"Allowing" unsaved to attend church?

[Jon-Marc]

In that case I would have never been saved since I was saved in a church and went there for nearly a year before being saved. The reson for that is that I witnessed to and "led" to the Lord on that first day in that church, but I simply did and said as I was told and had no idea what was going on. Trying to lead me to the Lord at home would not have done anything except turn me away.

I was invited to a church at age 16 and reluctantly went and I thank God I did. I liked it there and enjoyed the love and attention I got when they found out I could sing. It also gave me the opportunity of getting away from my abusive dad more often.

 

[Fred's Wife]

If the unsaved are not allowed to attend church, how in the world can we reach them for Christ? Street preaching is only one means of evangelizing the lost, but we evangelize the unsaved in church where (prayerfully) the gospel is preached every Sunday. I have a friend who says "You can't teach them (the lost) if you can't reach them" IMO, I would say that there are more "unsaved" (pew warmers) sitting in church pews than there are truly born again believers. So many believe that just by "going to church" they have a free ticket to heaven.

 

[Mike Stidham]

This website is sponsored by Liz Michael, a self proclaimed les1bian. She also believes the Bible containes errors.
​

She also says she doesn't believe in any religion. It's pretty much all about anarchy with her.

 

[John Toppass]

What is the purpose of the church meeting? Worship by believers. Instruction of believers. A safe haven and encourage of believers. Evangelism is done one-on-one by church members in homes, office, etc

If the church wants to have a special meeting that is NOT for corporate worship, instruction, admonition then it should be thus advertised and open for unregenerate to come. Local church matter on use of facility.

Only in one odd place is there even IMPLIED in Scripture that an unsaved person was part of a worship of the church body. This was in the Corinthian mess with tongues. And churches met in homes, so chances of someone "walking by" and hearing and being confused was likely then but highly unlikely today with our million-dollar buildings.

Easy solution to the op - check the NT epistles and history (Not the Gospels dealing with the kingdom prior to the local church era; that only confuses when we try to mix those together)

By actual listing or solid deduction in the Bible, how many people were saved in a church service? (Implying unsaved attending)

How much instruction for the church deals with evangelism in a church setting.

The church is for God's people. Our responsibility to share Law/Gospel with the world (in obedience to the command) is not seen in the Bible inside the setting of the church worship itself.

I did not meet any of these folks, but I heard from a very reliable source that 3 thousand were save in one day at church. I think it was uh uh uh Pentecost!!!

What a way to start the very first NT church!

 

[Dr. Bob]

I did not meet any of these folks, but I heard from a very reliable source that 3 thousand were save in one day at church. I think it was uh uh uh Pentecost!!!

What a way to start the very first NT church!

How silly to equate pentecost (outdoor evangelistic work of disciples) with a worship service of the church. Assume it was tongue in cheek, John.

 

[Robert Snow]

How silly to equate pentecost (outdoor evangelistic work of disciples) with a worship service of the church. Assume it was tongue in cheek, John.

It is a good thing the Primitive idea of not having lost people attend church is rejected by most of Christianity, otherwise very few would be saved at all!

It's sad that the more I hear about the Primitive doctrine, the least it appears to be sound, in my opinion.

 

[Bro. James]

Salvation is of the Lord. God does not dwell in temples made with hands. The Lord knows them that are His--from before the foundation of the world. Not one has been lost except Jusas Iscariot. No one comes to The Father unless the Spirit draws him. Faith comes by hearing--hearing the Word of God.

The Ethiopian eunuch was not in assembly when God called. The same could be said for the Phillipian jailer. Saul was on the road to Damascus. God is able to carry out evangelism whereever and whenever He so chooses/desires according to His plan and purpose, Ephesians Chapter 1.
He will use us--if we let Him. However, He can call the lost sheep without our help.

The lost are more influenced by the Wednesday Christians than by the Sunday Christians. Corinthian style Christians are everywhere--trying to be Christ-like and carnal on the same day. This equates to hippocracy to most casual observers.

We seem to suffering from: broad phylacteries.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[JohnDeereFan]

It is a good thing the Primitive idea of not having lost people attend church is rejected by most of Christianity, otherwise very few would be saved at all!.

..........

 

[quantumfaith]

In that case I would have never been saved since I was saved in a church and went there for nearly a year before being saved. The reson for that is that I witnessed to and "led" to the Lord on that first day in that church, but I simply did and said as I was told and had no idea what was going on. Trying to lead me to the Lord at home would not have done anything except turn me away.

I was invited to a church at age 16 and reluctantly went and I thank God I did. I liked it there and enjoyed the love and attention I got when they found out I could sing. It also gave me the opportunity of getting away from my abusive dad more often.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[annsni]

We've had 7 "babies" in our new church campus since we started 6 months ago. Each of these started attending the church and were saved while they attended.

 

[glfredrick]

It is a good thing the Primitive idea of not having lost people attend church is rejected by most of Christianity, otherwise very few would be saved at all!

