Membership

[Bob Brinton (151.203.187.180)]

I was in TBS/GGWO from 1975 or 76 till about 1996 (I think). I was never aware of there being any official membership. I find it strange that anyone refers to exmembers. Did I just not know about this because I wasn't part of the 'Inner Circle'? Please enlighten me. Bob

[Anonymous (4.139.12.69)]

This message brings up another interesting point; why doesn't GGWO have membership classes like most mainline churches. They obviously have their own "peculiar" doctrines.

Why the mystery and nebulous nature of "membership" @ Greater Grace World Outreach?

Does this have anything to do with tax exemptions and the nonprofit status of this organization?

[Anonymous (4.139.12.69)]

Perhaps it is MORE "smoke" and "mirrors"

[JD Skeet (152.163.253.102)]

"Does this have anything to do with tax exemptions and the nonprofit status of this organization?"

No.

[Anonymous (68.34.76.34)]

What do mean membership classes?

[Anonymous (66.30.49.45)]

There is no membership at GG/TBS. We refer to people as members only loosely. We could just as well use the term attendee or participant.

The no membership policy is preached upon at least once a year and I believe is in place for the purpose of making us feel free from the "burden" put on people who attend "other" churches that are mainline. Really, the no membership policy is all about no accountability on the part of GG/TBS leadership!!

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

Right, no members? then no one has a say ecept the elite few at the top. And they are only at the top and elite because they say the right thing to Pastor.

[Cordell Walker (66.90.181.249)]

I remember in 1973/1974 where we took an oath to the "body" to remain faithful. It was taped on a recorder by Lou Kahlenbeck, I think.

[SJ (205.188.117.20)]

They did the same thing in Lenox once after a service

[lee (65.96.56.161)]

I remember once in So Berwick having to go for a personal interview with Mike Graves.....after a few questions about my loyalty to the 'body', he marked on the paper 'sold out'

We were not present when people were asked to speak into a microphone about their loyalty but I remember there being a buzz about it. I remember thinking how happy I was to have missed the event and wondered if it would be repeated. Made me a bit nervous to go to service thereafter.....I wondered if I had the gutz to not speak. I've come a long way!

[Anonymous (152.163.253.102)]

There is no official membership because if there were and you belonged you would have a vote in church policy.
The same applies to shareholders of a corporation, or to members of any organization which you support with your money.
Carl knew what he was doing.

[Bob Brinton (141.154.160.63)]

I guess Lou was always a company guy, even if there were times he pretended not to be. Bob

[Bob Brinton (151.203.179.90)]

Since the mention of oaths came up, what do you all think about them? If you took one in a state of deception or misinformation, does God hold you to that? Does any ministry or man of God have a right to ask you to take an oath of loyalty to them? And if they do ask you, how does God feel about it and how does He deal with your not sticking to it? Here's another angle: if keeping your oath is sin or failure to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit, then how can that be considered something you should keep? Bob

[SJ (64.12.117.20)]

Please, Bob, in light of everything that has been brought out, how can you seriously ask if God would hold you to such an oath of loyalty?

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

God don't like ugly.

[Bob Brinton (151.203.179.90)]

SJ, It's not necessarily to me a question of whether God holds us to it. It's a question of what the people on this board think. In my particular neck of the spiritual woods, I've heard the word curse tossed around a lot; and this sort of thing is perhaps an application of it. I remember Scott Robinson getting up in Framingham and asking everyone to take an oath to not listen to anything negative about Carl Stevens. One point of view is that Scott was invoking a curse on whoever took that oath. A curse that would come into effect when they did listen to such things. Now; assuming God's all knowledge viewpoint on this; who do you suppose He holds to account - those of us who took such an oath, Scott or the big man himself? Bob

[Cordell Walker (66.90.181.249)]

Bob,
Some dead guys' wisdom:

"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his Word, or beside it in matters of faith on worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also."

[Bob Brinton (151.203.179.90)]

Amen Cordell. Well spoken. Love, Bob

[SJ (64.12.117.20)]

Bob,
I don't think Pastor Robinson was invoking any curses! I think that is really reading a lot into what was simply an oath not to listen to negative things. And I don't think God holds anyone to account on an oath like that if things come to light as they have about the ministry and Pastor Stevens. I think that is pretty much common sense.

[Cordell Walker (66.90.181.249)]

So SJ, now that Alan's story is out, what do you think?

[SJ (205.188.117.20)]

you don't want to know

[Cordell Walker (66.90.181.249)]

Sure I do.

[Cordell Walker (66.90.181.249)]

Or you can tell me here:

somebonus@yahoo.com

[SJ (205.188.117.20)]

I think it never should have been posted just like I think the emails never should have been posted. I think it was a despicable thing to do. Nasty, hateful, despicable. Just like the responses I will probably get for posting this. But that is what I think. And I think you already knew that is what I think

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

Come on. This is sin on steroids. Sin was, I dunno, month TWO. What the Stevenses did was EVIL.

[Anonymous (64.246.58.26)]

None

[Anonymous (69.242.21.100)]

MEMBERSHIP !!!! JOIN THE CULT TODAY...AND BE HEARTBROKEN TOMORROW !!!!!!!

[Anonymous (68.82.183.197)]

do something Satan doesn't want you to do tonight....PRAY

[redeemedinmaine]

I am fairly new to Factnet and have been doing alot of reading over the last few weeks. Membership was something I always wondered about too. Why there was no official membership, like other churches. I believe it was because if we had been bona fide "members" we would have had a say in what happened within the church. The top didnt want that. They wanted total control. Just like Deacons and Elders. Who were they? Were there any??? Or were they just figureheads, with no real power?

[cordell]

Elders and deacons in GGWO were until recently (and perhaps still are) appointed by the 'chief' elder and served at his pleasure (and ceased to serve at his displeasure, as we observed with Roger Stenger).

[whatsup]

I think it is unnecessary to have official "membership" in a church....aren't we all members of the church the moment we are "saved", "born again"...whatever you wish to call it...we are all members of Christ's church, His Body. I do believe in an order of having leaders to prevent chaos, but why the formality of membership? People don't pronounce you a member of the church, God does.

[sidethorn]

I agree. Formal, official membership is totally unnecessary in a church. In reality there is only one true church, the body of Christ. God pronounces membership with nothing else to go with it. No formal membership stuff, no membership classes to take, no papers to sign, no formal lists on paper, just the body of Christ. As far as an individual church goes, the members are those that keep coming back, and not necessarily every single Sunday either. Still, the focus should be on the body of Christ as a whole. It surely will be in the hereafter!!

[cordell]

Conventional wisdom would have been that most folks would have seen the folly of 'no membership' once they exited GGWO. That seems not to be the case.

