Library Resource Needed

how the early church implemented church membership

I'm sure DAL will be here post-haste to invite you to consult Acts 2:47 and the 'add-er'.

Don't know your library, but Didache in volumes on the Apostolic Fathers is the first hint of a formal teaching, prior to a baptism, prior to 'membership'. The next discussion is with Justin.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1069676#Comment_1069676

You are correct Denise! Acts 2:41 about 3,000 souls were added...How? The Lord added them because when they received the Word [obeyed], they were saved (Acts 2:47). That means before you start giving out memberships as if it was some kind of club; you need to make sure people are saved; i.e. They have obeyed the Gospel of Christ. If they haven’t done so, then they can only be counted as visitors.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1069696#Comment_1069696

they can only be counted as visitors.

Not sure where Jay's going; most resources on membership are tradition-specific (eg Everitt Fergusen).

But the concept is curious. I earlier mentioned un-membering myself, since the check-off was basically guys' doctrines ... not the text. But the pastor was happy to invite me as 'visitor' (later eliminating non-text check-offs).

But 'visitor' is curious. No communion tray duties. Nor polish the pews requests. But still bring a dish for potluck lunches. Can't vote for church stuff (always a major discussion). Actually, I feel 'visitor' is closer to the text ... volunteer as needed. No doubt 'member' is to avoid eternal arguing.

Mike Binks

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1069736#Comment_1069736

Not sure where Jay's going; most resources on membership are tradition-specific (eg Everitt Fergusen).

But the concept is curious. I earlier mentioned un-membering myself, since the check-off was basically guys' doctrines ... not the text.

I once asked at a church I visited on Holiday what it took to become a member. I was told be regular and often at Sunday Worship, attend and contribute to house group Bible study, be involved in one of the outreach projects. That makes you member they said.

Once we notice that you are not involved in any one of the three activities we will be reaching out to encourage and pastor.

I quite liked the idea.

To keep this on topic I have no idea where to find information like this in Logos resources. :-)

Mike Tourangeau

I’m looking for a library resource that provides information on how the early church implemented church membership. For example, today we might write out member covenants, etc., but did the early church have its version of similar practices for the day and age they lived in?

I appreciate the feedback!

Jay I recommend books put out by 9 Marks. Here is a bundle on sale right now. The one entitled "Membership" in it is excellent. I have used it for years.

Mike Tourangeau

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1069746#Comment_1069746

Didn't realize it was un-bundled...here it is on it's own

https://www.logos.com/product/53550/church-membership-how-the-world-knows-who-represents-jesus

Scott E. Mahle

A library resource for you to consider is The Didache: A Window on the Earliest Christians

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1069696#Comment_1069696

Acts 2:41 about 3,000 souls were added...How? The Lord added them because when they received the Word [obeyed], they were saved (Acts 2:47). That means before you start giving out memberships as if it was some kind of club; you need to make sure people are saved; i.e. They have obeyed the Gospel of Christ. If they haven’t done so, then they can only be counted as visitors.
DAL

Exactly!

Not to veer off into theology, but, briefly, they were ”saved” according to Peter’s plain instructions as per Acts 2.38.

This is biblical salvation.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1069812#Comment_1069812

Incidentally, there is much debate over the date of the Didache.

I have noticed a recent trend of folks affirming a very early date as if factual—when that is FAR from certain.

Personally, based on what I have read from upper echelon academia, the Didache is probably in reality dated to ca. AD 250-350 at the earliest. Cf. J.N.D. Kelly’s works, et al.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1069813#Comment_1069813

This is biblical salvation.

Or is this theology based on cherry picking scripture? Which is why we don't engage in theology on the forums.

Incidentally, there is much debate over the date of the Didache.

I have noticed a recent trend of folks affirming a very early date as if factual—when that is FAR from certain.

From my quick review of the literature to night, it appears to me that the pendulum has swung back towards an earlier date with some scholars sticking to a late 2nd century date. However, it is true that there were other similar works floating around that may be independent may be shared parent ... so I'd be very cautious using "probably in reality dated" to any of the speculation. From my library - post-J.N.D. Kelly. Warning one needs to be wary of scholars speaking on topics where significant new information has been gleaned in the last century e.g. DSS and Nag Hammadi.

[quote]If we admit an early date of composition, all the evidence is in favor of it; if we insist on a late date, we have to face a mass of conjectures and hypotheses. Supposing, then, with many scholars, that the Didache came into existence “before the end of the first century,” we need do no more than bring its statements into harmony with the New Testament.

Johannes Quasten and Joseph C. Plumpe, eds., The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, The Epistles and the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, The Fragments of Papias and The Epistle to Diognetus, trans. James A. Kleist, 6th ed., Ancient Christian Writers (New York; Mahwah, NJ: The Newman Press, 1948), 10–11.

