A quote on Biblical Standards and church governance

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=aleshanee]

not necessarily..  . if the church we are talking about is the only one in town... . or on the island as the case may be...  that preaches salvation by grace through faith in Christ...  and we don;t have the means or ability to start a church of our own.. .  then i would hope that this church would accept me...[/quote]

In the examples I gave to rsc2a there very well may be issues that are not considered matters of liberty, but rather blatant sin.  In such cases, why should the church tolerate what they have already defined as sin?  What is different about that and those of the gay community insisting that they be accepted in the ranks of membership and such?  Keep in mind for the purposes of my question(s), the notion of "standards" in the OP is not that of the legalistic crowd that defines sin by hair-length, CCM, Hollywood movies, etc, but rather matters like regular church attendance, giving/tithing, and such.

there knowing i might not be inclined or feel spiritually led to wear dresses all the time or that i might not choose not to follow any one of other possible standards i might see as extra biblical ....  not to say i might not see it their way in time.. .  but i would hope they wouldn;t try to force me into a mold to their liking until i did begin to see it their way.... on my own...

You make a valid point in regards to being patient with those who are willing to grow.  I wouldn't think that most reasonable churches would discipline a member that admitted that they were young in the faith, struggling with certain sins, or simply uncertain about the standards of the church.  There would come a time however when the member would be expected to either grow and adapt to the teachings/beliefs of the church or instead determine that the matters were serious enough to part ways.

but if they did not accept me and decided to make a big issue of it...or if they expected me to conform or go elsewhere... .  . then i guess i would choose to not go to church at all rather than put myself under the authority of people who didn;t know their own personal tastes from biblical doctrine.. ...  i think staying in a church that tries to teach extra biblical standards as doctrine and which tries to force people to bend to the will of a pastor teaching those things is dangerous... . .  far more dangerous than staying out of church altogether and meeting with other christians on sunday for prayer and worship alone... such a church doesn;t know where the power of the preacher ends and the authority of God begins... .  i see them as having a tendency to put the man of god in the position of God.. . . and i would be off better staying away... . ..  i think the recent scandal in hammond is good example of that.... .. ... 

I don't necessarily disagree here.  Let's take the matter of the Lord's day and apply it to this thinking however.  If a person believes it to be "unbiblical" to practice strict adherence to the Lord's day as most reformed churches do, given that most of them believe in salavation by faith alone, then it seems unreasonable for a parishoner to insist that the church modify its belief and practice.

limited authority... if something is, as i said, extra biblical... or not something that salvation hinges on.... or not clearly a sin against God ....  it doesn;t mean the preacher shouldn;t teach it if he feels led to do so.. . but he shouldn;t try to force members of the congregation into compliance with those things if they don;t feel convicted to comply on their own.... .. because what you would have then is a congregation following a bunch of outward standards they don;t believe in simply to be accepted by the pastor.. .  .. then people begin to believe that the outward appearance of christianity is more important than the inward commitment to it... . and they become pretenders... ..  the literal white washed tombs Jesus spoke about.. ..  .. again... a very dangerous thing that makes a church fertile ground for a guy like schaap to establish himself and work mischief in... . ... ..


i wonder how many good and decent people, who might have eventually grown to adopt the standards of any given church... and who might have grown to serve God and that church in a great way.... were run off or chased away from such churches by the pressure to commit to a standard they didn;t believe in or perhaps were not ready to accept...yet ....  .... pretenders can change faces and go along with anything to get along and establish themselves..  whether they believe in it or not.. .  but honest people sometimes can;t .. ..  that;s not saying they will never grow to understand and accept such a standard eventually... ... . but if the church runs them away or tosses them out in the meantime... ..  both the potential and the possibility are lost... ... and the church is actually what suffers the most from it... ..  as churches like hammond can attest..... 

Rather than being long-winded, I'll just say that I do agree with you that a person should not violate their conscience, assuming their convictions are informed by Scripture, and that mere conformity to externals for the sake of keeping peace may be spiritually unhealthy for the one who goes against their conscience.  In the long run it would still be best for that person to find a church that aligns with their belief structure, so long as that structure was indeed conscientiously bound by the Lordship of Christ as you follow the word.

