, who are given to speak of even atheists being "anonymous Christians," and Eastern Orthodox and Protestant communicants as "separated brethren." Such incredulity testifies to Americans' ignorance of church history, because the statement goes back to the ancient Church. Nor are such claims the exclusive property of Rome, because they were frequently invoked by the Reformers. Beyond historical illiteracy, such claims' incoherence betrays the biases of our anti-ecclesiastical age.
...
Simply put, there can be no Christian life apart from the Church, according to the Reformers. No one can come to faith alone nor live by faith alone. Our faith is not from the Church, it is a gift from God (Eph. 2:8). But it comes through the Church, through whom the wisdom of God is made known (Eph. 3:10).

But what did the Reformers mean by the Church? It is rightly claimed by low church Protestants that the Reformers developed the distinction between the visible and invisible Church in part to refute the sacerdotal claims of Catholics. The invisible (to us), universal Church is "the whole number of the elect" from all ages (WCF 25.1), the "church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven" (Heb 12:23). The visible Church consists of confessing Christians and their children (WCF 25.2). The latter, of course, contains sinners and hypocrites, and is thus always, in this age, an imperfect embodiment of that Church visible only to God.

This distinction is often misunderstood, and contemporary interpreters in evangelical circles make more of it than the Reformers intended. The Reformers never suggested that the visible Church was of little or no importance. As the manifestation of the invisible Church to the world in time and place, the visible Church, though imperfect, remains the true Church, because it displays the marks of the Church. And it is the only Church that we can see and with which we can have fellowship. We have no Gnostic recourse to any other church than the visible Church.

i had a serious problem with the issues and wrote a longish essay on the topic at:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/rmwilliamsjr/56767.html

i have lots of links and research material included in this essay.

[rocketman]

nice post rmj.

The question now of course is, "Which one is the true visible Church?" There's more than a few to choose from, eh?

[rmwilliamsjr]

nice post rmj.

The question now of course is, "Which one is the true visible Church?" There's more than a few to choose from, eh?
the visible church cuts across denominational lines.
i think of the blind men and the elephant metaphor.
the elephant is the visible church, and the blind men are the different denominations. each with a different take on the elephant, each partially right each partially wrong. but together they describe the whole elephant

[trueseeker]

The church literally means, 'the called out ones.' If you have accepted God's call on your life to come out of the world and become His, then you are part of the church, one of the called out ones. If you have not accepted God's call to be His yet, you aren't.

You cannot go to church, you either are or aren't part of the church. All these institutions calling themselves 'church' are not really using the right term. They are some kind fellowship groups or clubs, most with some teaching (usually teaching in such a way that it keeps their members from ever coming to real maturity in the Lord). They typically have some percentage of the called out ones in their individual group. It is a terrible situation, that this is the system which most of the called out ones are tied into. We need Christian fellowship, teaching and worship time, but we are not to have any divisions among us and we are suppose to grow to maturity. But the vast majority of these religious institutions cause division between themselves and other religious institutions, which causes the called out ones in varying institutions to be divided. And their teaching promotes immaturity, and a baisest perspective of Biblical teachings.

My advise is to find groups which have a high percentage of real Christians and be partially involved in more than just one group. Instead of adding to the problem of the divisions between the called out ones, be a contector between different groups. Introducing real Christian friends from one to real Christian friends from one or two other institutions so that the real church, the call out ones in your area become more and more united.

[rocketman]

But there's still the problem of seeing who the "real Christians" are in the first place, or figuring out which doctrines are the "true doctrines" from each denomination...

[trueseeker]

rocketman wrote: But there's still the problem of seeing who the "real Christians" are in the first place, or figuring out which doctrines are the "true doctrines" from each denomination...

trueseeker: That is so true RM, it obviously takes time, patience, prayer, and being open to the Lord. He knows, we just need Him to open our eyes to see enough to just get glimses of how He sees things.

