Bases for joining/separating oneself to a local church

Do you have questions about the nature, work, purpose, or pattern for the church? This is the place to share your thoughts and questions with others.

Moderator: grand_puba

Post Reply
User avatar
grand_puba
Moderator
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:48 pm

Bases for joining/separating oneself to a local church

Post by grand_puba » Sat Oct 15, 2005 9:25 pm

Split from this thread:

about151.html

Starting post provided immediately below...

This thread to focus on generic grounds for joining oneself to a local church, and the grounds for separating oneself from a local church. Please visit the above thread to discuss the Scripturalness of R. C. Sproul's doctrine and related variations of Calvinism.
Last edited by grand_puba on Sat Oct 15, 2005 9:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

R.C.Sproul: a new vatican II ?

Post by email » Sat Oct 15, 2005 9:26 pm

I am involved with a just beginning church (whose leader prefers to be called an elder not desiring to be paster but to call one later) He does not require strict adherance to his "reformed theology" with which I have given much study an find no agreement.He does not boldly preach calvinism at the pulpit(but brushes up against it) He does boldly preach. Inteligent yet humble in his approach He thinks along the lines of R.C.Sproul than Calvin. Is there a difference? Isn't this Vat.II (or Calvin II) a softend version of the same? Can there be unity,one body with diversity in doctrinal thinking? He seems to be a better man than most in his obediance and walk with the Lord. Is reformed theolgy heiresy? Should I flee?
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

two principles for consideration...

Post by m273p15c » Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:53 pm

email wrote:I am involved with a just beginning church (whose leader .... does not require strict adherence to his "reformed theology" ... He does not boldly preach Calvinism at the pulpit(but brushes up against it) ... Can there be unity,one body with diversity in doctrinal thinking? He seems to be a better man than most in his obedience and walk with the Lord. ... Should I flee?
This is a really good question, worthy of consideration by all. First, please note that there is no passage, at least that I can find, which explicitly states the criteria for one's joining a local church, or the bases for later choosing to separate oneself from the same church. This means we will have to put on our thinking caps. We will have to scan the Bible looking for references, related by principle and logic. This makes the question more difficult to answers and makes it more vulnerable to debate, but nonetheless, it is answerable (Ephesians 3:3-5).

As a second point of introduction, please allow me to observe what the question does not ask: This question is not about the church's bases for withdrawing from an individual. This is well defined (I Corinthians 5:9-13; Romans 16:17-18). Also, this does not relate to the individual's fellowship with other individuals, because it is a distinct relationship from the collective, not necessarily governed by the same rules (I Corinthians 5:9-11; II Corinthians 6:14-17; II John 1:10-11). This question and the following answer focuses on the individual's fellowship with the local church.

As a final point of introduction, please note that the New Testament pattern is for individuals to establish, form, or join local churches. We have the apostle Paul's own example for this (Philippians 3:17):
Luke, the inspired historian, wrote:And when Saul had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and did not believe that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. And he declared to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. So he was with them at Jerusalem, coming in and going out. (Acts 9:26-28)
The above passage gives us the pattern for the individual seeking to join a local church. Incidentally, it also provides authority for the local church to reject such membership under suspicion of authenticity, while providing an avenue of appeal and indemnification by trusted sources: In the above example, Barnabas had to stand up for Saul, for him to be accepted by the brethren.

That being said, here are the principles that I use to personally answer this question:
  1. Fellowship - I believe the fundamental key to understanding and answering this question is summed up in one word - fellowship. The basic meaning of this word is "sharing". We often use this word to refer to sharing social occasions with each other, which is not an inaccurate application of the word, but in the New Testament, the word was used exclusively to reference spiritual sharing, such as in worship or financial support of an evangelist (Acts 2:42; I Corinthians 1:9; 10:20; II Corinthians 6:14; 8:4; Galatians 2:9; Galatians 6:6; Ephesians 3:9; 4:16; 5:11; Philippians 1:5; 2:1; 3:10; I Timothy 5:22; 6:18; II Timothy 1:8; Hebrews 13:16; I John 1:3, 6-7; Revelation 18:4).

    Whenever we are joined to a local church, we enter a fellowship with them (Acts 2:40-42; 9:26-28). Therefore, we share in whatever work the church performs. Consequently, if the church's work is sinful, then we become guilty of sin by sharing in it. Therefore, we should heed Paul's more general warning, applied specifically to the point of fellowshipping a church:
    Paul, an apostle, wrote:Do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other people's sins; keep yourself pure. (I Timothy 5:22)
    If we are too hasty in joining a local church (remeber, "laying hands" on somebody was an ancient sign of fellowship - Acts 6:6; 13:3; Galatians 2:9), we may find ourself sharing in the church's sins. Not only does this passage prove the possibility of such "guilt by association", but it also provides warning to avoid it.