 

[rsc2a]

This person already has left your fellowship. How can you hope to discipline said person?

No, not abandoned altogether, but rather chooses to miss regularly.

So I'll ask again. How can you discipline such a person? Put them in stocks? Public beating?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Is this standard in the church covenant based on Scripture? If so, can you please show me where? If not, see my first post.

Yes, based in Scripture.  Many churches have the clause, particularly in the SBC, and it's based on inferences and such.  The point isn't that you disagree with their argument, the point is that the body is acting in accordance to what they believe Scripture teaches and their conscience.[/quote]

I didn't ask if you could point to a church clause, but a place in Scripture.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

I can easily point to the verses that clearly forbid this. I assume I don't need to provide them

Regarding divorce, it's possible that sophistry might be employed, and that the individual might make the argument that they have been "abandoned" because their spouse won't provide conjugal relations (I've heard similar arguments, right on this forum in the past).[/quote]

Then their argument isn't based on fact but sophistry. What's the problem here?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]And regarding the "shacking up" issue,  many people would make the argument that living together is equivalent to marriage so they shouldn't be forced to violate their conscience just because a preacher tells them to get a piece of paper, and that the conservative concept of marriage is not Biblical (just as you'd argue that alcoholic prohibition is not in Scripture).[/quote]

I'm willing to grant them that argument. I'm also going to hold them to a Biblical standard of marriage regarding their attitudes and behavior.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Whose church is it: God's or some man's?

God, with a proper understanding that people covenant together to abide by a faith and practice yielded by following Scriptures, according to their consciences.  So, if a body has covenanted to certain "standards" then who are you to come in and tell them that they've got to agree with your interpretation?[/quote]

I'm not the one trying to start an exclusive club for membership. If you want to start a club, you are free to set whatever standards you want.

I stated early on what God's sets His standard at for the Church: redeemed by the blood of Jesus.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Yes. And it looks like the leadership washing the feet of the members.

Church authority is equivalent and synonomous to foot washing?  Obey them that have rule over you means that if the member disagrees with the faith and practice of the ekklesia that they worship in that the leader needs to submit to their whims and wash their feet?  Really?[/quote]

Submit to the whims of another individual? Not necessarily but a definite possibility.

Does leadership (i.e. authority) look like foot-washing? Absolutely. At least based on a Biblical worldview; a worldly one would align perfectly with what what you appear to be advocating.

And Jesus called them to him and said to them,

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]In the examples I gave to rsc2a there very well may be issues that are not considered matters of liberty, but rather blatant sin.  In such cases, why should the church tolerate what they have already defined as sin?  What is different about that and those of the gay community insisting that they be accepted in the ranks of membership and such?  Keep in mind for the purposes of my question(s), the notion of "standards" in the OP is not that of the legalistic crowd that defines sin by hair-length, CCM, Hollywood movies, etc, but rather matters like regular church attendance, giving/tithing, and such.[/quote]

Because it's not our club; therefore, we don't get to decide who is in or out. You want to decide who is in or out: start your own club. But it won't be the Church.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]You make a valid point in regards to being patient with those who are willing to grow.  I wouldn't think that most reasonable churches would discipline a member that admitted that they were young in the faith, struggling with certain sins, or simply uncertain about the standards of the church.  There would come a time however when the member would be expected to either grow and adapt to the teachings/beliefs of the church or instead determine that the matters were serious enough to part ways.[/quote]

Do you think we should execute kids with Down's?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]I don't necessarily disagree here.  Let's take the matter of the Lord's day and apply it to this thinking however.  If a person believes it to be "unbiblical" to practice strict adherence to the Lord's day as most reformed churches do, given that most of them believe in salavation by faith alone, then it seems unreasonable for a parishoner to insist that the church modify its belief and practice.[/quote]

It might be unreasonable for the parishioner to insist the church modify its belief and practice. It is unreasonable for the local church body to attempt to control who is in or out of the Church? Are you granting churches the power of excommunication now?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Rather than being long-winded, I'll just say that I do agree with you that a person should not violate their conscience, assuming their convictions are informed by Scripture, and that mere conformity to externals for the sake of keeping peace may be spiritually unhealthy for the one who goes against their conscience.  In the long run it would still be best for that person to find a church that aligns with their belief structure, so long as that structure was indeed conscientiously bound by the Lordship of Christ as you follow the word.[/quote]

I would agree that this is often the best course of action.

