Can’t thank you enough for that quote! It is so applicable not only to this discussion, but much of the legalistic and other questions which fundamentalists, and ex-fundamentalists grapple with.

Blessings from the Cross,

Bob Hayton

It is from Dr. Jay Adams in his book “What To Do On Thursday”.

I’ve not yet taken the time to read everything here concerning your discussion, but again, it seems, that in the whole Piper/Grudem/Dever/Storms/et.al. discussion on paedo-credo issues has intertwined with what church membership is. The fact that paedobaptists define a local church differently than credobaptists (or at least Baptist credobaptists) do is crucial to the discussion.

I will quote someone much smarter than me in this:

“A biblically directed method is a method specifically prescribed as such in the Bible; a biblically derived method is a method devised by the Christian himself in accordance with and within the framework of biblical principles in order to fulfill a biblical command to which there is attached no biblically directed method….Humanly derived ways and means are subject to us; when they are divinely given, we are subject to them. The former may be altered, abandoned in favor of others, supplemented; the latter may not. It is imposing human rules as though they carried divine authority that is strictly forbidden in Colossians 2:23.”

We must never forget that church membership, the way that we think of it in America, is a biblically derived concept. Obviously, we are all striving to get our church rolls to be as close to the True Church Membership (The Lamb’s Book Of Life) as possible. However, we are prone to think of it as a directive rather than a derivative.

I appreciate the interaction. That is my general feel, by no means am I claiming that my statement is infallible! I am open to being convinced to the contrary, for sure.

The quote you provide, however, doesn’t seem to actually negate my claims. My claim dealt with evangelical churches. In the quote you give, the spurious “houses of the Lord” would seem to be referring to cults. And the implication is that there will just be one true church. Just one Catholic church. So it would appear he is asserting “beware of counterfeits, find the one true church in the city”.

I do think that we could demonstrate from history that believers of years gone by did have more real unity and interactions with each other than believers often do today. I’m thinking especially of Baptists, but their are often Baptist churches on the same street where none of the members knows any of the other members. That is what I’m reacting to.

Thanks,

Bob

Um, no. This is a false statement. There were many churches in the days of the early Church:

“And if you ever are visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the house of the Lord is—for the others, sects of the impious, attempt to call their dens ‘houses of the Lord’—nor ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the name peculiar to this holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God” (Cyril of Jerusalem)

I like it when he links to something I’ve written because then a whole bunch of people come visit my blog and will probably see other things I’ve written. If you’ve done that, you know that me and Bob don’t see eye-to-eye most of the time.

Anyway, my undeveloped thoughts on this issue were more in reference to certain churches that would require me to be baptized again into their membership. Somehow that seems to be adding to the example of Scripture.

Onesimus was called “one of them” when the only time he had been among them before, he was an unconverted slave. Presumably, once he got there he was accountable to the church there. As it was Paul told them he would be there, he probably expected him to be there.

Ultimately, while not the sole cause, I think this rigid understanding of membership contributes to a two-tiered commitment level being the norm. We just understand it and let it be.

Maybe I’m off and this has no bearing on that problem. Anyways, thanks for the interaction, bro.

So, I guess what I’m trying to say is that it does seem to be a bit nit-picky, but I think it’s good to raise the question to challenge those who are quick to exclude to lighten up a little.