Lord open our eyes to see things more and more like You do.
Lord rebuild in us hearts to love the things you love more and more.

[rmwilliamsjr]

The church literally means, 'the called out ones.' If you have accepted God's call on your life to come out of the world and become His, then you are part of the church, one of the called out ones. If you have not accepted God's call to be His yet, you aren't.

You cannot go to church, you either are or aren't part of the church. All these institutions calling themselves 'church' are not really using the right term. They are some kind fellowship groups or clubs, most with some teaching (usually teaching in such a way that it keeps their members from ever coming to real maturity in the Lord). They typically have some percentage of the called out ones in their individual group. It is a terrible situation, that this is the system which most of the called out ones are tied into. We need Christian fellowship, teaching and worship time, but we are not to have any divisions among us and we are suppose to grow to maturity. But the vast majority of these religious institutions cause division between themselves and other religious institutions, which causes the called out ones in varying institutions to be divided. And their teaching promotes immaturity, and a baisest perspective of Biblical teachings.

My advise is to find groups which have a high percentage of real Christians and be partially involved in more than just one group. Instead of adding to the problem of the divisions between the called out ones, be a contector between different groups. Introducing real Christian friends from one to real Christian friends from one or two other institutions so that the real church, the call out ones in your area become more and more united.


I find this a neat expression of the anti-institutional attitude towards the Church that exists in the Christian community.
Note how he slips in a definition of church that is just people, something like "church is just chch unless u r in it" reasoning.
It is a tempting American type of thought, democratic, inclusive, nice, polite, and deeply and seriously wrong.
It sits very close to items i've looked at in the past:
the magisterial reformation and Calvin's use of Augustine's two swords, the Constantine synthesis and the believer's church versus the parish church.
a sacramental view of the church and the doctrine of the means of grace.
most of all it is a reflection of my struggles with "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" see: http://www.livejournal.com/users/rmwilliamsjr/56767.html

this issue is not as personal a one like the anti-intellectualism that infects the church, i feel that is directed at me and those with whom i share a common personality-type.
for we spent many years travelling and working swapmeets, and more after that with me working saturday nights until 0630 Sunday morning and thus usually asleep for church services. comfortably, so i am by nature solitary and bookish, not particularly comfort in public and most certainly not attracted to groups or meetings of any type. my weekly routine brings me into contact with the Church Sunday morning, and then men's Bible study (for 4 weeks now) Friday morning, other than my wife and kids i don't usually talk to anyone else in those 4 intervening days. like i said, i am a comfortable hermit.

I am a most unlikely candiate to defend the traditional and Biblical view of the Church as an institution, visible in the world, reflecting however imperfectly the invisible Church which is the Body of Christ and His means of grace to the world.

To the right of the traditional view is the sacramentalism of the Roman papacy. Where the Church itself somehow controls the grace and dispenses it to its members.
The position to the left is dominated by the type of thinking that this posting represents: anti-authoritary, anti-institutional, voluntary associations which are not creedal or confessional based, but most importantly groups without discipline. Partly a result simply of the ideas in the air in our culture, partly a reaction against denominationalism and the sin that is schism, but mostly it is the Enlightment ideal of autonomous reason working its way through the doctrine of sola scriptura and making it into a radical individual subjectivism.

And to combat this is the purpose of:


The Invisible Church?
Simply put, there can be no Christian life apart from the Church, according to the Reformers. No one can come to faith alone nor live by faith alone. Our faith is not from the Church, it is a gift from God (Eph. 2:8). But it comes through the Church, through whom the wisdom of God is made known (Eph. 3:10).

But what did the Reformers mean by the Church? It is rightly claimed by low church Protestants that the Reformers developed the distinction between the visible and invisible Church in part to refute the sacerdotal claims of Catholics. The invisible (to us), universal Church is "the whole number of the elect" from all ages (WCF 25.1), the "church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven" (Heb 12:23). The visible Church consists of confessing Christians and their children (WCF 25.2). The latter, of course, contains sinners and hypocrites, and is thus always, in this age, an imperfect embodiment of that Church visible only to God.