 

[ALAYMAN]

So I'll ask again. How can you discipline such a person? Put them in stocks? Public beating?

The "how" of church discipline is a different question than the "why" of Church disipline.  The point I was obviously making was that reformed folk, which you claim to be, have a strict understanding of what constitutes obligatory corporate worship on Sunday.  In that rubric, if a person claims membership then they will likely see some form of discipline for willful departure from regular attendance.  By your theory, that body of believers should acquiesce to your conscience and abrogate their authority to govern their assembly in accordance with their Scripturally bound covenant.

I didn't ask if you could point to a church clause, but a place in Scripture.

Don't be obtuse.  You know <I think you know, or maybe you're worse than obtuse> that the arguments in their Statement of Faith and Practice claim Scriptural warrant.  No need to rehash them in detail here, as such triviality runs afoul of the point.  I'll give you a link to them if you really don't know what the arguments are.  You very well may disagree with how they arrive at their conclusions using the Scripture they would cite, but they have come to their understandings conscientiously via Scripture, and yet you would rob them of that autonomous right.  In the same vein you'd apparently join the Mennonite church only to tell them to stop having their women cover their heads.

I'm not the one trying to start an exclusive club for membership. If you want to start a club, you are free to set whatever standards you want.

Your snarky comments aside, membership is Biblical according to many churches.  Again, you'd impose your grid of "standards" by claiming your understanding of what defines a church and the attendant benefits and resposibilities.  If only the Christian world would abandon their own thinking and practices so they could get it right as you have it.

I stated early on what God's sets His standard at for the Church: redeemed by the blood of Jesus.

The "standard" as you use the term is but mere equivocation.  Paul lists many <moral> "standards" for the household of faith.  Do you deny that repentance is a necessity for inclusion in the ekklesia?

Submit to the whims of another individual? Not necessarily but a definite possibility.

You are out in left field.  On matters of subjectivity we might very well live so that we don't become a stumbling block, but to abrogate authority to allow for things that are believed to be sinful actions, nope, that's just silly sloppy thinking.

Does leadership (i.e. authority) look like foot-washing? Absolutely. At least based on a Biblical worldview; a worldly one would align perfectly with what what you appear to be advocating.

I'm "advocating" liberty of conscience for the believer, a baptist and biblical distinctive.  Remember, they freely join the church.  They don't have to submit their conscience to that of a body unless they willingly acknowledge the covenant community and expectations.  That has absolutely nothing to do with worldliness.

And Jesus called them to him and said to them,

 

[rsc2a]

So I'll ask again. How can you discipline such a person? Put them in stocks? Public beating?

The "how" of church discipline is a different question than the "why" of Church disipline.  The point I was obviously making was that reformed folk, which you claim to be, have a strict understanding of what constitutes obligatory corporate worship on Sunday.  In that rubric, if a person claims membership then they will likely see some form of discipline for willful departure from regular attendance.  By your theory, that body of believers should acquiesce to your conscience and abrogate their authority to govern their assembly in accordance with their Scripturally bound covenant.

Then let me re-phrase the question: what is the point of disciplining a person who isn't even a part of your congregation?

Perhaps I should talk my church into disciplining Fred Phelps.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

I didn't ask if you could point to a church clause, but a place in Scripture.

Don't be obtuse.  You know <I think you know, or maybe you're worse than obtuse> that the arguments in their Statement of Faith and Practice claim Scriptural warrant.  No need to rehash them in detail here, as such triviality runs afoul of the point.  I'll give you a link to them if you really don't know what the arguments are.  You very well may disagree with how they arrive at their conclusions using the Scripture they would cite, but they have come to their understandings conscientiously via Scripture, and yet you would rob them of that autonomous right.  In the same vein you'd apparently join the Mennonite church only to tell them to stop having their women cover their heads.[/quote]

I'm not being obtuse. It was your example. Show me a place in Scripture where God forbids the consumption of alcohol.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

I'm not the one trying to start an exclusive club for membership. If you want to start a club, you are free to set whatever standards you want.