Church membership is not only a good idea, it's biblical. God has a book of names and you're either in it or not. What's the problem with having your name in the book down at the local church? We are not baptized anonymously are we? We are baptized by NAME, and introduced as a new member of the body of Christ. And this baptism is done publicly, by a person in front of people which is after all what the church is made up of. And what is baptism, if not a ceremony of joining, distinguishing the one baptized from others who are not? (Just as circumcision did in the OT) Have a look in the OT, say in Chronicles (I or II--everyone's favorite books). What does it say to you about God? Does he place any importance on a record of names--(don't fall asleep reading it)? Look at the final chapter of the epistle to the Romans or Hebrews and what do you find? Names of members of that local body. We Americans like to be an unknown 'audience' not a known participating member of a congregation. A body's parts have names and functions that identify. So do we. We are known by our names. (John 10)

It is very easy to church hop if you remain anonymous. You can avoid church discipline if you are not a member with real elected elders to answer to. If you are a pastor in a church without members, you are accountable to no-one. If anyone off the street can vote in a church election of elders, then how valid is that election?

I have seen adulterous men and women biblically EXCOMMUNICATED with wonderful results in some cases, in that they were made sorrowful and repented and sought forgiveness when they were FORMALLY EXCLUDED from the Lord's table. Others were proven to be unbelievers. But in the nondenoms without church membership, these folks can just mosey on down the road to the next church of the hopalongs--like tens of thousands in America today.

Pastors who are accountable to members and members of a 'presbytery' are much easier to discipline as well--whether it be for moral or doctrinal reasons. They have many to counsel them, as they provide counsel to others. What if CHS had been EXCOMMUNICATED in 1972 during that little episode in Wiscasset? Would we all be better off?

[cordell]

And membership classes? What a great time to find out if the church has any 'peculiar' doctrines to which you may later object--like paedobaptism (as at my church) or the ordination of women (at some others) or on their policy concerning excercising the 'spiritual gifts'. Why not go along and ask the hard questions first? I asked a young 'ruling elder' at my church, "What does it mean to you that you are responsible to feed the flock of God?" It made him stutter. I loved it. He had to think and use his mind. God is a covenant making Lord over all. Church membership is a covenant. You need it.

[whatsup]

when you are baptized, you are baptized as a symbol that you are now part of the body of Christ,not as a member of a particular local church. And even without official membership, most people go to a local church often enough that they could still be "ex-communicated" from it or disciplined...they become like a family with the people and pastors there. I don't see how the bible teaches any membership except the universal body of Christ, and of course you have to have local churches because we all live in different places. As far as agreeing with doctrines, you don't have to take membership classes to know what a particular church believes...you can read their statement of faith or even learn that from just attending services. I have been attending a church for several years now that has official membership, but I am not an official member. There are in fact some things taught that I do not agree with, but they are not cardinal doctrines, and I agree with most things, and I like the pastor and his christian life is genuine and fervent. There are not a lot of good churches in my area to choose from, so I have to make some concessions that way. If a person is prone to church hop, they will do it whether they become formal members or not. Their hearts are what keep them in a church, not a membership status. We are members in particular of the Body of Christ and anything beyond that is man's addition, and it is not a bad thing but I don't think it is a necessary one either.

[whatsup]

GGWO never had membership, but if you were "off" in their eyes, you sure were marked and "excommunicated". I know in their case it was not discipline but insecurity and reaction...nevertheless, the power was there to cut people off even without official membership

[cordell]

You cannot become a member of an invisible church without being a member of a visible one. The church is not only universal but particular as well, it is always both and the Scriptures describe them as such i.e. the epistles of Paul address particular congregations. I beg to differ on baptism, the body of Christ is not out in the ether somewhere--you can see it, especially if you're in it. You can base your opinions on your experience if you like, that's your choice. Most doctrinal statements are a summary, not an in depth explanation. Membership classes that we've been to have given us an opportunity to ask questions and watch how the spokesmen answer the hard ones--and I can ask hard ones. Services are brief, planned and organized events that usually show the best of the church; small groups and classes are more informal and unplanned to some extent and it's where you can put the pastor or the elders on the spot.

Church membership is not now and has never been 'man's thing' it's God's thing and not an addition in any sense. GGWO didn't have membership to cover their arses--as do most nondenoms. Yes, people can church hop regardless of membership--it is however much harder when a church is a member of a presbytery along with its ministers for congregants and pastors just to hop from one to another within a denomination with membership. If folks are going to hop from church to church within our denomination, sooner or later they get found out. And like Martha says, that's a good thing. God is a covenant making God and created us in his image in that way as well. The local church is a covenant community.

From an article by Matt McMahon:
<font color="0000ff">The early church knew exactly how many people professed to be saved. They knew the included number of the local visible church. You may want to check on your own the Scriptures in Acts 1:15; Acts 2:41; Acts 2:47; Acts 4:4; Acts 5:14. The inclusion of men in the church in these instances was not the invisible number of the elect redeemed for all ages, but in the visible manifestation of the local body at Jerusalem.</font>

McMahon also addresses Colossians 4.9:
<font color="ff0000">“With Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you.”</font><font color="0000ff">Onesimus is not singled out as one of the elect of all ages, but on of those brethren at Colossae. The word Paul uses here is “ek” which is a primary preposition denoting origin (the point where action or motion proceeds). Onesimus’ origin, the place where he is out of or where he proceeds from is the unique relationship he has with the church at Colossae.</font>


The article (http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/UnderstandingChurchMembership.htm) in its entirety is well worth the read.

[sidethorn]

Statements of faith that many churches provide are usually sufficient to find out what a church believes without having to attend membership classes. Signing membership lists and attending membership classes are not necessarily bad, but not always essential either. I've attended plenty of churches do just fine without them. Newcomers quickly learn about the church and become part of the local body there and grow. The church discipline is carried out effectively as needed. Those that stir up strife and hurt others are asked to leave permanently or excluded from the church functions for a season. Its good for believers to have a good local church as a church home and not to hop from church to church all the time. Those predisposed to church hop are going to do it anyway, whether there's membership covanents or not. Constant church hopping also won't help one's spiritual growth, a good church home can be very helpful for that. Home fellowship groups can be an even better opportunity to learn about a church, its people, and the Bible. One's better off having a long term home group to grow with than a very temporal membership class. While both can be good, the home group has far more potential overall. Despite all the crap that happened at GGWO, I still believe that there are some good churches out there, I've been part of my current one for over a year now. I also highly recommend commiting to a good church home for spiritual growth. It works.

[cordell]

"We Believe:
All Scripture contained in the Old and New Testaments is verbally, plenarily, and inerrantly inspired by God. It is the authoritative guide for all Christian understanding, life and ministry.
There is but one God eternally existent in three persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Each is infinite, eternal, and almighty. We believe that Jesus Christ, the Son, is fully God and fully man. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, and He lived a sinless life. He died, shedding His blood in His substitutionary death for sinners, then was buried, arose from the grave, ascended into heaven, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father.
The Holy Spirit, Who is Lord and giver of life, convicts the world of sin, righteousness and judgment, and unites man to Jesus Christ by faith. We believe the Holy Spirit seals and fills all believers.
Man was created in the image and likeness of God. It was by man's free volition that he disobeyed God, incurring physical and spiritual death (separation from God). Each human being is born with a sin nature. Because of this each human is a sinner by nature and is in need of a divine salvation. That salvation is a gift from God. This was accomplished by Christ's substitutionary death; all who believe in Him are justified by the shedding of His blood. Because salvation is given by grace, the believer's salvation is eternally secure.
The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is sent upon all who believe in Jesus Christ. This takes place in each believer at the moment of salvation. Continual infilling may follow. Each gift given by the Holy Spirit is for the edification of the Body of Christ, and is still present today.
We believe that the fulfillment of the Great Commission is the responsibility of all believers.
The church is the body and the bride of Christ. It is dedicated to the worship and service of God, and the observance of the sacraments or ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. The primary task of the church in all ages is to teach all nations and to make disciples through the preaching and teaching of the Word of God.
Christ will return to rapture His church. Immediately following this event will be the seven-year tribulation period. Concluding this, Christ will come again to the earth and establish His rule for a 1,000 year period. The Great White Throne judgment of the unsaved, coupled with Satan being cast into the lake of fire, will then allow Christ to establish a New Heaven and a New Earth. This is the consummation of all things."

