Is it Sinful not to be part of a local church?

[Yeshua1]

Interesting consideration --- So I am not KJO - I am pre-trib dispensation, I am Open communion, I don't believe a woman is sinning if wearing pants to church.
So lets suppose the only church within 100 miles has the opposite view on those three items.
So I attend that church - I meet wit the pastor -I inform him that I disagree wit the church of those four items.
Shortly after, I notice, that each week the pastor "throws in at least 1 of those four items - and how you need to confess your sin
if you are not abiding by the churches position on those four items.

So would you keep attending -
or what?

I would attend a presby church, if only one in area, and would just smile evry time infant baptism preached!

 

[Dave G]

True! I just was wondering though if our friend has no decent Baptist churches in area!

That's not for you to decide, Dave.
That is between myself and the Lord.

However, thank you for your kind words of encouragement.

 

[Dave G]

I think it's definitely a commandment to go to church.

I think it is definitely a commandment to do exactly what Hebrews 10:25 says...not to forsake the assembling of ourselves as believers, together.
"Going to church" these days ( especially in these last days ) does not necessarily involve that.

But it is better to walk alone then be apart of an apostate church.

Agreed.
That is why I am walking mostly alone, for the time being.

I am not the only one who does as I do, either.
Those of us in my area that see the problems as I do, assemble together as much as God affords us the privilege of doing.

Say another person lives in a rather remote area and the only churches close by are unbiblical ones - for them not to go would not be sin, I wouldn't think. In fact, it would be sin TO go and be apart of them.

Say a person lives in an area where there are no assemblies that preach truly sound doctrine, even though they are surrounded by entities that consider themselves to be "churches", and those churches literally occupy almost every street corner in some places...

Would it be a sin to forsake assembling with them, and find like-minded individuals to assemble with instead?

That is what a church is, isn't it?
...the Ekklesia.
An assembly of the called-out ones.

 

[Dave G]

Good news is that most of us do have the option of a bible preaching/teaching church!

I'm glad for you, sir.

Unfortunately I do not share in your particular blessing.
That is why when @Particular shared what he experiences at his church, I was quite literally shocked to see an actual New Testament church modeled anywhere, these days;
Because I've never been part of one that included more than 3 people, that's why.

One needs to find a local church body that is teaching sound doctrine for sure, but some seem to just take the approach that music style never right, teaching never right, as if looking for excuses not to go!

From my perspective, some take the position that it's better to participate in a bad church, than not to participate at all.
Which one is the Biblical view?

To involve ones' self with heresy, modernism, false teaching and worldly churches, or to separate ones' self from those who are walking disorderly?

means to be meeting together with fellow Christians in a local assembly!

I do that every weekend.

I was thinking more like those who find fault with any church, as in bad music, teaching, not set up as I would like etc!

How about if one is not looking at how one wants it, but how God wants it to be?
Would that be too much to ask, for professing believers to actually be conducting themselves as a New Testament church should be?

I know of many buildings on street corners in my area that call themselves "churches", but are just as dead, spiritually, as the religious Pharisees were in Christ's day.
I don't know of any in my area that fully preach and teach sound doctrine, but I know of one that gets close.

I will not be re-baptized just to participate in their errors and to "identify with their teachings" as their pastor put it to me.
I was baptized in 1978 to identify with my Saviour and His every word, not a denomination's teachings.

If he wishes to insist that everyone coming form another Baptist church other than his own, be re-baptized, then that is his prerorgative...
But I don't have to agree with it, nor do I have to join them just to be part of a traditional church.

I was not seeking membership even, just attending faithfully!

"Seeking membership"...
You mean, like at a country club?

God's churches don't "transfer memberships" or grant memberships.
Believers are members one of another.

It's not a business, it's the family of God.

Secondly, what does "attend faithfully" mean?
To participate in a pre-scripted religious ceremony ( like I did for decades ) where people come in, stand for the first song, sit for the second, take an offering, listen to the announcements, sit through a musical "special", stand for the third song, and then listen to a 45 minute to 1 hour sermon ( that often involves the propagation of gross error and misunderstanding about God's word ) and then go home?