    It is important to draw a distinction between the activities of the church's individuals and the church collective. For example, if the church uses its treasury to perform sinful acts (supporting unauthorized works, supporting false teachers, etc.), then any contribution I make into the treasury supports those acts. I become a sharer in that sin. This is a corollary to the Philippians, whose treasury was used to support Paul, which made all of the Philippian saints as "sharers" in Paul's preaching (Philippians 1:1, 5; 4:14-18). Similarly, musical worship is a collective act, so if a church rolls in a piano, I would have to cease worshiping there, because I cannot separate the lifting of my voice from the music of the piano. I would become sharer in what I believe to be a sin (http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles ... ments.html). On the flip side, if a man goes home and murders his wife, I am not made a sharer in his heinous sin, just because we happen to be members at the same church. That sin is something he does as an individual. The church collective has nothing to do with it, and therefore, cannot be held responsible. As proof to this point, please consider this encouragement given to a few lonely saints in the middle of a spiritually dead congregation:
    Jesus, by way of John the apostle, wrote:"And to the angel of the church in Sardis write,'These things says He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars: "I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die, for I have not found your works perfect before God. Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you. You have a few names even in Sardis who have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with Me in white, for they are worthy. (Revelation 3:1-4)
    From this we learn that a church may become dead, but yet, it may contain a few faithful, who are innocent by their attendance. However, given the limitations given above, and the warning that a church may be completely rejected and unrecognized by the Lord (Revelation 1:5; 3:2-3), it seems there comes a point when the faithful will be forced into "abandoning ship". I believe this point is the occasion when the faithful are forced to share in sin, if they are to remain associated with a local church.
  2. Personal Spiritual Well-Being - While the above principle states an absolute "requirement", I believe this next rule is somewhat more subjective and fuzzy. The Christian's primary allegiance is to Christ. This priority surpasses all other priorities, including the local church (Luke 14:26-33). Therefore, if a local church is not doing anything wrong, but they are failing to do what is right, like teach and proclaim the gospel, then I would feel obligated to pull up roots and move to another church, which provided adequate spiritual food (Acts 20:17, 26-28). I cannot let my desire to help an ailing congregation put my soul, or the souls of my wife and children, in jeopardy. The spiritually strong are to bear the burdens of the weak (Galatians 6:1-6). If my strength, or the strength of my loved ones for whom I am responsible, has been depleted in a spiritual struggle, then I must go somewhere else, before I die.
Wrapping this up, to apply these rules to the above described situation, I would leave for these reasons:
  • Sharing in Sin - I know the original correspondent affirmed that the preacher did not teach error from the pulpit, but he must be teaching it somewhere; otherwise, how was his position known? It will only be a matter of time before it is proclaimed from the pulpit. False teachers "creep" (II Timothy 3:1-9 (esp. 6); Titus 1:9-11 - notice, he works on private, "household" level). That which is taught privately today will be taught publicly tomorrow. Experience says that is is just a matter of time before he gains enough support and feels confident enough to risk open confrontation. More immediately, if you are studying with a sinner, and wish to teach him the gospel, how will this preacher help? What will he say? Is he standing for the truth of God's Word, or would he lead them astray? Any friend that you brought to church and encouraged to study with the preacher would be destroyed. Would you be partaker in that? For conscience's sake, I could not stay and lend my support.

    Although II John 1:7-11 was addressed to the individual, I believe it applies here. As an individual, if we cannot fellowship a false teacher, how can we fellowship with a church which supports and accepts a false teacher? Therefore, I would again have to ultimately withdraw my membership and support from such a church.
    John, the apostle, wrote:For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. ... If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds. (II John 1:10-11)
  • Personal Spiritual Well-Being - Ok, so maybe he is not preaching error from the pulpit, but is he preaching the truth? The only way he can avoid hypocrisy and not preach false doctrine is by simply avoiding certain topics. Considering that this topic is strongly related to Calvinism, he will not be able to teach in depth on faith, grace, mercy, justice, love, the Holy Spirit, apostasy, salvation, or eternal condemnation without eventually expressing his false doctrine. Given this list of topics to be avoided, what remains? Can he honestly state that he is proclaiming the "whole gospel", like Paul (Acts 20:26-27)? If he is not, then are you getting the spiritual nourishment you need?
Depending on the exact specifics, I may try and stay a while in an effort to "turn the ship around", like the saints in Sardis; but if it does not go well, and I am forced to choose between supporting and sharing in sin versus going somewhere else, then I would ultimately have to go somewhere else.

"Fellowship" and "Personal Well-Being" (Christ before all) are the two great principles that I believe should be brought to bear on this point. It may be that I have overlooked other principles, maybe even overriding ones, or it may be that I have misapplied these, so I remain happily open to further discussion these points. :-D

JSM17
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 5:16 pm
Location: Hoffman Estates, Illinois

Post by JSM17 » Sun May 14, 2006 3:08 pm

One is added to the church, one church in which Christ died for His church not our church. As for identifying ourselves with congregations is a mer identity thing within His church not our church, of course you have many people going to man's churches such as Luthers church, Westly's church, the Pope's church and so on, but they are not of the one true church that Christ died for.

There will not have to be unity in diversity because Christ did not call for His church to be divided, if you are divided from His church then you are not part of His church!

One Church with no denomination!

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

upon what basis?

Post by m273p15c » Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:04 pm

>JSM17:

Upon what basis does one select a church with which to identify? I agree denominations are wrong, and we should ultimately use the Bible to establish authority for all that we practice as Christians ... So, what basis or characteristics does the Bible provide for identifying a church to join?

And, here's the flip side, when does a local congregation become so "bad" that he can, or should, leave to join another local congregation?

I believe this is a deeper question regarding fellowship - not just denominationalism.

Post Reply