[cordell]

We believe the only true basis of Christian fellowship is Christ's Agape love, which is greater than any differences we possess and without which we have no right to claim ourselves Christians.

We believe worship of God should be spiritual. Therefore, we remain flexible and yielded to the leading of the Holy Spirit to direct our worship.

We believe worship of God should be inspirational. Therefore, we give great place to music in our worship.

We believe worship of God should be intelligent. Therefore, our services are designed with great emphasis upon the teaching of the Word of God that He might instruct us how He should be worshipped.

We believe worship of God should be fruitful. Therefore, we look for His love in our lives as the supreme manifestation that we have truly been worshipping Him.

We believe in all the basic doctrines of historic Christianity.

We believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, that the Bible, Old and New Testaments are the inspired, infallible Word of God.

We believe that God is eternally existent in three distinct persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

We believe that God is the personal, transcendent, and sovereign Creator of all things.

We believe that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human, that He was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, provided for the atonement of our sins by His substitutionary death on the cross, was bodily raised from the dead, ascended back to the right hand of the Father, and ever lives to make intercession for us.

We believe in the personal, visible, and pre-millennial second coming of Jesus Christ to the earth. He will return with His saints and set up a kingdom of which there will be no end.

After Jesus ascended to Heaven, He poured out His Holy Spirit on the believers in Jerusalem, enabling them to fulfill His command to preach the Gospel to the entire world, an obligation shared by all believers today.

We believe that all people are, by nature, separated from God and responsible for their own sin, but that salvation, redemption, and forgiveness are freely offered to all by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. When a person repents of sin and accepts Jesus Christ as personal Savior and Lord, trusting Him to save, that person is immediately born again and sealed by the Holy Spirit, all his/her sins are forgiven, and that person becomes a child of God, destined to spend eternity with the Lord.

We believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit mentioned in the Scriptures, and that they are valid for today if they are exercised within the scriptural guidelines. We as believers are to covet the best gifts, seeking to exercise them in love that the whole Body of Christ might be edified. We believe that love is more important than the most spectacular gifts, and without this love all exercise of spiritual gifts is worthless.

[cordell]

Which of the two statements of faith above would tell you that the church professing those beliefs is a cult?

Don't use google or navigate away from this page, just use the statements alone.

[whatsup]

I am not saying that the local church is not important or scriptural, I think it is very important and I think people ought to stay at one and be involved and not hop around. All I am saying is that I don't think the ritual of becoming a member is necessary..I think if you go to that church faithfully you are a member, and an announcement by anyone does not make you so..God does. At the church I go to, they have membership luncheons and you have to meet with the pastor, and then they announce you are a "member" at service. The official members can vote on things. I have never felt less a part of things because I have not done this. But as I said, there are some things I do not agree with that are taught, and that is a one reason why I have not become an official "member"

[cordell]

You were both members of GGWO/TBS for some years right?

At which service that you attended, or by reading which statement of faith did you figure out that something was wrong? When did the light go on? After how many years? Was it what you'd call 'quickly' as you used the word above? Do you think that the 'average' Christian who's never heard of Greater Grace who might stumble into one of their services--or even attended several services would have any idea that the group is a cult? Is a 'rap' session as open and informal as a class where everyone is EQUAL and can each contribute to the conversation without feeling like they're in the 'spotlight'? At GGWO, what are most of the 'questions' like at the 'rap' sessions? And there are hundreds of disfunctional 'churches' out there. To me, one of the alarm bells would be that the church has 'optional' membership.

Was there ever a "newcomers class" or "membership class" offered by GGWO or CHS where HARD questions could be asked and CHS could be put on the spot in a normal way?

People break laws, whether there are laws or not. People get divorced, in spite of marriage vows. People are tardy, in spite of the time being set to report to work. Does that mean that in your opinion they should be done away with or ignored just because "people will do it anyway?" People get murdered--because murderers murder anyway--in spite of the law or the possible penalty. Should those laws be done away with or ignored? A church covenant which does not violate scripture is biblical, and GOD recognizes the vows given--just as he recognizes the marriage vows we make.

You can have your noncommittal situations in the nondenoms, I've learned my lesson.

In Scripture those who vacate legitimate vows without repentance identify who they really are, which is what excommunication is really all about. If that person is a believer who is filled with the Holy Spirit comes under discipline of a legitimate local church of which he or she is a MEMBER, God is faithful to convict of sin and the person will be restored eventually. If not, then who that person really was is proved out, in spite of them going on to the next 'church'.

[cordell]

<font color="0000ff">All I am saying is that I don't think the ritual of becoming a member is necessary..I think if you go to that church faithfully you are a member, and an announcement by anyone does not make you so..God does.</font>

Apply that same logic to marriage, or citizenship and see how much sense it makes...I can sneak in an 'attend' Harvard University but it doesn't make me a graduate. I can sit in an oven, it doesn't make me a cake.

'Living together' to some people may make them 'married in the eyes of God' in their small minds. Wait until the stuff hits the fan and a 'divorce' is sought and 'rights' are at issue. Ask James Brown's 'partner' who's out in the cold right now how 'married' she is in spite of how long they lived together. The concept is the same.

(Message edited by cordell on December 27, 2006)

[whatsup]

that is not a fair analogy at all

[cordell]

my dear poor whatsup, sure it is. the bible uses those very analogies in referring to 'church members'.

[cordell]

stop typing for a moment. hold up your hand. is it 'joined' to your body or just attending? now read 1 Corinthians 12. That 'body membership' does not take place in the 'ether' of the 'universal body' it takes place locally.

[j_graz]

Using your citizenship argument...did you sign papers or take an oath to become a citizen or where you born an American Citizen.

Church membership is not a marriage...if that were the case, you would need to have one church (pastor-teacher too!) for life.

[cordell]

agreed church membership is not a marriage but it is a covenant, and is analogous likewise. some citizens are born and others become citizens by oath. those who sneak across the border to enjoy the priveleges without the 'membership' are aliens, right? they're 'just attending'...

[cordell]

church membership is not the making of a covenant with "one pastor teacher" my dear Jerry. not all covenantal churches have a 'one pastor' system, in fact, none of ours do. but yes, we covenant to be members of a local church for life, wherever we live--we don't 'attend' some ethereal 'body'--we join ourselves to other local Christians and worship with them, commune with them, agree to raise our children a certain way, recognize other members who are baptized...

[cordell]

and jerry, when Paul called the church the 'bride' was he speaking initially to the 'universal' church or to a local church in a particular city?