Rinse and repeat next week, same time, same place?

I'm sorry, sir, but that's not "assembling together" in the Biblical sense.
Which is getting to know one another as the spiritual brothers and sisters that we are and being able to exercise our spiritual gifts...

That's religion at its finest.

 

[Dave G]

I would attend a presby church, if only one in area, and would just smile evry time infant baptism preached!

I wouldn't.
Heresy is heresy, and I don't involve myself with professing believers who don't have the discernment to see persistent error right in front of them, or that never experience the Holy Spirit's internal correction and teaching from the word of God.

You may wish to sit in such places, but I've been in Catholic churches, Methodist churches and so forth.
If all that comes from the pulpit is error, then I conclude that they are not saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit...who leads all of God's children into truth ( 1 John 2:20-27 ).

I'm sorry Dave, but you do not know my situation... and making broad spectrum assertions without being inside my particular situation is like "arm-chair quarterbacking";
If you're not down on the field in the middle of it, then you may not be calling the right plays.

With respect, I also think that you're misunderstanding me and many like me.
I never said I would not want to be part of an actual, bona-fide New Testament church .

What I said was, that there are so few these days that actually embody such a thing, that I have yet to find one in the larger sense.
When I find one of those in my area ( other than what I am currently participating in ), I'll let you know.

 

[Dave G]

We love her dearly; I am not going to say that she is sinning. But she is wrong, and she is missing out.

Steve,
Biblically speaking, she is already a "member" simply by being among you.

That is the biblical definition of assembling together.
Not the generally accepted-by-tradition method of "formally seeking membership".

First century believers never knew of this tradition that has come to be "required" of those who have believed on Christ as Saviour...what we now call "becoming a member".
Anyone who suffered for the sake of Jesus Christ was automatically a member one of another and part of the local assembly.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

means to be meeting together with fellow Christians in a local assembly!

Define local

 

[Nicolaus Mourer]

I think it is definitely a commandment to do exactly what Hebrews 10:25 says...not to forsake the assembling of ourselves as believers, together.
"Going to church" these days ( especially in these last days ) does not necessarily involve that.

Agreed.
That is why I am walking mostly alone, for the time being.

I am not the only one who does as I do, either.
Those of us in my area that see the problems as I do, assemble together as much as God affords us the privilege of doing.

Say a person lives in an area where there are no assemblies that preach truly sound doctrine, even though they are surrounded by entities that consider themselves to be "churches", and those churches literally occupy almost every street corner in some places...

Would it be a sin to forsake assembling with them, and find like-minded individuals to assemble with instead?

That is what a church is, isn't it?
...the Ekklesia.
An assembly of the called-out ones.

We should be careful about forsaking the assembly over doctrinal differences that are less than essential, as I'm sure you're aware. If the church preaches another Christ, it is justified to not be apart of them. If the church preaches the correct gospel, but teaches a different eschatology for example, then that is not something I would think would be justifiable in breaking the commandment over.

I know a particular person who does not go to church because the church's doctrines don't match his down to the detail. That would not be a good position to be in.

 

[Salty]

...r doctrinal differences that are less than essential, ...

Except for one thing - I might consider them less than essential - but the church may not or vice-a-versa. Let me go back to the KJV- so Iet's say, I do use other versions, but the church is KJO. - okay fine, I only bring a KJV to church with me. But one day,, the pastor comes to my home and sees that I have several other versions in my library. The next Sunday his message is about KJO and anyone who uses anything else is an agent of the devil.​

So whats next?

 

[Dave G]

We should be careful about forsaking the assembly over doctrinal differences that are less than essential, as I'm sure you're aware.

I'm sorry, but I don't subscribe to the "essential doctrine" teaching.
All doctrine is essential, just as every word of God is given to His children to live by ( Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 ).

