Does anyone remember...

[Andrew12]

Does anyone remember the church covenant that used to hang in the back of the church or somewhere in the church? I know it's still at mine. I recently had an appointment to preach at another church, and I noticed that it was absent from their sanctuary.

Andrew, Voice in the Wilderness Ministries

 

[Hammster]

No clue as to what you are referring to.

 

[twin1954]

Does anyone remember the church covenant that used to hang in the back of the church or somewhere in the church? I know it's still at mine. I recently had an appointment to preach at another church, and I noticed that it was absent from their sanctuary.

Andrew, Voice in the Wilderness Ministries

While I remember that many Baptist churches had church covenants that all members were required to sign and agree to I am against such things. It is a bondage that is not according to the Gospel. It often comes to replace the Scriptures as our guide in all matters of faith and practice. I have actually had one fellow say that it doesn't matter what the Scriptures say the church covenant is what we are bound by. I always advise people to never join a church which has a covenant that is required for membership.

BTW we don't worship in sanctuaries, that is RC nonsense.

 

[mikedsjr]

Andrew, I guess I've never attended a Baptist church like that. I don't seem harm in that. People are afraid of covenants. I find them at least comforting to know where a person stands, but people dont like to stand for anything today.

 

[Andrew12]

While I remember that many Baptist churches had church covenants that all members were required to sign and agree to I am against such things. It is a bondage that is not according to the Gospel. It often comes to replace the Scriptures as our guide in all matters of faith and practice. I have actually had one fellow say that it doesn't matter what the Scriptures say the church covenant is what we are bound by. I always advise people to never join a church which has a covenant that is required for membership. BTW we don't worship in sanctuaries, that is RC nonsense.

I can't speak for all Baptists, but the churches I attend/visit have scripturally based covenants, but they do not replace the scriptures.

And yes, we are bound by covenants we make and/or agree to. We are only as trustworthy as our word.

Also, I would not base a whole viewpoint on the statement made by one or even a few individual(s).

Furthermore, the area of the Baptist Church where the altar and pulpit reside, i.e. The area we gather in to worship, Is referred to as the sanctuary in the church. It is a designated place, sanctified and set aside for the sole purpose of conducting church services.

On a side note, RC, EO, or Protestant... We all have the same origin. We may disagree on some things, but in the spirit of Christ we should be respectful of one another, especially here on CF. "RC nonsense" is not a phrase that seems conducive to the harmony of Christian brotherhood.

Andrew, Voice in the Wilderness Ministries

 

[twin1954]

I can't speak for all Baptists, but the churches I attend/visit have scripturally based covenants, but they do not replace the scriptures.

Of course they don't in doctrine, as in the churches who use them would never say that they do, but in practice they do. Church discipline is based on breaking the covenant not on breaking the Scriptures. Every church that I have known to use a covenant puts the covenant above the Scriptures in practice.

And yes, we are bound by covenants we make and/or agree to. We are only as trustworthy as our word.

A bondage to a law made of men and not of God. We are not in bondage to any law as believers but are free in Christ. Furthermore, do you really need a promise and a signed covenant to trust a believer? Do you really need to hang a penalty over the head of a believer to keep him in line? No not at all! You do need such things for goats but not believers. Goats have to be driven by covenants and law but sheep naturally follow their Shepherd. What you desire is legalism though it sounds all pious and good. All it accomplishes is to put the believer under another yoke other than Christ. I gladly slip my neck under His yoke but I will not be subject to man made yokes.

Also, I would not base a whole viewpoint on the statement made by one or even a few individual(s).

I don't, I base them on the Scriptures and personal experience.

Furthermore, the area of the Baptist Church where the altar and pulpit reside, i.e. The area we gather in to worship, Is referred to as the sanctuary in the church. It is a designated place, sanctified and set aside for the sole purpose of conducting church services.

You will find no alter in a New Testament church. You will find no sanctuary in a New Testament Church. We worship in a building but there is no part of the building that is sanctified or made holy it is just a building. A pastor friend of mine once was speaking at a special meeting and afterwards they had a dinner. One fellow was sitting across from my friend asking questions and the pastor noted that he wasn't eating. He told him to go get something to eat and the fellow responded that he didn't think it was proper to eat in the house of God. My friend, who is a quick wit, said to the fellow " you pee in it don't you?"

There is nothing special about a building. That too is more baggage from the RC nonsense that has been carried through the centuries. While tradition has its place and is useful when Scripturally sound don't just accept tradition without question.

On a side note, RC, EO, or Protestant... We all have the same origin. We may disagree on some things, but in the spirit of Christ we should be respectful of one another, especially here on CF. "RC nonsense" is not a phrase that seems conducive to the harmony of Christian brotherhood.

Andrew, Voice in the Wilderness Ministries

And this is the Baptist forum. Tell me of any time in Baptist history when we accepted the RC as anything but nonsense.