[cordell]

as I remember, you're taking a particularly Baptist direction, no? Baptists particularly take church membership very seriously. (and for the casual reader, I am NOT a Baptist) Here's an example of their policies which they draw from scripture:

<font color="0000ff">We believe that a Baptist church is a congregation of baptized believers associated by a covenant of faith and fellowship of the Gospel, said church being understood to be the citadel and propagator of the divine and eternal grace; observing the ordinances of Christ; governed by His laws; exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word; that its officers of ordination are pastors or elders whose qualifications, claims, and duties are clearly defined in the scriptures.</font>

[cordell]

by way of explanation on the importance of understanding the concept, the above statement is one of the reasons I am not a Baptist. See the phrase "congregation of baptized believers?"

Compare that to this:
<font color="0000ff">We believe that God is gracious and faithful to His people not simply as individuals but as families in successive generations according to His Covenant promises.</font>

[sidethorn]

Carl Stevens was a master of cloaking his lies with enough truths and half truths to trick many sincere Christians into joining his "church". It worked on a lot of us, some for a longer time than others. Carl would have certainly used all this deceptive cloaking during any membership classes or formal membership registration processes if he had chose to go that route. Its very unlikely people would have discovered Carl to be a con man full of false teaching just by going to a membership class. Carl could have just as easily decieved people there too. Whether or not Carl would have had formal membership policies in place along with membership classes, many people would still have been decieved into following this charlatan to get led astray.

[cordell]

CHS was fearful of small intimate groups over which he had no control. I had occasion to view him in certain of these situations over the years and in no way did he ever find any ease in being seen as anyone's equal. That is why he carefully chose just the right number of cronies to go with him to the coffeeshops after service where he spouted his secret gems of knowledge. After the light went on for me, I had opportunity to buttonhole CHS privately--and he was very guarded and nervous--much like the guy behind the curtain in 'Oz'. And I can tell you this, I very much enjoyed making CHS nervous that time and the last time I visited GGWO in 1995. It was great to see him pace and wiggle, even in the company of his 'mafia'.

Carl did not have 'membership classes' because he changed his 'policies' to suit himself--much as he did his 'doctrine'. There would never be an opportunity to present "but the church statement of doctrine says..." I am not saying that the 'membership class' is THE answer, or even that they're required. They are an opportunity to find out stuff if you know how to do it, and they are more revealing than a morning or evening service. That's a fact.

[sidethorn]

Carl also refused to be up front about a lot of his false contraversial teachings too. One would usually find out about them later on during services, raps, etc. Thats exactly what happened in my case. After being there around 18 months, I finally found out about GGWO's delegated authority or don't ever question the pastor no matter what he does. Thats partly because I only went to Baltimore once every few months and my local pastor did a better job of masking the false teachings than Carl did. Then, I also found out the no-touch-love nonsense, the mandatory 100% church attendance teaching, the teaching about never saying anything contrary about GGWO teaching or exposing corruption within GGWO, the never question anything teaching and on and on. Since I had already invested a lot of time and ministry to the youth in my local GGWO affiliate church, I decided to stay there to protect the kids and expose the false teaching of GGWO from within. This went on for several years until I was finally ousted and marked for failure to believe all of Carl's teachings and practice them in my own private life. I refuse to feel guilty about undermining GGWO and would gladly do it all over again to help undermine any cult disguised as a church.

[j_graz]

Hi Jim - no...our church is not 'baptist'.
Paul was speaking to the church. Aren't the saved in the local church part of the Universal church?
Of course every believer is part of the bride.

So, you have cov'td to be in one church for life? Congratulations! Under what conditions then are you free to leave the covenant? When is it breeched or voided then?

I'm not against church membership. I do think the form of gov't/leadership has a lot to do with whether it works or not. For example it seems to work OK in Elder-Led churches, not so well in congregational. But again that depends on the ethos of that particular church.
I just don't see it as scriptural mandated.

To be fair, I think alot of churches add quite a bit to the church membership applications that make them invasive and beyond the scope of the church's authority. Dress-codes, promises of this/that etc...

It's hard to follow a thread when two or three lines of reasoning are being argued so I'll wait a bit before addressing church discipline.

[sidethorn]

A good properly run membership class where the church's teachings and statements of faith are completely brought out in the open would no doubt do more than several services put together. If GGWO had an open, up front membership class for me to attend, I would have quickly found out about their real teachings and would have immediatly left them forever. But we all know Carl is way too underhanded to do that and so are his cronies.

[sidethorn]

A lot of churches add many extra-Biblical commandments that are not supported by Scripture. Tithing, dress codes, pledges to come to every service, never say anything to anyone anywhere that disagrees with the church's doctrine are all examples. These rules are often built into membership covanents and can be enforced by having friends and relatives snitch out each other or by other forms of spying. GGWO was the ugliest example of this I have ever seen. My own local pastor insisted that I promise to him to never say anything to anyone who had ever been to GGWO that disagreed with Carl Stevens doctrine. I flatly refused and that contributed to my getting ousted months later. Of course I was already exposing GGWO and exposing GGWO even more later on. This pastor and others had also brainwashed one of my friends to spy on me to see if I was following all the rules. That friendship survived in the end but not after almost getting destroyed first. GGWO would stop at nothing to abuse authority to take advantage of people and control them!!

[cordell]

Just as the saved are members of the universal church why is local church membership any different? Isn't it because it is a lot easier to be a member of an ethereal spiritual body than be a member of one with responsibilities in flesh and blood? Isn't it because it is a very American thing to be independent? Scripture addresses both the universal and the local, not just one.

So is 'just attending' a church 'mandated'? Seems to me this is like the difference in the committment of the chicken and the pig to breakfast. The difference between eggs and bacon.

As far as the covenant goes, let me suggest that you search out the old church literature on the "binding of the conscience" when it comes to leaving. We moved recently. It took us far enough away to where we needed to transfer our membership, which we are doing. As I pointed out before, this is done in our denomination (and many others) by letter, by baptism, or by profession of faith. I said we'd covenanted to be members of a local church, which in our denomination we can move to loads of localities. If we moved to a place where there were not one suitable or near enough, we'd search out one that seemed likeminded enough and transfer our membership there. We are called to be members of the body, not attenders of the body. We are citizens of a city and a commonwealth (Eph.2), not tourists or aliens who have no priveleges. Sure the city is heavenly, but the citizens down here are joined as well (see Hebrews 10:19ff). Read the 11th of First Corinthians and see what folks and under what conditions the partaking of the Lord's supper should be taken.

[cordell]

As far as adding specifics that are invasive and unbiblical, here's our take on it. (http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_chapxvi-xx.htm#chapxx) Keeps control freaks at bay.

[j_graz]

I'm not sure who you're addressing Jim, but the scriptures do address the local and universal church - you are correct.

As far as 'attending a church' being mandated or not; I think it would be assumed if one was faithful to fellowshipping with the brethren which is quite clearly mandated.

You have still not convinced me about how membership to a local church is established.
(What form this 'covenant' should take...)

[cordell]

convince me that individualistic christianity is the norm.