It's all equally important, and there are no "essential doctrines" and "non-essential" doctrines.

If the church preaches another Christ, it is justified to not be apart of them. If the church preaches the correct gospel, but teaches a different eschatology for example, then that is not something I would think would be justifiable in breaking the commandment over.

It is to me.

I know a particular person who does not go to church because the church's doctrines don't match his down to the detail. That would not be a good position to be in.

I'm not as interested in where a church currently is, as much as I am about where they are going and what they are willing to receive...
Every word of God.

I shouldn't be expected to walk into a building with professing believers in it, and watch them put up with the same errors year after year with no growth and no growing discernment among its members.

Christ's sheep grow in both knowledge and grace...
They do not stagnate for decades.
As I see Scripture teaching, that does not happen to true believers.

For example, the Baptist church I first heard the Gospel in, in 1978, has only gone more modern and less doctrinally correct over the years, not more.
As I see it, if there were saved people there, they either left long ago, or they passed on.

No true church goes backwards in doctrine and practice and loves the world and its ways more, and can still be called one of God's churches.

His people are led by the Spirit.
That leading does not result in more error, but less.

It does not lead to more worldly behavior and a love for it, but less.

 

[Nicolaus Mourer]

I'm sorry, but I don't subscribe to the "essential doctrine" teaching.
All doctrine is essential, just as every word of God is given to His children to live by ( Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 ).

It's all equally important, and there are no "essential doctrines" and "non-essential" doctrines.

It is to me.

I'm not as interested in where a church currently is, as much as I am about where they are going and what they are willing to receive...
Every word of God.

I shouldn't be expected to walk into a building with professing believers in it, and watch them put up with the same errors year after year with no growth and no growing discernment among its members.
Christ's sheep grow in both knowledge and grace...
They do not stagnate for decades.

Well then that is your conviction, but I do not hold the same conviction. The church I'm apart of teaches an eschatology that I don't believe is correct, but they teach the correct gospel. And they go soulwinning with that gospel and get people saved with that gospel. Am I not going to be apart of that just because they teach a different doctrine about the end-times? In the grand scope of things, a church's purpose is to take the gospel to the lost and to edify the saved on walking spiritually. My church does both, though they teach a misguided doctrine here and there. It would be unjust for me to nitpick them to the letter, because that would be unprofitable to me as well.

 

[Nicolaus Mourer]

Except for one thing - I might consider them less than essential - but the church may not or vice-a-versa. Let me go back to the KJV- so Iet's say, I do use other versions, but the church is KJO. - okay fine, I only bring a KJV to church with me. But one day,, the pastor comes to my home and sees that I have several other versions in my library. The next Sunday his message is about KJO and anyone who uses anything else is an agent of the devil.​

So whats next?

I see your point. For me personally, KJVO is an essential doctrine and partly for that reason. I would imagine it would differ per individual believer, though, in regard to what is considered essential doctrine.

 

[Dave G]

In the grand scope of things, a church's purpose is to take the gospel to the lost and to edify the saved on walking spiritually.

With respect, you and I see it completely different.
The church's purpose is to serve the saints and to glorify God in word and in deed.
God is the one who saves, and He is the one who gathers His people into local churches.

The purpose of that local assembly is to act as a support group for those He has saved, by His grace.
It is not tasked with taking the Gospel to the lost ( who will never view it as anything but foolishness, 1 Corinthians 1:18 ), but to His people.

My church does both, though they teach a misguided doctrine here and there. It would be unjust for me to nitpick them to the letter, because that would be unprofitable to me as well.

They shouldn't be teaching any misguided doctrines, as Christ's sheep, and continue to do so over years.
It may seem like I'm nitpicking to the letter, but I am not.

What I am stating, is that if doctrinal error continues and is never corrected by His Spirit in a group of individuals, then how can it be said that they actually have the Spirit of God in them?
If no one stands up for the truth in the congregation, and there is no eventual progress made towards a unity of the faith and a declaration of truth among all who are in a church, then to me it is spiritually dead.