[quote]

When the Didache first came upon the stage of scholarly attention two dates were proposed. Those who looked at the very early structures and the close relationship to Judaism proposed a first-century date; while those who compared sentences in the Didache with similar (but not identical) statements in the Gospel of Matthew argued that it must therefore be later than Matthew, so, if Matthew is late first century, the Didache could be early second century. Later, often worried by the doctrinal problems of an early date, some scholars proposed a much later date for the work—third or even fourth century—and that it had ‘disguised’ itself to make itself look primitive. The problem with such conspiracy theories is that once uttered they are hard to disprove: and so that late date still sometimes crops up. However, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1948 was the complete answer to the conspiracy theorists. This discovery changed for ever our views of Judaism at the time of Jesus (many argue that it is better to speak of the ‘Judaisms’ of that time) and our views of the Didache.

New scholarship from the 1950s could point positively to a first-century date, indeed one before 70 (> Audet, 1996). Moreover, our understanding of how the Gospels emerged (> Bauckham, 1998)—earlier views tended to imagine the Gospel writers sitting in the equivalent of a study surrounded by the books they were using and writing for a distinct church—meant that it is just as likely that Matthew was using phrases that were in the Didache or were in common use (> Garrow, 2004; Draper, 2006a; summary of arguments in Milavec, 2003, pp. 693–739). So the broad consensus today is for a first-century date.

Thomas O’Loughlin, The Didache: A Window on the Earliest Christians (London; Grand Rapids, MI: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; Baker Academic, 2010), 25–26.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1069748#Comment_1069748

Didn't realize it was un-bundled...here it is on it's own

https://www.logos.com/product/53550/church-membership-how-the-world-knows-who-represents-jesus

I bought this bundle with the PAM October Coupon. The discipline one is a great read so far.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1069825#Comment_1069825

Thank you for the response MJ. However, I could just as easily post quotes from contemporary academics who still argue for the later date of Didache. (I would post them, but I am on my iPad & heading to bed now.)

I do agree that the pendulum has swung back toward the earlier date in many circles—hence my reference to the same above. My point is that this is not as certain as many claim. In fact, I read excerpts from a university Ph.D. dissertation recently w. current quotes from bonafide scholars that speak to this same conclusion regarding the Didache.

But, as you know, I do respect your linguistic/text critical abilities—and so I’ll just say that I will look into this further (been wanting to do that anyway).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1069825#Comment_1069825

Didn't realize it was un-bundled...here it is on it's own

https://www.logos.com/product/53550/church-membership-how-the-world-knows-who-represents-jesus

I bought this bundle with the PAM October Coupon. The discipline one is a great read so far.

DAL

Obviously, you didn't watch this season's Bachelorette. Millions, neh, billions learned about 'Christian' ... how you go to Bible class and sincerely express your witness (church in Georgia). Then, you decide you're God's saved, while wearing a cross, behaving as obnoxiously as absolutely possible, and everyone's jaw almost falling off.

Millions learned all about 'Christian', without buying a book too! Worked great.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1069827#Comment_1069827

But, as you know, I do respect your [MJ's] linguistic/text critical abilities—and so I’ll just say that I will look into this further (been wanting to do that anyway).

It's always best to discuss evidence, versus letters of the alphabet. Phd's are good 5 minutes after they're awarded, after that, results only (my general opinion). The primary drivers are the absence of a bishop structure, and associated theology, especially formal instruction. Now, that could indicate early, and it could be a later group 'up in the hills' (away from bishopric control). The latter struggles due to many examples of bishops wildly stomping outliers, beginning with Ignatus.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1069827#Comment_1069827

I read excerpts from a university Ph.D. dissertation recently w. current quotes from bonafide scholars that speak to this same conclusion regarding the Didache.

I find that in theological studies (in contrast to linguistics or religious studies that touch on Christian subject), one of the first things to do in evaluating a source is to consider whether or not the "scholar" has a belief to protect. (see belief revision logic) and the theology bent of the school they attended. Why? personal experience. I attended for 1 year a religious college that I refuse to acknowledge that I know anything about. I knew it was a crap school despite its reputation when my biology teacher informed us that a certain chemical could not be made in the lab, a chemical that he considered crucial to evolution. Only problem was that the week before, I'd learned how to synthesize it in honors chemistry and it was more than a decade since it was first done.

Didache is not an area in which I am an expert. But from my quick review of the literature, it is a perfect example of why Logos needs a simple argument mapping tool. The original arguments for a early date that I have seen were quite weak - establishing the possibility but requiring substantial additional research. The original argument for a late date were a combination of quite strong objections to the early date and partisan objections to the inconvenience to their belief system of the earlier date. In what I have read, the additional research both due to studying newly found documents and due to dropping a Euro-centric study for a world-wide church study, have strengthened the early date position and weakened the objections that led to the later date position. Whether or not the shift is sufficient to lead someone to change their position is a judgment call but a simple argument mapping tool would allow one to lay the date out, modify the information as one's knowledge expands, and encourage the holding of beliefs based on the best information available to you rather than by habit (as in the biology prof at the unnamed school).