[cordell]

if a person becomes a christian, that person becomes a member of the "body of Christ". in America, we have relegated that to a 'spiritual' reality alone. the reality in scripture is that when believers are 'added to the church' they are added to a local church which makes them a part of the universal church. see Acts 2.37-47 in particular. Look at verses 41 and 47. 'Evangelism' in America is a 'personal' response to the ABC 'gospel' which a person is done with when they receive Jesus as their 'personal' Savior into their hearts. the reality is that our need to hear the gospel ends when we are glorified which is the finality of our being evangelized. this occurs in the context of a local church full of really sinful people who have to function together--as members of one another in the context of daily living. the 'church' is not merely universal it is also visible and real, made up not of 'attendees' but of members who become members locally through water baptism which signifies the reality of spiritual baptism (and not circumcision as in the Old Testament, which baptism replaces Col.2:10-12) most churches don't baptize people who are not becoming members of their local church (even the paedo churches don't usually baptize the infants of non-members).

[cordell]

it is very interesting that we are having a debate about this in these times.

the question ought to be asked,

"why do people who claim to be Christians find being a member of a local Christian church objectionable?"

why is THAT not the oddity of the moment?

--when for centuries membership has been the expected norm in the Christian church. Why do we now need "convincing". Perhaps we have just not come to realize the depth of our ignorance in this country of how we came to be what we are as American 'evangelicals'.

we ought to wonder about the considerable sociological effect of the 60s and what happened during the so-called 'Jesus People' movement. this was when so many non-denominational churches came into being--with the revolt against 'organized religion'. I meet so many younger Christians in their 20s through to their 40s who are searching for a more 'weighty' and substantial Christianity. they want the 'truth' of the doctrine but at the same time they want the 'story' of the ancient connection as well as the community of believers--they even appreciate the old liturgies, even in Protestant churches. they don't have the hesistancy that I sense here concerning 'membership'. many of us here have been once burned, much like the divorced person who gives up on marriage and then decides that 'living together' is enough committment. but the truth is, that if I don't become a member of the church, it is really very easy to leave. The doctrinal, biblical consideration is not the main thing with the resistance I sense here, it is the mere prospect of 'joining' another church.

[listener]

I certainly understand shying away from church membership for those who were burned at GGWO. But I believe that local church membership is (nearly) mandated when you look at scripture.

It's not my job to make anyone join a church, nor would I imply that to anyone here that their Christianity depends on it.

But I have a feeling that some of the weakness of the American Christian is due to the independent streak we have. Nobody tells US what to do!

Over the years I have been sharpened by many people, regardless of their "position" in the church. Being part of an organization requires that I deal with people whom I disagree with, who grate on me, but who still have something that God wants me to see. There is so much aggravating about leadership in the body that I currently serve in - yet I am growing, partly due to that disagreement. Without my commitment to membership, I might have left over some issues that have turned out to be areas of growth in my life.

It is very hard getting used to a congregational approach to local church government. I came to Christ in a church with a strong pastor, then attended church for more than 20 years in a Pentecostal assembly where the pastor was the head of every committee, then attended GGCF for 4 years.

But debate with love with Christians sharpens me for true outreach with those who don't know Christ.

[sidethorn]

GGWO didn't turn me against joining a church. In fact I joined another church before I got tossed out of GGWO's youth "ministry". I was still in that church after my ousting. I simply told my GGWO pastor that God called me to a different church and he couldn't come up with anything to say other than to just accept it. Of course, he just used that as another reason to oust me from the youth "ministry" and mark me with slanderous lies a few months later in the typical GGWO marking style. I just continued on in my new church and started exposing GGWO even more than before and still kept ministering to kids and families from my GGWO days despite GGWO's efforts to turn them all against me with the lies.

Having a church home is not only beneficial but Scriptural too. However as God has ordained seasons in many peoples' lives, changing churches (versus hopping) is a normal part of life. Staying in one single church for the rest of one's life is not the will of God for a lot of people. God moves people from city to city sometimes which usually will require a church change too. Thats yet another reason the Carl Stevens's teaching of one pastor-teacher for life is so unrealistic and ridiculous.

As far as pastoral authority goes, there is a place for it and limits to it as well. God's own Word is the ultimate limit to pastoral authority. When a pastor asks someone in his church to do something that violates God's Word, that person is to obey God rather than the pastor. People ran into that problem at GGWO all the time. The will of God for the individual also takes precidence over the pastor's authority too. A good pastor will recognize and respect the will of God for an individual and not order them to do anything contrary to that will of God. Carl Stevens regularly disrespected God's will for individuals when he coerced them to give up jobs, houses, ridiculously large amounts of money, friends, loved ones, their individuality, their critical thinking skills, and their loyalty to his cult. Carl also arrogantly presumed that God wanted many people to spend years in his cult college (MBCS) when God was not leading them there. How many people got on the wrong track with this coercion??? People are never to obey a pastor's orders to put the pastor above God in their life or their own loved ones. A true pastor will respect one's family and will never ask them to neglect their family to benefit the church's programs. How many times did Carl Stevens cause harm to families in this way in his quest to exploit and control people???? There has to be a balance here. Noncommited, church hopping with no submission to God or anyone is not right. Neither is total blind obedience and devotion to a pastor who uses people for his own purposes.

[whatsup]

God does not look on the outward appearance but on the heart. The issue is not whether you have gone through some formal membership application or procedure....the issue is do you love the Lord with all your heart, seek Him, and serve Him wherever you are at. You can be an official member of a church and not even be saved. I think there has been a lot of bureaucracy added to the church and a lot of emphasis put on what looks good or spiritual outwardly. I learned from being in GGWO that some of the people I thought were the most spiritual were the most corrupt and hypocritical. I can usually tell if a person really knows and loves God by the spirit they have and how they love. I do not consider myself very spiritual at this point in my life but I do recognize Christ's love in people when I see it. I was pretty sold out to GG ministry, to the point of putting it ahead of everything including my own family. When I saw things for what they were, I was pretty disillusioned. I consider myself to be a backslidden Christian right now. I do believe, but I have a lot of defenses up and I do not trust much. I do not live what I believe and am not proud of that, but I also know that God is merciful to me and loves me more than I could ever begin to imagine and it is what I cling to. So I don't think that church membership is the issue at all. I am not against it...I am just not impressed by it and I don't think it makes you more committed. What draws people to God is His love, what keeps them is His love...that may sound simple but I guess it really is that simple

[cordell]

Right, God looks on the heart--and what kind of heart is it that refuses to be identified with the people of God?

Know how to tell a newly baptized Anglican church member in certain parts of Nigeria? By their being dead within a few hours or days of their baptism. That's today, not a hundred years ago.

If you seek the Lord, you'll find Him in the midst of the brethren singing just as he said, not in solitary, independent, overly pietistic Christianity.

Again, just because there are hypocrites in church, or even unsaved people (or maybe God can't tell which ones are his?) there's always room for one more just like you--isn't God good?