Your snarky comments aside, membership is Biblical according to many churches.  Again, you'd impose your grid of "standards" by claiming your understanding of what defines a church and the attendant benefits and resposibilities.[/quote]

Yes...the understanding of what the Church is is an integral part of discussing what should be expected of the Church.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]If only the Christian world would abandon their own thinking and practices so they could get it right as you have it.[/quote]

I've never claimed to have all the answers. I've just claimed you happen to be wrong on this occasion.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

I stated early on what God's sets His standard at for the Church: redeemed by the blood of Jesus.

The "standard" as you use the term is but mere equivocation.  Paul lists many <moral> "standards" for the household of faith.[/quote]

The standard I set is the one that God sets. Paul then lists many ways in which a member should act...while also firmly stating that it is something people will not get right all the time.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Do you deny that repentance is a necessity for inclusion in the ekklesia?[/quote]

Jesus saving an individual is the only necessity for inclusion into the ekklesia.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Submit to the whims of another individual? Not necessarily but a definite possibility.

You are out in left field.  On matters of subjectivity we might very well live so that we don't become a stumbling block, but to abrogate authority to allow for things that are believed to be sinful actions, nope, that's just silly sloppy thinking.[/quote]

Would you rather I cite the verses or point out where you are adding to what I said?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Does leadership (i.e. authority) look like foot-washing? Absolutely. At least based on a Biblical worldview; a worldly one would align perfectly with what what you appear to be advocating.

I'm "advocating" liberty of conscience for the believer, a baptist and biblical distinctive.  Remember, they freely join the church.  They don't have to submit their conscience to that of a body unless they willingly acknowledge the covenant community and expectations.  That has absolutely nothing to do with worldliness.[/quote]

Actually, you appear to be advocating the exact opposite of "liberty of conscience".


[quote author=ALAYMAN]

And Jesus called them to him and said to them,

 

[ALAYMAN]

Then let me re-phrase the question: what is the point of disciplining a person who isn't even a part of your congregation?

Perhaps I should talk my church into disciplining Fred Phelps.

Is it impossible for you to simply have a conversation without the snark?

The person in question is a member, part of the congregation, but only attends the assembly periodically.  All of their absences are due to frivolity, not necessity.  Do you have familiarity with churches that are strongly reformed, and what their view to such sporadic and careless attendance?  Their prerogative, due to their view of the Lord's day, is that such lack of attendance would call for some form of discipline.  Do you deny them that right?  On what basis?

I'm not being obtuse. It was your example. Show me a place in Scripture where God forbids the consumption of alcohol.

Prov 20:1

Now you can tell them why they are wrong, and what you've done is place your interpretive understanding above the conscience of that body of believers per their covenant.  It is your interpretation that must be adhered to, to the exclusion of the leadership and congregation who has covenanted to abide by their own understanding.  Who is binding a group of people's conscience in that scenario?

Yes...the understanding of what the Church is is an integral part of discussing what should be expected of the Church.

You can keep impaling yourself on the obvious, but in the above statement, what you really mean is....."yes...MY understanding of the church, it's governance and ecclesiology, is integral to them understanding why my opinion should trump theirs in how they do church", right?

I've never claimed to have all the answers. I've just claimed you happen to be wrong on this occasion.

Oh, I could be wrong, but I wouldn't join an assembly with the knowledge that my belief structure significantly differs from that which I join and yet expect them to bow down to my opinion, unlike you apparently.

The standard I set is the one that God sets. Paul then lists many ways in which a member should act...while also firmly stating that it is something people will not get right all the time.

Please delineate how the bolded phrase above differs conceptually from <moral> standards of expectation?

Jesus saving an individual is the only necessity for inclusion into the ekklesia.