It's sad that the more I hear about the Primitive doctrine, the least it appears to be sound, in my opinion.

Robert, one cannot lump all in with one point of doctrine. Doesn't work that way. While I reject Dr. Bob's doctrine of no one but believers in the worship service (how does he know?), as does the majority of Christianity, I do not reject his take on God's sovereignty, the way he sees Scripture, etc.

And vice-versa... While I support your take on non-believers within the worship service, I reject many of your other doctrines.

I've not found the individual, myself included, that was 100% right on every single point of doctrine. It should be our goal to attempt this, but we all have blind spots, doctrinal traditions, and interpretations that were made to us early in our Christian life that have stuck, even when faced with sound and reasoned arguments to the contrary.

In other words, ALL of us that enter eternity will exclaim, "Say whut?" when faced with the absolute clear truth in the presence of God.

 

[idonthavetimeforthis]

How many kids/teens/adults would be at home instead of in church if we only opened our doors to people we knew were absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt born again? As has been expressed, when one walks through the doors of our church, I'm just thankful that they are there to begin with. We have several unsaved men who come with their wives pretty faithfully on Sunday morning. It's my prayer that the Spirit will take the Word & do His Work while they are there. Besides, the unsaved people that are in attendance don't stop God's children (the rest of us) from worshipping our Lord.

 

[glfredrick]

I asked it in passing above, but here, more earnestly...

How can we KNOW that the people in our churches are or are not regenerated?

-- They can say so, but that does not make it so.

-- We can look for "evidence" but we've all seen plenty of evidence that doesn't mean that God has indeed re-created that individual (many people are "nice" and will offer to pray, serve, read, give, etc.).

I am familiar with the old Union Baptist Associating, who were not only
hyper-Calvinistic but pragmatically anti-missionary. Daniel Parker, their defacto leader was everywhere active, spreading his “two seeds in the Spirit” doctrine as far and wide as possible. He proclaimed that it was foolish to present the Word to the non-elect and that the elect would be won without missionaries. He did not get far, and ultimately most of his work died on the vine (pun intended).

 

[Tom Butler]

I'm sort of in the middle on the OP question.

I agree with Dr. Bob that worship services are primarily for members.

I also agree that we have to assume there are lost people in our services.

So, that begs this question: how much of our church services should be geared toward believing members, and how much should be aimed as the lost?

I certainly don't favor the Joel Osteen-type of emphasis. He preaches no gospel at all, but the end of his messages, he'll say, "now we never want to close our service without giving you an opportunity to be saved." Then follows, repeat the sinner's prayer, and the assurance that if you prayed that prayer, you got saved.

But neither do I believe that every message should be evangelistic in nature, because that neglects 95 per cent of the congregation.

I recall one church which advertised its Sunday evening service as an evangelistic service. I wondered about that, because the likelihood of a lost person being there is quite low.

I have also known a preacher or two who bragged that he never closed a service, even Wednesday night, without an invitation.

Bottom line for me, our services should be mainly geared toward believing members, but some part should be aimed at calling people to repentance and faith.

If I read the Great Commission right, Jesus said "as you're going, therefore," not "as you're waiting for them to show up."

 

[PeterM]

I'm sort of in the middle on the OP question.

I agree with Dr. Bob that worship services are primarily for members.

I also agree that we have to assume there are lost people in our services.

So, that begs this question: how much of our church services should be geared toward believing members, and how much should be aimed as the lost?

I certainly don't favor the Joel Osteen-type of emphasis. He preaches no gospel at all, but the end of his messages, he'll say, "now we never want to close our service without giving you an opportunity to be saved." Then follows, repeat the sinner's prayer, and the assurance that if you prayed that prayer, you got saved.

But neither do I believe that every message should be evangelistic in nature, because that neglects 95 per cent of the congregation.

I recall one church which advertised its Sunday evening service as an evangelistic service. I wondered about that, because the likelihood of a lost person being there is quite low.

I have also known a preacher or two who bragged that he never closed a service, even Wednesday night, without an invitation.

Bottom line for me, our services should be mainly geared toward believing members, but some part should be aimed at calling people to repentance and faith.

If I read the Great Commission right, Jesus said "as you're going, therefore," not "as you're waiting for them to show up."

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[okstateprincess11]

Personally, I think that by not allowing those that are saved to attend church just gives people the thought that Christians feel that they are holier than thou. As Christians, we have all had to become saved at one point or another and by not allowing the unsaved to enter into the church, we cant reach those who need to be saved, especially those who are curious and are seriously thinking about getting saved. Its just like the saying by Oscar Wilde "Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future" How can we give them a future with Christ and tell them that we serve a God who loves everyone and wants a relationship with everyone if we go to church and act like its an exclusive club that only the saved can get into. That only makes us look bad and give them more reason to question God and ask what kind of God do we serve that only wants to deal with the saved in His house of worship. I just feel that its not right at all to shut the unsaved out, but then again I also go to a church who welcomes people, especially the unsaved, into the house of the Lord! :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Allan]

I'm sort of in the middle on the OP question.