Good God, are we too sinful, backslidden, worldly, harboring fears and grudges? Come on down to the communion rail! Kneel down next to some other filthy beggar just like you! Taste and see that the Lord is good! You can't love God and shun his people or keep from them--they're the only Jesus some others see! Oh, what was that CITY on the hill all about? A city is full of people, all kinds of people. Sick people, well people, people who hide their fears and sins. Is the church ever likened to a city in scripture elsewhere? A great old white Protestant dead guy once said, that you cannot claim God as your father if the church is not your mother (Gal.4:26) . If God draws you to his love, why would he hold you back from others of like mind? Staying out of Church--by not joining yourself to it--because you're too sinful, backslidden or hurt is like staying out of the hospital because you're too sick, wounded or have an advanced disease. It is that simple. I'm not impressed by a lot I see in Church either--bureaucracy, wrongheaded schemes and gimmicks, entertainment posing as worship, etc., but that's not the issue, God never said you had to be impressed--the issue is whose are you? If you belong to Christ, you belong to a real local body not just the one in the ether.

[j_graz]

Jim, (or is my dear Jim better) I appreciate your reading/research assignments. I also appreciate the questions! (I ask a question, you answer with one...isn't this fun?)


I love your desire for fellowship and to see congregations knit together and serving. No doubt we need it these days more than ever.
I, with you, would love to see people identified, committed and serving in a local church.

But:
1. I'll guarantee you that signing membership documents or submitting to a member ceremony in no way guarantees committment to the local church.
People can go through these motions just as easily is they can go through a marriage ceremony!
No suprise that 1/2 marriages (in Christianity) end in divorce.

2. Again with the generalities!!!
There are many non-membership churches that are healthy and full of committed, serving christians.
Who are not backslidden or whatever it was you caled them...

3. There are loads of membership-type churches full of lazy do nothings who've signed there member docs years ago, and that's their proof that they are 'members in particular'. No pulse since. (not all member-type churches but they there)

Whether a church has 'membership' or not, what makes for committment is an ethos of love and service. There's a genuine vision and its communicated, viewed and lived out with passion.

And...if you call me your 'dear Jerry' one more time...I'm gonna have my buddies at LW send you a big wet kiss!

[cordell]

my sweet little Eyetye brother,

Kissing of the moisture sort (thanks, Sister Mary) is customary for men of your background anyway, isn't it--on two cheeks, right? (thank God it's not four!)

All of your questions are answered by one question:

What is baptism?

'Papers' or 'signing' have nothing at all to do with it, or are secondary to the open and public vow made in baptism.

Not one of the objections above are either destructive to membership, nor are any of them scripturally based are they?

Should we do away with marriage, which is between a man and a woman--not only because it may move in and out of vogue, but because queers want to hitch up as well? What's next, marrying CHS's Bessie the cow? Just because SOME choose to distort, twist, or abuse a scriptural COMMAND (Repent, and BE BAPTIZED) doesn't mean we should ignore it or place it in a lower importance than does scripture. Church membership, like marriage, can be a good bit of fun when you're with the right match (and it can be a lot of misery when WE neglect our promises and vows,right?).

What you are arguing against it seems to me is not the concept of Church membership which is scriptural like marriage, but against do-nothing slackers who are nothing but lazy pretenders. The concept is not at fault, humans are. Marriage on the positive side seems to be working for the other 50%, and even when some folks fail at it--they still get married again! Just like folks who have bad experiences at one church still end up becoming members at another one. They don't, as some do, say that the whole institution of marriage or church membership is at fault, they own up and say the fault is human.

Funny how human beings always want to blame what God has put into place (see Adam blaming God for giving him that woman who screwed up everything) instead of accepting that it is their sin that instigated the failure.

Do these so-called 'healthy non-membership churches' baptize people? If they don't, are they still a church? If they do, what is that for? Just to get wet in your clothes?

God may indeed baptize us with the Holy Spirit, but note the scripture tells us that we are baptized INTO something--what is that? And we all know that to get baptized by water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit you have to submit to someone else to do it. You may have 'love and service' in the local mosque as well, may you not, or down at the animal shelter--they are after all God's creatures, right? Does God ask for sacrifice or obedience?

Where is the command in Scripture that says, "Be ye genuine in vision and live it out with passion?" Or is that 1 Graz 5:2?

Marriage is established in the Creation mandate to be fruitful and multipy and fill the earth with offspring made in the image of God, the church is based on the repetition of the same command "make disciples (not attendees) of all nations" BAPTIZING THEM...and baptism ALWAYS takes place in the context of the local VISIBLE church and is administered to BELIEVERS and their children who intend to be disciples in that local assembly:

<font color="0000ff"> Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and <u>teaching them to obey everything I have commanded</u> you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."</font>

Disciples are baptized and taught, attendees are not mentioned. If you want to give 'membership papers' or have your members sign something that's fine--but again note that the early local church at Jerusalem knew how many had been added to it that day in Acts 2.

[j_graz]

I think you're a well-intentioned but very confused man.

Water baptism is the symbolic public testimony of the spiritual reality that 'with Christ I died, was buried and rose again'. Not a membership ritual.

I'm addressing marriage again simply to say that the official union of marriage doesn't guarantee a life-time committment. You're the one who initially mentioned it in analogy to church membership.
I however (obviously) don't hold official church membership as a scripturally mandated covenant or on the same level as marriage. Apparently you do, so I ask: "If you hold them on the same level (which apparently you do) and I congratualated you for being committed to one church for life, then what gives you the right to leave?"
If it were on the same level as marriage (church membership) than shouldn't 'til death do you part' be part of the membership classes?

You asked..."Do these so-called 'healthy non-membership churches' baptize people?"
Sure, some of them do.

You're right about one thing (congrats again it's still 2006) I am not arguing against official membership. I am arguing that it is not a guarentee of committment, nor are churches (that disagree with you Mr. Cordell) wrong that do not practice official membership.

The issue of committment to a local church is one of the heart.

[j_graz]

Sorry Jim I forgot....I would like you to demonstrate that Baptism is "open and public vow' to the local church. If of course you have time.

Martyrs in various parts of the world are killed as a result of this act (baptism). It's arguable whether they are killed for joining a church or becoming a Christian. (These are not one in the same)

[cordell]

I didn't say ONE local church, you did. I said a local church. I also said we just moved and transferred our membership.

The Scriptures make marriage and the church relationship analogous, I am not inventing this.

I disagree with your view of baptism. Scripture says this: "we are all baptized into one body" 1Cor.12:13. This is addressed during a discussion of gifts given for edification of actual real MEMBERS of a LOCAL body of believers at Corinth, where there was a problem with division and excess in many areas. Baptism is indeed a membership ritual, if we are baptized INTO a body in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. People who are joined in marriage are called by a single name, in that they become one flesh (ask Mrs. Graz if she agrees with that, having taken on that Eyetye moniker in place of her old one), Gen.5:2. So in baptism (which is an outward SIGN of baptism by the Spirit) we take on the NAME of God, by outwardly confessing our belief and trust in Him (that's the vow part) which is why the ones who are baptized are previously taught, then subsequently discipled--that's part of the vow again--I am baptized intending to be taught to become a disciple; see the above Matt.28:20. Being baptized and joining a local church are indeed the same thing, while becoming a Christian and being baptized are not the same.

If the so-called 'healthy non-membership churches' baptize people, what in the world for, I repeat? Just a fun wet time in the tub I guess? You can't identify with Christ without identifying with his people.

By the way, do you guarantee that everyone of the people that YOU baptize will become a committed disciple for life? No? Why not? Is every circumcised ethnic Jew a righteous man in reality? See John 5 and 6.