This distinction is often misunderstood, and contemporary interpreters in evangelical circles make more of it than the Reformers intended. The Reformers never suggested that the visible Church was of little or no importance. As the manifestation of the invisible Church to the world in time and place, the visible Church, though imperfect, remains the true Church, because it displays the marks of the Church. And it is the only Church that we can see and with which we can have fellowship. We have no Gnostic recourse to any other church than the visible Church.

from: http://www.covenant.net/articles/sixthsola.htm

What drives the doctrine is two related issues:
the church as the bearer of the means of grace.
and the influence, pervasiveness, and seriousness of sin, it warps our thinking and will always do so to the end of our days.

i've written a little on the means of grace at:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/rmwilliamsjr/103231.html

there are lots of good essays on total depravity, i dont need to repeat them here.
but the issue is that I will think wrong thoughts and attribute to them godliness. and only by being in close contact with others in the church and being under the godly discipline of the Church will i have responsibility and accountability. and this from a hermit, for intellectuals and their main task reading, is solitary by nature and by personal preference. but we are called into a body of believers, to a role in the lives of others, despite ourselves, for the glory of God. It is the required nature of this call that is the real element attacked in this posting, it is not voluntary to join a church, it is required. Not for the sake of the church but for my sake. For the means of grace that God has given the church are a common possession, a believers inheritance from His Lord, not given to individuals but to a collective.

For we are called out of this world, and into a community, a particular body, a place to worship collectively reflecting the heavenly places, a place to work together for the kingdom of God which is coming but not yet entirely here.

[rmwilliamsjr]

But there's still the problem of seeing who the "real Christians" are in the first place, or figuring out which doctrines are the "true doctrines" from each denomination...

i agreed wholeheartedly that this is a problem.
i look at the schism in the Church and recognize my own sin of stubbornness and self-righteous pride, confidence that i can recognize truth and determine its significance for my life.

yet i realize that the problem is sin, and it will not be solved on this side of the judgement. likewise i recognize that i need to respond to a clear calling and command from the Lord to join a local community of believers. Not just a bible study, or a prayer group, or a cell group. but a traditional, creedal, confessional, institutional, authoritive visible Church. not for their sake, but for mine. God certainly speaks through His Word, He speaks in history, and in creation. But just as importantly He speaks through the brethren, through real life breathing people who know and care about you, like my wife does, despite knowing me. do i like it? nay, i'd rather be home reading. but do i do as Jesus tells me to? sometimes,and when i do, i grow in the faith, because i did the very thing that was designed to help me mature. bingo. it really is for our best interests. wow, what a concept.

And this is the big point, when we bow our heads, submit to one another in godly discipline and love, God talks to us as individuals through a collectiveness. And this is certainly part of the great mystery of the Church being described as the body of Christ in the world.

just as the bonds that bind me to my wife are not voluntary after we were married. the bonds to the church are not voluntary in a significant way. for the sin that stretches my marriage bonds is similiar to that which stretches my church bonds. my sin interferes and threatens to break my marriage bonds, without the involuntary nature of it, the bonds would break under the barrage of my sins. with my wife all topics are legimate except divorce, talk of divorce is out of bounds, it is not an option, it is not thinkable. the bonds that bind us are not voluntary, subject to annual review, or dissolvable. This is a concession to our sinful natures, to strengthen what holds us together in the fact of our sinful nature.

but like divorce, schism is rife in the church. the result is that all denominations are mixtures of truth and falsity. but to use this as an excuse not to join, not to participate is a cop out, for i myself and am just such a mixture, right and wrong, good and bad.

and i think this is why the images of the church are dominated by body and marriage metaphors, for we struggle with these issues in all three contexts: church marriage body-soul and we use the interactions to learn about the other areas.