Ridiculous. The term ekklesia overwhelmingly in the Scriptures refers to a called out assembly of believers in a particular geographic locale, and as such is given apostolic instruction on how to carry our the mission of its calling.  In the event of unrepentant professors there is explicit instruction on dealing with removal of individuals from fellowship and potentially excommunication.  Again, if you were remotely aware of the reformed understanding of the constitution of the church this wouldn't even come close to needing to be discussed.  I Cor 5 is but one place where discipline calls for potential removal from fellowship.

Would you rather I cite the verses or point out where you are adding to what I said?

You made it clear that in the context of your estimation of servant leadership that footwashing should replace discipline.  You can twist that however you like, as you did by hearkening to and misapplying an irrelevant passage.

Actually, you appear to be advocating the exact opposite of "liberty of conscience".

The moderates of the southern baptist convention use the same sophistry when they call for the conservatives to allow women in the pastorate.  That's another case where foul is cried because the conservatives won't bow down to their will.

So you say that the ecclesiastical body should only follow the words of Jesus so long as it doesn't cost them too much authority. Got it.

More snark.  I thought you desired respectful dialogue?  Yet at every turn you misrepresent and twist other people's words, then employ condescension in doing so.

How about this.  You allow the snake-handlers of east Tennesse and Kentucky to come into your assembly and handle poisonous snakes.  After all, you're all about washin' feet and handlin' snakes, to the glory of God.  No, you say?  Why not?  Don't want to let people worship according to their beliefs in your free-spirited church?

 

[rsc2a]

Then let me re-phrase the question: what is the point of disciplining a person who isn't even a part of your congregation?

Perhaps I should talk my church into disciplining Fred Phelps.

Is it impossible for you to simply have a conversation without the snark?

The person in question is a member, part of the congregation, but only attends the assembly periodically.  All of their absences are due to frivolity, not necessity.  Do you have familiarity with churches that are strongly reformed, and what their view to such sporadic and careless attendance?  Their prerogative, due to their view of the Lord's day, is that such lack of attendance would call for some form of discipline.  Do you deny them that right?  On what basis?

Actually, it's a rhetorical device known as reductio ad absurdum. It clearly shows why you have a faulty position too.

And my question still remains: what is the reason for disciplining an individual who only attends your services infrequently? I'll also ask again: how would one go about disciplining said individual because these two topics are intrinsically related.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

I'm not being obtuse. It was your example. Show me a place in Scripture where God forbids the consumption of alcohol.

Prov 20:1

Now you can tell them why they are wrong, and what you've done is place your interpretive understanding above the conscience of that body of believers per their covenant.  It is your interpretation that must be adhered to, to the exclusion of the leadership and congregation who has covenanted to abide by their own understanding.  Who is binding a group of people's conscience in that scenario?[/quote]

Nothing in that verse prohibits the consumption of alcohol. Keep trying. (I'm completely ignoring the literary context which you got completely wrong.)

And, just in case you forgot, this is what I originally said: "The expectations are pretty clear for the most part..." Would you like to show you the easy verses (although the alcohol example is pretty easy too) that people (including myself) are still struggling with? Or, if you'd rather, you can focus on the gnats.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Yes...the understanding of what the Church is is an integral part of discussing what should be expected of the Church.

You can keep impaling yourself on the obvious, but in the above statement, what you really mean is....."yes...MY understanding of the church, it's governance and ecclesiology, is integral to them understanding why my opinion should trump theirs in how they do church", right?[/quote]

Since, in this case, MY understanding of what the Church is is in accordance with 2000 years of church teaching and consistent with virtually all the major creeds and confessions, then yes, I'll go with that.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]]

I've never claimed to have all the answers. I've just claimed you happen to be wrong on this occasion.

Oh, I could be wrong, but I wouldn't join an assembly with the knowledge that my belief structure significantly differs from that which I join and yet expect them to bow down to my opinion, unlike you apparently.[/quote]

When did I say this or are you making things up again?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

The standard I set is the one that God sets. Paul then lists many ways in which a member should act...while also firmly stating that it is something people will not get right all the time.