[cordell]

The issue is not whether they disagree with humble old lovable ball of fuzz me, it is whether they are scriptural. What is an actual body without members? A ghost? You can't actually have a body without members can you? 'Official Membership' is a deceptive term, what do you do with your baptized people is a better question. Being baptized into 'nothing' is a rather silly practice, not only in reality but it is spiritually impossible. The 'universal' church consists actually of real saints, living and departed in heaven and on earth, militant and triumphant. The visible church is populated by all sorts, mere professing and actually possessing believers and their children--but these churches all have one thing in common--they have members that you can see.

In the practical sense, I would be very sceptical of a church without some sort of verifiable membership, not just on the basis of what they think baptism is but also how they veiw participation in the function of the church by those 'attendees'. How do they choose a pastor? Most of these 'churches' have a 'board of elders' or something else like 'trustees' just to exist legally in this country. How do they get to be in that office? Who puts them there? If not from out of some 'membership' they come from where?

If membership in the local church is not for life then what is it? Is your universal church membership for eternal life? Do you intend to be a Christian forever or not? What does it mean for the saints to persevere? The difference with marriage is that it is with a single person for life, with whom I make vows of faithfulness. Is this a guarantee of bliss? No. With church membership I am committed to being a disciple of Christ, which is impossible without being literally and physically joined in fellowship and communion with the saints of God. Church membership does not mean I have to be in some sort of GG "geographical will of God" committed to "one pastor teacher" for life (your old doctrine shows through here) it means that wherever I find myself, I seek out the saints of God and join them to commune with them. What in the world is so controversial about that?

Answer the objection I made above that this entire argument is provincial and cultural, based on the fact that we modern Americans seek independence and avoid committment in BOTH marriage and church membership. Now ain't that marvelous strange? Do you think this argument would be taking place in Nigeria, where saints find great joy in being formally identified and joined to one another in the ancient Anglican communion? They would look at you like you were quite insane, as they should do.

Why do you think the apostles creed (which was once a baptismal formula) contains this phrase in the section on the Holy Spirit:

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Now it's typical for some of you nondenoms to take issue with the 'creed' because it's not scripture. So what. Find a part of it that is not a summary of the teaching found in scripture.

The 'church' whether universal or local is the body of Christ. How is a body without members in either case not absolute and pure nonsense? We are members of one another, Romans 12:5. This is not just in the universal church, but in the local one as well.

Now we can argue about the word 'formal' if you like. And the question there is HOW do churches in various localities practice membership?

[cordell]

and if you can't GUARANTEE that every person you baptize will become a disciple, why keep doing it?

[cordell]

For your edification of course, the following is from E.P. Clowney's book, "The Church" in IVP's contours of Christian Theology series:

Those who say that church membership is not necessary, or even that it is unbiblical, fail to grasp what the New Testament teaches about the church and the administration of the sacraments. Jesus accompanied his promise to build his church with the gift of the keys to the kingdom. Those who do not heed the final discipline of the church are to be regarded as Gentiles and publicans, that is as outside the membership of the community. (Matt.18:17)

The list of names in the book of Numbers give evidence of God's concern to define membership in his people; God's book of Life is the archetype of the earthly register of his people (Ex.32:32,33; Mal.3:16). A prophetic Psalm foresees the recording of Gentiles names on the rolls of Zion (Psalm 87:4-6). The names of Euodia, Syntyche and Clement, recognized members of Christ's body at Philippi, are in the book of life, according to Paul (Php.4:2-3). Matthias, chosen in place of Judas is numbered with the eleven apostles; those who were added to the church were numbered with the disciples, o that total numbers could be set down (Acts 1:26; 2:41; 4:4) Significantly, the first total of three thousand [added to the church!] is given in connection with baptism (Acts 2:41).

Baptism is recognized as the mark of membership in Christ's community by those outside it...The question is not where our names are written, but where HIS name is written. In baptism we are numbered among the children of God, receiving the name of our Father, written, as it were on our foreheads (Matt.28:19; Rev.14:1). To be sure, the washing of God's regenerating grace is accomplished by the water of the Spirit, not that of the font, but the outward sign functions precisely because it is outward; it is the Lord's visible sign of his invisible grace...

If the church is identified by the Word and the sacraments, church discipline uses the keys of the kingdom to maintain that identity. Baptism administered apart from any creditable profession of faith on the part of those claiming God's promise ceases to function as a mark of the church.

Interesting that hyper-dispensationalists like former GGWO pastor Rick Knapp, Jim Buckley and Lee Griffith all have abandoned BAPTISM as not for this dispensation, relegating it to some other period. My argument with them was that whatever it was that they were attending on Sunday, it wasn't a church.

[whatsup]

Cordell, you just do not get what I was saying about membership at all, and I do not have the time to be on here arguing it endlessly. I did NOT say that you should not identify with the people of God, or attend a local church faithfully, or be baptized...I did NOT say that I think Christians should be solitary or independent. I was talking about a formal membership process that is not specifically in the bible but was devised by people, yes people. I dont know how else to explain it, and it is not worth trying, because everything I say is twisted and read into. And it is beyond me how you somehow see baptism as a sign of joining a local church instead of a sign that we are dead to sin and alive in Christ..... it is a symbol of regeneration and has nothing to do with membership in a particular church

[j_graz]

Your view of 1 Cor 12:13 is interesting but the one doing the baptizing here is the Holy Spirit not the church.
"by one Spirit..." Your premise appears to be that we are (water) baptized and added to the body.(incorrect) The Spirit baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ.

I know you can't be saying that being added to the Body of Christ is contingient upon water baptism!
You're equating water baptism with positional truth - basically baptismal regeneration?

You say that with membership you are committed to discipleship and so forth...that is likely true for you, that's not because of membership, but your love for Christ;
No act of membership, baptism, paper signing OR ceremony guarentees:
1. That I am committed to Christ
2. That I am committed to His Church
3. That I will/have identified with His people

So Jimmy, how many miles does one have to move to break their cov't of membership (for life)?

[cordell]

Maybe I can answer both Jerry and whatsup in one go, I dunno, I'll try.

Water baptism is rightfully performed by ordained ministers in a LOCAL CHURCH, it is this 'ritual' that adds you to the church which is visible, it is a SIGN of Spirit baptism, which occurs at regeneration and is administered by the Holy Spirit and adds the person to the church invisible. Water baptism has everything to do with becoming a member of a local church, in that the invisible church does not meet together as Scripture commands, only the LOCAL church can do that. Being baptized by water, whether as an adult or as an infant--according to Acts 2, adds you to the local church just as Spirit regeneration adds you to the universal body of Christ. No, this is not 'baptismal regeneration' as if regeneration is begun by the baptism in the physical element of water, water baptism is a SIGN of spiritual regeneration which leads a person to repent, and be baptized by water in the LOCAL church, which is what Peter instructed his hearers to do at Pentecost. How much more clear can that be?

By the way, Jerry, just as an aside--I don't believe in 'positional truth' in the dispensationalist sense--see the previous discussion with yiMMInYBucK. This is a false doctrine that allows for the creation of a hybrid creature that does not exist in Scripture--the so-called 'carnal Christian'. And no, 1 Cor. 3 does not teach that a Christian can be 'carnal' in the same sense that dispensationalists teach. Back to the subject at hand.