[Jude3b]

"AND THE LORD ADDED TO THE CHURCH DAILY SUCH AS SHOULD BE SAVED" (Acts 2:47b).
God places His people in the church when they are saved. So is there any Bible basis for church membership in a denomination?

[trueseeker]

rmwilliamsjr wrote: I find this a neat expression of the anti-institutional attitude towards the Church that exists in the Christian community. Note how he slips in a definition of church that is just people, something like "church is just chch unless u r in it" reasoning....

trueseeker: I didn't make up the definition of church, the greek word means - 'the called out ones.' It is the religious institutions that are trying to redefine the defintion of church to say that they are it. A religious institution is clearly not the definition in Greek or how the NT defines church. The church of Corinth was the called out ones who lived in the city of Corinth.
______________________

rmwilliamsjr wrote: '...The position to the left is dominated by the type of thinking that this posting represents: anti-authoritary, anti-institutional, voluntary associations which are not creedal or confessional based, but most importantly groups without discipline. Partly a result simply of the ideas in the air in our culture, partly a reaction against denominationalism and the sin that is schism, but mostly it is the Enlightment ideal of autonomous reason working its way through the doctrine of sola scriptura and making it into a radical individual subjectivism.'

trueseeker: What period in history did the true believers just join the religious institutions of the day, without questioning their authority and doctrine? Are the religious institutions of today better than they were in the past? How would believers ever get out of a religious institution that is preaching false doctrine, if we didn't question their authority and go directly to the Lord to help us interpret scripture?
__________________________

rmwilliamsjr wrote: '...the issue is that I will think wrong thoughts and attribute to them godliness. and only by being in close contact with others in the church and being under the godly discipline of the Church will i have responsibility and accountability... but we are called into a body of believers, to a role in the lives of others, despite ourselves, for the glory of God. It is the required nature of this call that is the real element attacked in this posting, it is not voluntary to join a church, it is required...'For we are called out of this world, and into a community, a particular body, a place to worship collectively reflecting the heavenly places, a place to work together for the kingdom of God which is coming but not yet entirely here.'

trueseeker: We are called out of the world to join the church - the called out ones, not a church - a religious institution. That is totally and purely religious institution propaganda, there is nothing in the scriptures that tells us to join a religious institution. There is also nothing in the scriptures that says not to join one. There are many good and benifital ones, however there are even more bad ones than good ones. If it is not up to us to evaulate which ones we should be connected to, who is it up to? You can't mean that believers should just join the nearest religious institution that claims to be Christian and submit themselves to the religious leader at the institution to believe and do whatever they say? Do you think the religious leader at some institution is less depraved and is less confused about what is godly and what isn't, than all it's members? If it isn't our personal responsibility to find out directly from the Lord where He wants us to be, and what He wants us to believe, whose is it?

I am not advocating individualism. I agree we need connection and interaction with other believers, but we need to be careful not to get ourselves connected to the wrong religious institutions. Throughout history it has been the religious institutions that claimed to be Christian who have spread the most false doctrine, tried to prevent the spread of the true gospel, and have persecuted the real church - the called out ones - more than all other groups. Religious institutions can be very dangerous and we need to be very careful and discerning of which ones we will be affiliated with.

[rmwilliamsjr]

rmwilliamsjr wrote: I find this a neat expression of the anti-institutional attitude towards the Church that exists in the Christian community. Note how he slips in a definition of church that is just people, something like "church is just chch unless u r in it" reasoning....

trueseeker: I didn't make up the definition of church, the greek word means - 'the called out ones.' It is the religious institutions that are trying to redefine the defintion of church to say that they are it. A religious institution is clearly not the definition in Greek or how the NT defines church. The church of Corinth was the called out ones who lived in the city of Corinth.
______________________

rmwilliamsjr wrote: '...The position to the left is dominated by the type of thinking that this posting represents: anti-authoritary, anti-institutional, voluntary associations which are not creedal or confessional based, but most importantly groups without discipline. Partly a result simply of the ideas in the air in our culture, partly a reaction against denominationalism and the sin that is schism, but mostly it is the Enlightment ideal of autonomous reason working its way through the doctrine of sola scriptura and making it into a radical individual subjectivism.'