 

[mikedsjr]

Twin, so really your covenant down to your experience. So if you ate a bad taco one day it could dictates the Scripture interpretation. That's what I'm hearing. I know you'll say I'm spinning it, but you clearly state word for word the following:

1. I always advise people to never join a church which has a covenant that is required for membership.
2. I don't [base my whole viewpoint on the statement made by one or even a few individuals]. I base them on Scripture and personal experience.

Which means your covenant is bound in your experience and no one can possibly tell you differently. You decide your theology. Because that burrito was good or gave you indigestion.

I'm not attempting to twist words. I imagine you won't appreciate my statements when it should be viewed to clarify your statements.

 

[twin1954]

Twin, so really your covenant down to your experience. So if you ate a bad taco one day it could dictates the Scripture interpretation. That's what I'm hearing. I know you'll say I'm spinning it, but you clearly state word for word the following:

1. I always advise people to never join a church which has a covenant that is required for membership.
2. I don't [base my whole viewpoint on the statement made by one or even a few individuals]. I base them on Scripture and personal experience.

Which means your covenant is bound in your experience and no one can possibly tell you differently. You decide your theology. Because that burrito was good or gave you indigestion.

I'm not attempting to twist words. I imagine you won't appreciate my statements when it should be viewed to clarify your statements.

I am not sure what you mean by my covenant. The only covenant I am under is the one made and fulfilled for me by Christ.

As for my theology I assure you I don't just make things up as I go. My theology is built on years of prayerful Bible study and over 30 years experience in the walk of faith. I am no novice.

Go back and re-read my whole response. Church covenants are nothing but legalistic bondage. As believers we are free from bondage to laws and covenants. If you want to talk about our liberty in Christ start a thread and I will respond.

BTW, I have no problem with you questioning me. I have a very thick skin.

 

[JM]

The covenant I sign had only three points; attend servies on a regular basis, support the work of the ministry, and proclaim the Gospel.

 

[twin1954]

The covenant I sign had only three points; attend servies on a regular basis, support the work of the ministry, and proclaim the Gospel.

So what happens when they want to build a new building or something like that and they ask you to pledge a certain amount of money toward it when the building they are in is just fine? Will you pledge or will they come after you if you don't because you signed a covenant?

 

[DeaconDean]

Does anyone remember the church covenant that used to hang in the back of the church or somewhere in the church? I know it's still at mine. I recently had an appointment to preach at another church, and I noticed that it was absent from their sanctuary.

Andrew, Voice in the Wilderness Ministries

You mean this:

Source

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[JM]

So what happens when they want to build a new building or something like that and they ask you to pledge a certain amount of money toward it when the building they are in is just fine? Will you pledge or will they come after you if you don't because you signed a covenant?

The covenant is not used in such a manner. When we give, when the plate is passed, special needs are mentioned. If one wants to give to that need you simply write the need the envelope. The general offering is used for what we voted on during the last church business meeting. No percent is ever mentioned, we are members covenant to give and the responsibility for giving belongs to the member alone.

Yours in The Lord,

jm

 

[mikedsjr]

Twin, I think you are confusing categories of freedom in Christ. There is nothing wrong with a church building a building. There is nothing wrong with a church collecting money. There is nothing wrong with covenants crested by a church. There is nothing wrong with a church expecting a certain level of expectation from their members. There is nothing wrong with just joining a house church where no money is collected, no buildings are sought to be built. There is nothing wrong with pictures of Jesus or if one feels its not for them. There is nothing wrong with denominations.

A covenant with a church doesn't break freedom in Christ. If you want to claim covenants are a demonstration of the lack of Freedom in Christ you need to give proof a lack of freedom in Christ with all covenants. JM gave you a rather short covenant and you counter with a straw man argument. What is a straw man argument? Building an argument against the other persons statement based on what the other person didnt say. I personally would love to see why you find a much larger covenant is wrong, like the Westminster shorter Catechism, but JM's 3 point covenant seems to have caused you some trouble.

I'm not sure I can start a thread on the freedoms in Christ when I have to first be sure your experience of who Christ is hasn't led you to moralism, polytheism or even Arianism. I don't know who your experience claims Jesus is. And even if you state who he I correct, I'm not sure your experience effects how you think tomorrow. I assure you you can't, going on experience.

 

[JM]

Personally, I would love to join a Baptist church where the Elders subscribed to the London Baptist Confession of 1689.

Yours in The Lord,

jm

 

[twin1954]

Twin, I think you are confusing categories of freedom in Christ. There is nothing wrong with a church building a building. There is nothing wrong with a church collecting money. There is nothing wrong with covenants crested by a church. There is nothing wrong with a church expecting a certain level of expectation from their members. There is nothing wrong with just joining a house church where no money is collected, no buildings are sought to be built. There is nothing wrong with pictures of Jesus or if one feels its not for them. There is nothing wrong with denominations.

I think you may be the one confused. I never said that there was anything wrong with buildings or collecting money and to insinuate that is what I said is a true straw man. As for a church having an expectation of its members I have no problem with either as long as that expectation is Scriptural. Church covenants are not Scriptural and you will not find any proof for them in the New Testament.