Whatsup, a church in the local sense can be identified as a Christian church by its marks:

Is there a ministry of the Word, law and gospel being preached?

Is there a rightful administration of the sacraments or, if you are a Baptist, ordinances?

Is there a right administration of church discipline?

The latter two marks are established in the first, with the third determining who may and may not partake in the second. If these marks are not present, you are not in a Christian church. This is not my opinion. Study the scriptures for yourself and see if these things are not true.

If you have gone years not understanding that baptism has everything to do with church membership, then you have been very poorly taught indeed. Ask your pastor if he will baptize someone who does not intend to become a disciple of Christ in his local church. If he says he will, he doesn't understand the very basic nature of Matt. 28:19.

I know your question is silly Jerry, but a covenant for life is not, as I have already laboriously pointed out with a specific geographical location or a particular "pastah-teachah" which seems to come out of the exGG brain only with great difficulty. We ought to worship as near to where we live as possible, as long as the marks of the church are there. Our church has regional 'courts' if you will. Each church has a 'session' of elders, who in turn are members of a regional presbytery, which regional presbyteries are members of a larger general assembly. Any church member may appeal to the succeeding higher 'court'.

If I said that membership guarantees committed discipleship, then I retract that, but I don't remember saying it quite that way. Committed disciples do becoome church members on the other hand.

Membership--which may vary in degrees of 'formality'--IS BIBLICAL as shown above and is not some odd creation of 'men' nor is it extrabiblical. Baptism IS identification with Christ and with his people and it joins or adds a person to a local church. It is not a guarantee, it is a SIGN of inward Spirit baptism just as scripture says it is.

[cordell]

While I agree that neither baptism or 'membership' guarantees committment or even that the person is regenerate, these are both biblically instituted and provide the right environment for both committment and regeneration of the person and his or her progeny.

[guess_who_is_coming_to_dinner]

Here is a different way to look at this:

1. For the church not to baptise and not to expect membership in a particular assembly is as absurd as Jews to stop curcumcising and having a group of attenders at the synagogue instead of members.

2. What makes the Jew a Jew? What makes the Christian a Christian? Is not the New Covenant better than the old?

3. Has not baptism replaced circumcision? Is not the promise for ALL nations now to be part of the family of God? By what sign has Christ commamded us to use to show the family and the world that we are joined to Him and His family?

[whatsup]

Cordell, please explain how you do not believe in the carnal Christian or in positional truth. Are all Christians, once saved, always spiritual in all they do then? What about people like Ted Haggard? Was he carnal, or just never saved, according to what you believe? And please dont say we never know who is really saved...that goes without saying, but how do you explain all the Christians, including prominent leaders, who fall into serious sin? And what about Romans 7. I know you don't believe you can lose your salvation. I am very interested in hearing your views on this

[cordell]

The 'carnal Christian' view espoused by many evangelicals descends to us from teachers like Watchman Nee and others like him, many from the Dallas Seminary. Basically, the belief says that once a person has made a profession of faith, even if they later deny Christ and live like hell for the rest of their lives--they're still saved because they once professed belief. There is just no validation for that view in scripture any more than there is for going to confession once a week just to cover your arse from hellfire.

Christians bear fruit because the Holy Spirit is in them. This is not because of any good thing in their flesh, but because of the promise that God makes to the believer that the Holy Spirit will over time sanctify that person. This doesn't mean that believers, like Haggard for example, will not fail. No, you're right whatsup, I don't believe that believers lose their salvation. But I don't hold to the view of 'eternal security' as espoused by modern American evangelicals. I know this sounds to the average person like the splitting of hairs, but it isn't. I believe that the saints persevere to the end. The so-called 'Lordship salvation' debate brought a lot of these views to light back in the 80s. The view that a person could have Christ as Savior but not as Lord. This is a peculiarly Dallas oriented view that is inconsistent with historical Christianity where the believer can be saved, but not a disciple of Christ. The saved person must 'make' Christ his Lord. How gracious is that? The fact is that Christ IS Lord. We don't 'make' Him anything. A lot of this thinking emerged from the 'higher life' crowd of the late 19th century. J.C. Ryle, who died in 1900, in his book 'Holiness' addresses the errors of this movement which began to meet at Keswick in England in those days. If you like, here's a link (http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_chapxvi-xx.htm#chapxvii) to the view of perseverance as I see it. I didn't invent it or make it up myself, but it emerges from a view that God's grace is totally free, meaning HE is free to give grace as HE chooses.

Ever notice that some evangelicals never have a public confession of sin in their services? We have a corporate confession of sin in ALL of our services. Sanctification in scripture is not a declaration that the believer has been made holy, it is an ongoing WORK of God in real time that the Spirit MAKES us Holy. Justification is a once for all DECLARATION of righteousness based on the finished work of Christ and is completely OUTSIDE us, whereas sanctification is an INTERNAL work. Justification is an ACT of God, sanctification is an ongoing WORK of God. Most Christians now would say, "big deal, what's the difference?" Well, many answer with this 'positional truth' nonsense that says that we are one thing in God's eyes and may be completely another in real-time. This is not the same as Martin Luther saying that we are at the same time righteous and sinners, "simil iustus et peccator". The 'positional truth' thing is all about that 'profession of faith' securing your salvation even if there is no evidence of it in your life. God sees this apparently unregenerate individual just as he sees Jesus. That is a perversion of the doctrine of justification. In short, 'praying the sinners prayer' is not what saves you any more than saying 10 hail-marys gets you ten years out of purgatory--God saves you by His grace, it is HIS first move and He never fails. The Holy Spirit always bears fruit in spite of failures that may go on for years, but real repentance is a result of the Holy Spirit's work.

[cordell]

On the other side, here is a link (http://www.greatcom.org/resources/tell_it_often_tell_it_well/default.htm) to Mark McCloskey's book on Evangelism that espouses a view opposite to mine. The whole book is apparently free online. It proposes a 'formula' veiw of evangelism and includes the thinking that converts may receive Christ as Savior and not as Lord, thereby remaining 'carnal' Christians.

[whatsup]

Well if God saves a person by grace and He never fails, and what He does He does forever...then they are eternally secure. They can not help but persevere to the end. So if someone is truly regenerated, then they are eternally secure. How can you not believe in losing your salvation yet not believe in eternal security? It is contradictory. Unless you mean you don't believe that a person can just recite the sinner's prayer and then go out and live however they want and claim to be still saved. I agree that reciting that prayer does not save you. I was always uncomfortable going up to strangers on the street and trying to talk them into reciting a canned prayer. But once a person is truly saved, they are eternally secure whether or not you like that choice of words

[cordell]

click on the link I left above. A person is not saved who is not regenerated. a person is not regenerated who does not bear fruit in some way. a Christian perseveres in repentance and faith. your discomfort was from God, IMHO. the choice of words is not mine, but for me because of the opposite side's understanding of them I don't hold to their view of what they call eternal security, coupled with having a Savior who is not Lord and a 'position' which has no bearing in time and space--particularly in one's conduct.

And I believe that the ten commandments are for Christians, as I've made clear before.