trueseeker: What period in history did the true believers just join the religious institutions of the day, without questioning their authority and doctrine? Are the religious institutions of today better than they were in the past? How would believers ever get out of a religious institution that is preaching false doctrine, if we didn't question their authority and go directly to the Lord to help us interpret scripture?
__________________________

rmwilliamsjr wrote: '...the issue is that I will think wrong thoughts and attribute to them godliness. and only by being in close contact with others in the church and being under the godly discipline of the Church will i have responsibility and accountability... but we are called into a body of believers, to a role in the lives of others, despite ourselves, for the glory of God. It is the required nature of this call that is the real element attacked in this posting, it is not voluntary to join a church, it is required...'For we are called out of this world, and into a community, a particular body, a place to worship collectively reflecting the heavenly places, a place to work together for the kingdom of God which is coming but not yet entirely here.'

trueseeker: We are called out of the world to join the church - the called out ones, not a church - a religious institution. That is totally and purely religious institution propaganda, there is nothing in the scriptures that tells us to join a religious institution. There is also nothing in the scriptures that says not to join one. There are many good and benifital ones, however there are even more bad ones than good ones. If it is not up to us to evaulate which ones we should be connected to, who is it up to? You can't mean that believers should just join the nearest religious institution that claims to be Christian and submit themselves to the religious leader at the institution to believe and do whatever they say? Do you think the religious leader at some institution is less depraved and is less confused about what is godly and what isn't, than all it's members? If it isn't our personal responsibility to find out directly from the Lord where He wants us to be, and what He wants us to believe, whose is it?

I am not advocating individualism. I agree we need connection and interaction with other believers, but we need to be careful not to get ourselves connected to the wrong religious institutions. Throughout history it has been the religious institutions that claimed to be Christian who have spread the most false doctrine, tried to prevent the spread of the true gospel, and have persecuted the real church - the called out ones - more than all other groups. Religious institutions can be very dangerous and we need to be very careful and discerning of which ones we will be affiliated with.


my arguments are addressed to the essential nature of joining a local church, an argument against the idea that this is a voluntary commitment.

Extra Eccelsia Nulla Salus

this says nothing about the character of the church as a parish church ideal or a believers church. nor does it say anything about the fact that our ultimate loyalty is to the body of Christ as an invisible not-corporal ideal.

the thread is 'how do we join a church?" a question that can not be answered until we clarify if the Scriptures require a commitment to a local body or just allow it. the question is "why do we join a church?" is it a command or just a good idea?

i simply state the obvious traditional answer.
outside of the church there is no ordinary means of salvation.
and expand this word church to mean: local, visible, accessible body of believers where the Word is properly preached, the sacraments correctly adminstered and the good discipline of the church taken seriously.

after you answer the question of why?
then you can address the question of how, for that question is determined by the body of believers, this church you propose to associate with.
but the answer to "why?" conditions the range of potential answers to "how?"

and that is where your insights and remarks are applied. how are you associated with a church, towards what ends. for what purposes????

as to a detail of your message


trueseeker: We are called out of the world to join the church - the called out ones, not a church - a religious institution. That is totally and purely religious institution propaganda, there is nothing in the scriptures that tells us to join a religious institution. There is also nothing in the scriptures that says not to join one.

in the NT a called out believer is associated with a local body in a particular physical place. we have no instances of monks who are struck with the word separately from the voices of the community, becomes a christian isolated and continues without any associations with other believers. (a good contrast is with buddhism, where the founder is very ascetic and separated from the community)

rather the pattern is:
hear the words from the mouths of a preacher who is himself associated with a body of believers.
this person believes the truthfulness of the kerygma
and then associates himself with the local body of believers in order to do the work of the church.

what is remarkable to me.
is the voluntary nature of the link between the individual and the church. this versus the Islamic ideal of ummah
yet the required, essential nature of the link. this versus the buddhist ideal where community, sangha is a good idea, akin to the ideas presented in this thread. it is this ideal, of sangha, that i am consistently arguing against. not a believers versus a parish church, where in fact, i side with the anabaptists, not the magisterial reformers.