But yes there is something very wrong about so-called pictures of Jesus. It is a form of idolatry but I don't usually make a big deal of it. I have learned over the years to pick my battles.

A covenant with a church doesn't break freedom in Christ.

No it doesn't break freedom it binds it in legalism. Though not all churches use a covenant as a whip it does happen quite often and if you sign it you are binding yourself to the traditions of men not to the Scriptures.

If you want to claim covenants are a demonstration of the lack of Freedom in Christ you need to give proof a lack of freedom in Christ with all covenants. JM gave you a rather short covenant and you counter with a straw man argument. What is a straw man argument? Building an argument against the other persons statement based on what the other person didnt say. I personally would love to see why you find a much larger covenant is wrong, like the Westminster shorter Catechism, but JM's 3 point covenant seems to have caused you some trouble.

Nonsense. Covenants are not a demonstration of lack of freedom in Christ, now who is building a straw man, they are a bondage to man made traditions. It is legalism plain and simple. When you require a member to act a certain way, abstain from certain things and attend however many times you deem fit you are placing an implicit penalty on nonconformance. Believers do not need to be made to act like believers. A believer is generous because God has been generous to him. A believer is gracious and loving because he can't help himself it is his new nature to be so. A believer loves to worship God and doesn't need to be cajoled or coerced into attending the worship of God. Church covenants serve no purpose other than to bind folks. They are used because most church members are goats to begin with and you always have to drive goats.

I'm not sure I can start a thread on the freedoms in Christ when I have to first be sure your experience of who Christ is hasn't led you to moralism, polytheism or even Arianism. I don't know who your experience claims Jesus is. And even if you state who he I correct, I'm not sure your experience effects how you think tomorrow. I assure you you can't, going on experience.

You are not addressing my arguments at all. I am under no obligation to appease your uncertain mind concerning me. If you think me a heretic or a devil it makes no difference to me. But if you are going to question my views at least engage my argument factually and truthfully. You are the one building a straw man not me.

 

[twin1954]

The covenant is not used in such a manner. When we give, when the plate is passed, special needs are mentioned. If one wants to give to that need you simply write the need the envelope. The general offering is used for what we voted on during the last church business meeting. No percent is ever mentioned, we are members covenant to give and the responsibility for giving belongs to the member alone.

Yours in The Lord,

jm

But it could be used that way and often is. I know it can happen because it happened to me more than once in different churches. As long as you don't break the rules you are fine but let them think you are breaking the rules and see how fast they come after you.

 

[mikedsjr]

Twin, I think your correct that I mishandled your view after looking back. I apologize for that. I typically try not to address someone's actual stance without making sure I'm being consistent as best I can surmise, but I'll look back at the comments in a few days, because we certainly are not on the same page on this though respect for the other persons view by handling their view properly should always be my goal.

 

[JM]

I don't think it's biblical to avoid something just because it can be abused.

 

[mikedsjr]

Twin, I'm unaware of any Baptist church with a covenant. I do know more churches are doing new membership classes where they talk about the church, what they believe and what they expect of new members and why they ask of it. If you call that a covenant, then I guess I'm willing to accept that. I wouldn't call that legalism, so long as the expectations are not specific. I would be concerned with joining an independent Baptist church because legalism is truly more prevalent there. However, I live in Texas where you can see 5-8 churches in a mile stretch on any given major street in Dallas/Fort Worth. I certainly have choices. But if I lived in an area where I didn't, i would decide my willingness to attend "legalist" churches depending on the number of alternatives choices. I might even attend a Roman Catholic Church if my choices were slim.

I don't know what qualifies in a covenant to you as legalism, especially if the covenant is doctrinal based. I would have serious issues with a church willing to take modalists or arianists as members because they don't want to have constraints on members. I would have issues with a church willing to taking on members who believe Scripture is mostly fictional, but good for teaching us moral lessons. There several doctrine I believe covenants lay down a foundation needed.

I'm not sure if I touched your issues. Maybe you could give real covenants for us to talk about.

 

[USCGrad90]

Many Churches have Covenants written in their Constitution and Bylaws similar to the one posted by DeaconDean. I think it is a good thing to try to outline expectations for members, but not have it weigh certain sins or action over others.

Some disagree, but each church can choose how they document the guidelines for membership. Unfortunately, in a world where people are sue-happy, not having defined guidelines and expectations for members and operation of the church can result in someone suing the church over different things or exclusions. Having guidelines also usually results in less conflict when questions arise about how to remove a pastor (if needed) or what to do if a pastor should pass on - which happened to us. We were not prepared for his death and with a lack of direction, there was division between the staff and Deacons, which almost split the church.

In our case, I can remember one man who said he would like to join but could not agree to the part about abstaining from alcohol. In our last revision, we removed references to specific sins or actions and simplified it to some basic points:

- Live our lives under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
- Accept the Word of God as our authority for faith and daily living.
- Maintain the unity of the Body by acting in love toward all members.
- Follow and be equipped for service by the church leadership as they are led by the Holy Spirit and the teachings of the Word of God.
- Find our place of service within the church.
- Be faithful stewards of what God has provided.