Please delineate how the bolded phrase above differs conceptually from <moral> standards of expectation?[/quote]

Please delineate how Paul said we should discipline those who fall short of these standards and we'll have a conversation.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Jesus saving an individual is the only necessity for inclusion into the ekklesia.

Ridiculous. The term ekklesia overwhelmingly in the Scriptures refers to a called out assembly of believers in a particular geographic locale, and as such is given apostolic instruction on how to carry our the mission of its calling.  In the event of unrepentant professors there is explicit instruction on dealing with removal of individuals from fellowship and potentially excommunication.  Again, if you were remotely aware of the reformed understanding of the constitution of the church this wouldn't even come close to needing to be discussed.  I Cor 5 is but one place where discipline calls for potential removal from fellowship.[/quote]

No....the term overwhelmingly refers to a called out assembly of believers in either a particular geographic locale or a called out assembly of believers in all times and places. And it doesn't change the fact that the only requirement for inclusion into the Church universal (of which the church local is part) is Jesus saving them. Anything else is heretical.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Would you rather I cite the verses or point out where you are adding to what I said?

You made it clear that in the context of your estimation of servant leadership that footwashing should replace discipline.  You can twist that however you like, as you did by hearkening to and misapplying an irrelevant passage.[/quote]

No....I made it clear that servant leadership is foot-washing. Worldly leadership is seeking to rule over others. And, yes, the Godly worldview should replace the worldly one.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Actually, you appear to be advocating the exact opposite of "liberty of conscience".

The moderates of the southern baptist convention use the same sophistry when they call for the conservatives to allow women in the pastorate.  That's another case where foul is cried because the conservatives won't bow down to their will.[/quote]

See this...


[quote author=ALAYMAN]

So you say that the ecclesiastical body should only follow the words of Jesus so long as it doesn't cost them too much authority. Got it.

More snark.  I thought you desired respectful dialogue?  Yet at every turn you misrepresent and twist other people's words, then employ condescension in doing so.

How about this.  You allow the snake-handlers of east Tennesse and Kentucky to come into your assembly and handle poisonous snakes.  After all, you're all about washin' feet and handlin' snakes, to the glory of God.  No, you say?  Why not?  Don't want to let people worship according to their beliefs in your free-spirited church?[/quote]

...is related to this. I have said nothing about how a local church should or should not practice their faith in a corporate setting. I have been commenting on how a local church should treat individuals as they live out their faith.

 

[ALAYMAN]

...is related to this. I have said nothing about how a local church should or should not practice their faith in a corporate setting. I have been commenting on how a local church should treat individuals as they live out their faith.

There's so much obfuscation and subterfuge in the bulk of your post(s) that it is not worth my time or energy to go on with this charade, but the snippet above really focuses the main reason that it is impossible to discuss matters with you.  The OP and vast majority of the conversation (from my contribution) has clearly been from the perspective of the faith and practice (hence, words like ecclesiology being used) of a corporate body, yet you claim that you've been talking about individuals outside the assembly.  Stuff and nonsense, and that's being charitable.  You're one of the most disengenuous posters I've ever met on here, and again, that's being charitable.

 

[rsc2a]

...is related to this. I have said nothing about how a local church should or should not practice their faith in a corporate setting. I have been commenting on how a local church should treat individuals as they live out their faith.

There's so much obfuscation and subterfuge in the bulk of your post(s) that it is not worth my time or energy to go on with this charade, but the snippet above really focuses the main reason that it is impossible to discuss matters with you.  The OP and vast majority of the conversation (from my contribution) has clearly been from the perspective of the faith and practice (hence, words like ecclesiology being used) of a corporate body, yet you claim that you've been talking about individuals outside the assembly.  Stuff and nonsense, and that's being charitable.  You're one of the most disengenuous posters I've ever met on here, and again, that's being charitable.

...been from the perspective of the faith and practice of a corporate body...

...as it pertains to the behavior of individuals and how they choose to live out their faith.

Or are you seriously trying to say that you were only discussing whether the church should discipline individuals for bringing a keg to the church picnic or committing adultery on the pulpit?