You may see a church that never grows in knowledge and grace as all being believers, but I do not.
In other words, God loves His children as they are, but He loves them too much to leave them as babes in Christ, always being carried about with every wind of doctrine.

That is why He gives them true pastors and teachers according to Ephesians 4.
So that they will all eventually come into the unity of the faith.

 

[Nicolaus Mourer]

With respect, you and I see it completely different.
The church's purpose is to serve the saints and to glorify God in word and in deed.
God is the one who saves, and He is the one who gathers His people into local churches.

The purpose of that local assembly is to act as a support group for those He has saved, by His grace.
It is not tasked with taking the Gospel to the lost ( who will never view it as anything but foolishness, 1 Corinthians 1:18 ), but to His people.

Are you Calvinist? If so, then our differences are plain and the conversation should end now while we are both ahead.

 

[Dave G]

Are you Calvinist?

I believe God's word, each and every thing that the Lord has to say on a matter...
Including everything that He has to say about election, predestination, calling, justification ( Romans 8:28-30 ) and other subjects.

If that makes me what you call a "Calvinist", then I suppose that is why you and I see things very differently.

If so, then our differences are plain and the conversation should end now while we are both ahead.

Perhaps we should, as I see nothing more that we would have in common except that we both profess to believe in Christ and believe what the Scriptures state with regard to "Baptist distinctives".
Our doctrine of salvation, for example, is undoubtedly very different.

I wish you well, sir.

 

[Yeshua1]

I see your point. For me personally, KJVO is an essential doctrine and partly for that reason. I would imagine it would differ per individual believer, though, in regard to what is considered essential doctrine.

I do see the various views on this issue, as for awhile was in a pentacostal church that had Charismatic Chaos going on big time, only reason stayed was engaged to my future wife at the time, so kept going, we even taught sunday school, but the Lord showed both of us time to move on and been baptists for years now!

 

[Yeshua1]

With respect, you and I see it completely different.
The church's purpose is to serve the saints and to glorify God in word and in deed.
God is the one who saves, and He is the one who gathers His people into local churches.

The purpose of that local assembly is to act as a support group for those He has saved, by His grace.
It is not tasked with taking the Gospel to the lost ( who will never view it as anything but foolishness, 1 Corinthians 1:18 ), but to His people.

They shouldn't be teaching any misguided doctrines, as Christ's sheep, and continue to do so over years.
It may seem like I'm nitpicking to the letter, but I am not.

What I am stating, is that if doctrinal error continues and is never corrected by His Spirit in a group of individuals, then how can it be said that they actually have the Spirit of God in them?
If no one stands up for the truth in the congregation, and there is no eventual progress made towards a unity of the faith and a declaration of truth among all who are in a church, then to me it is spiritually dead.

You may see a church that never grows in knowledge and grace as all being believers, but I do not.
In other words, God loves His children as they are, but He loves them too much to leave them as babes in Christ, always being carried about with every wind of doctrine.

That is why He gives them true pastors and teachers according to Ephesians 4.
So that they will all eventually come into the unity of the faith.

what are you looking for then in a "real church?"
What style of worship, what type of teaching etc?

 

[Yeshua1]

Except for one thing - I might consider them less than essential - but the church may not or vice-a-versa. Let me go back to the KJV- so Iet's say, I do use other versions, but the church is KJO. - okay fine, I only bring a KJV to church with me. But one day,, the pastor comes to my home and sees that I have several other versions in my library. The next Sunday his message is about KJO and anyone who uses anything else is an agent of the devil.​

So whats next?

In your scenerio, would move on to another church!
But if he stated OK for you to use those at home, but please take Kjv to church, would stay!

 

[Yeshua1]

Define local

For me, would be within 30 miles!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

One needs to find a local church body that is teaching sound doctrine for sure, but some seem to just take the approach that music style never right, teaching never right, as if looking for excuses not to go!

That is called discernment.