I agree with Dr. Bob that worship services are primarily for members.

I also agree that we have to assume there are lost people in our services.

So, that begs this question: how much of our church services should be geared toward believing members, and how much should be aimed as the lost?

I certainly don't favor the Joel Osteen-type of emphasis. He preaches no gospel at all, but the end of his messages, he'll say, "now we never want to close our service without giving you an opportunity to be saved." Then follows, repeat the sinner's prayer, and the assurance that if you prayed that prayer, you got saved.

But neither do I believe that every message should be evangelistic in nature, because that neglects 95 per cent of the congregation.

I recall one church which advertised its Sunday evening service as an evangelistic service. I wondered about that, because the likelihood of a lost person being there is quite low.

I have also known a preacher or two who bragged that he never closed a service, even Wednesday night, without an invitation.

Bottom line for me, our services should be mainly geared toward believing members, but some part should be aimed at calling people to repentance and faith.

If I read the Great Commission right, Jesus said "as you're going, therefore," not "as you're waiting for them to show up."

I look at it this way.. I preach me message God gives me regardless. But that does not change the fact that I allow for people an invitation to respond to the message and how God is dealing with their hearts. A pastor should always allow for a response at the end of messages. Whether or not anything happens visually isn't or at least shouldn't be the issue.. but allowance for response should always be offered. I have preached messages that had NOTHING to do with 'getting saved' (at least I thought) and had some come up to speak with me about salvation, to my pleasant surprise.

So my question to pastors is why not allow the people the opportunity to publicly respond and share their faith or all allow others to come along side them to aid and strengthen their faith. And yes, privately is another aspect of the response as well.

 

[Jerome]

Only in one odd place is there even IMPLIED in Scripture that an unsaved person was part of a worship of the church body. [Corinthian tongues passage]
Easy solution to the op - check the NT epistles

So I brought up James chapter 2:

For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment. . .

Find any NT reference to an unregenerate person being in the church worship. The examples are ALL Christians

So I headed over to monergism.com to see how the Reformed brethren read James 2.

And look what I found:

Ligon Duncan, First Presbyterian, Jackson MS:

I want you to notice he’s talking about our treatment of non-Christians here. This isn’t just how we treat one another in the body. These people are strangers to the church. They are visitors. They don’t know where to sit. They have to be ushered to the right place to be seated. Both the rich man and the poor man, perhaps seekers, but not members of that local congregation. James is talking about our attitude even towards those who are outside the community of faith.

George Stulac, Memorial Presbyterian Church, St. Louis MO:

What is the hypothetical meeting in view, and what is the reason for the rich and poor persons' presence? The traditional understanding has been that the meeting is a gathering for worship. Since the rich and poor individuals seem to be unfamiliar with procedures, they would be visitors who are either interested non-Christian observers or new converts to be instructed in the Christian faith.

John MacArthur:

Everybody else is wearing their normal drab stuff and here comes a guy with gold all over his fingers in some brazen flashy loud ornamentation in his clothing. Now there's no problem with that, this guy's an unbeliever. No big deal. You don't stop him at the door and throw a pile of sackcloth on him, you let him in. There's no problem with that. The man is welcome, he's an unbeliever. He needs to hear the gospel.

Amen, amen, and amen:thumbs:


But it's not "even IMPLIED", right?

 

[Benjamin]

I haven’t even given serious thought or consideration to my response to those who would be inhospitable to someone else who comes into God's church searching for answers, until now. Actually, I can’t even imagine how this would work? The church elitist would keep uniformed bouncers at the door and blocking the way before I could notice a searching person and welcome them in, or what? Maybe such a "church" would use a milder approach like a sign on the door that warns “if you’re not already saved don’t tell us, and we won’t ask”?

Personally, I do not recognize any power or authority within any walls that would or could try to detach me from the work of evangelizing to a searching person who came to visit. I suppose if I where to enter into a church and found that they practiced not "allowing" a searching person in no doubt I would be quick to shake the dust off my feet and would invite that person to enter God’s Church from outside those manmade walls.

:type:

 

[glfredrick]

Tom raised the question above as to how the service should be "geared."

I'm not sure we can build a service of worship in any other way than to and for believers! Whom else can truly worship God. But to take that concept and suggest that ONLY believers can be present in the worship service is carrying a point farther than the Scriptures allow.

How much allowance should be given for non-members who may or may not be lost? Some... While unabashedly going about our business, we CAN take the time to explain what we are doing. We CAN greet people who are visitors (but HOW we do that is another issue, singling out visitors with some form of "rise and the church will honor you" is just plain wrong for any number of reasons). We SHOULD take 10 minutes of our time before joining the "holy huddle" after service to speak to visitors before they head for the door thinking that no one in the church really even cares if they are there. And, we OUGHT take whatever time it takes to explain the teaching, sermon, songs, elements of the service, etc., along with an invitation to return.

After that, structuring the service of worship for "seekers" instead of for the regenerate church is likely a mistake of epic proportions.