[trueseeker]

rmwilliamsjr wrote: 'my arguments are addressed to the essential nature of joining a local church, an argument against the idea that this is a voluntary commitment.'

trueseeker: From my perspective, when we accept the Lord we are part of the universial church and part of the local church and we have not only committed ourselves to the Lord, but also to the church. The Lord instructs us to get ourselves involved with other local members of the church, it may be in a local Christian denomination or community church group, home group, Bible study, etc. But we need fellowship, worship time, and teaching (although teaching could come from a number of different types of media).
_______________________

rmwilliamsjr wrote: 'the thread is 'how do we join a church?" a question that can not be answered until we clarify if the Scriptures require a commitment to a local body or just allow it. the question is "why do we join a church?" is it a command or just a good idea?'

trueseeker: I do believe it is clear in the Scriptures that we need to be committed to the local body, but that doesn't mean we have to be committed to a local religious institution.
______________________

rmwilliamsjr wrote: 'outside of the church there is no ordinary means of salvation. and expand this word church to mean: local, visible, accessible body of believers where the Word is properly preached, the sacraments correctly adminstered and the good discipline of the church taken seriously.'

trueseeker: I disagree with your accessment, we should be witnessing and bringing the salvation message out to individuals where they are at. Yes, some religious institutions are doing a good job of evangilizing, but it is still our personal responsibility to be sharing the gospel with those around us, and to be admonishing other Christians around, whether they are part of our religious instituion or not.
________________________

rmwilliamsjr wrote: 'in the NT a called out believer is associated with a local body in a particular physical place....'

trueseeker: Again I disagree with your accessment. The early church moved around from house to house for fellowship. My picture of the situation was that a few families met at one house for fellowship one evening while several other groups were meeting in various places around town, then the next evening there were various meetings in different places, with the groups mixing to get news and fellowship from different believers. It was a living organism, moving and flowing, exchanging news, ideas, letters, songs, etc. It was a dynamic stream of living water flowing and over flowing and pouring out on those around them. Not a religious institution group that a bunch of Christians join and often becomes a seperatist stagnet pool. (Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying all religious institutions are bad or stagnet, there are the acceptions which are dynamic and interact with other Christian groups, home groups, missionaries, youth ministries, and other ministry services, etc.) All I am saying is that the early Church did not resemble the religious institutions of today that call themselves, 'Churches.'

[Dano]

It is really a sad thing to think that people that say they are Christians are Clueless,
If you have never given your heart to the Lord as your savior< church membership will do you no eartly or heavenly good.
If you have given your heart and soul to the Lord the savior, then the Holy Spirit is living in your heart, He it is that instructs and guides through the Bible and its teaching on how to live for God.
God want time with us, for us to hear what he wants of us we need to read his love letter to us "BIBLE" and for us to talk to Him ,we pray, and then he imresses our heart on the actions to take.

A good bible believing church like all churches has liars in them, they say they are christians without living like Christ. The church is where believers are to gather together and worship, pray, etc and then go into their work week world and live and testify with life and lip of how good God really is.

Heb 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is: but exhorting one another: and so much more, as you see the day approaching.

It is a thing of faithfulness, and showing that what you claim to be is real, if in fact it is real.

If you want to know what God wishes for you, submit your heart to Him and he will be there for you never leaving or forsaking you.

After Salvation,(giving you heart and life to Christ), this is when reading the Bible and praying will lead you to truth, which will lead you to the church God wants for you.

[Jude3b]

"Which he (God) wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church." (Ephesians 1:20-22).