Have fun exploring the issue.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1069932#Comment_1069932

The Biblical truth without quoting none sense from uninspired humans is that the church is made up of the body of the saved/reconciled not just any unconverted nice people that choose to attend regularly to worship services (That’s the logical conclusion based on the entire Biblical data, not cherry picking Scriptures). Any sinner can host a devo at their home or attend potlucks or church related events, but at the end of the day and in the final biblical analysis, they’ll never become members until they get saved the Bible way. Period and end of discussion! 👍😁👌

Any more questions? I thought so...NEXT!

😜

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1069934#Comment_1069934

Any more questions?

Ok, now, this 'Bible way' thing you mention. As I understand it, there's 431 'Bible ways' to be saved (churches available on Sunday morning in your average size metropolis). Statistically, how can one 'hit the bulls-eye' (or thread the needle, as an early Galilean preacher spoke to)? Is there a Logos tool for this?

Ok, no answer ... just pointing out the obvious.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1069947#Comment_1069947

Denise,

It’s called common sense and it’s not a logos tool it’s a tool God gave you. For example: The Bible says Baptism saves you and is unto/in order to receive remission/forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21; Mark 16:16), but that doesn’t mean baptism alone saves you or that it is the only thing you need to do to be saved. The Bible also tells you repentance leads to eternal life (Acts 11:18; 2 Corinthians 7:10; Luke 13:5; Acts 2:38) but that doesn’t mean all you need to do is repent. The Bible tells you confessing is unto/ in order to be saved (Romans 10:9-10), but that doesn’t mean confessing is all you do. The Bible also tells you to believe in order to be saved and please God (Mark 16:16; Hebrews 11:6), but that doesn’t mean believe is all you do because even demons believe (James 2:19). By the way, faith is a work ( John 6:28-29) a verse ignored by those who claim works don’t save. And you must remain faithful and overcome always to be saved (Revelation 2:10; 2 Timothy 4:6-8).
I have purposely avoided the traditional order of the steps of the plan of salvation as I teach them on Sundays for an obvious reason: To illustrate the fact that many churches teach one or the other, others go as far as teaching there’s nothing you have to do because it’s all grace; but the truth remains that by cherry picking (being sarcastic here), you can put 2 and 2 together and find out that it’s all those steps (i.e. Faith, repentance, confession, baptism and being faithful) that God commands and you must obey if you want the free gift of salvation. There’s no such thing as different ways to be saved — some pick faith only, others pick confession only, others repentance only, etc. but it’s all those steps together found by cherry picking (sacasm again) that you must obey to receive salvation— anything less than that, is not biblical.

Anyway, getting late and I must have some sleep before going to work 😉

DAL

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1069934#Comment_1069934

Any sinner can host a devo at their home or attend potlucks or church related events, but at the end of the day and in the final biblical analysis, they’ll never become members until they get saved the Bible way. Period and end of discussion! 👍😁👌

Any more questions? I thought so...NEXT!

😜

DAL

Thank you God ... the only person authorized to speak this definitely. In other words, cut the theological stuff - you know better.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1069952#Comment_1069952

Denise,

It’s called common sense and it’s not a logos tool it’s a tool God gave you. For example: The Bible says Baptism saves you and is unto/in order to receive remission/forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21; Mark 16:16), but that doesn’t mean baptism alone saves you or that it is the only thing you need to do to be saved. The Bible also tells you repentance leads to eternal life (Acts 11:18; 2 Corinthians 7:10; Luke 13:5; Acts 2:38) but that doesn’t mean all you need to do is repent. The Bible tells you confessing is unto/ in order to be saved (Romans 10:9-10), but that doesn’t mean confessing is all you do. The Bible also tells you to believe in order to be saved and please God (Mark 16:16; Hebrews 11:6), but that doesn’t mean believe is all you do because even demons believe (James 2:19). By the way, faith is a work ( John 6:28-29) a verse ignored by those who claim works don’t save. And you must remain faithful and overcome always to be saved (Revelation 2:10; 2 Timothy 4:6-8).
I have purposely avoided the traditional order of the steps of the plan of salvation as I teach them on Sundays for an obvious reason: To illustrate the fact that many churches teach one or the other, others go as far as teaching there’s nothing you have to do because it’s all grace; but the truth remains that by cherry picking (being sarcastic here), you can put 2 and 2 together and find out that it’s all those steps (i.e. Faith, repentance, confession, baptism and being faithful) that God commands and you must obey if you want the free gift of salvation. There’s no such thing as different ways to be saved — some pick faith only, others pick confession only, others repentance only, etc. but it’s all those steps together found by cherry picking (sacasm again) that you must obey to receive salvation— anything less than that, is not biblical.

Anyway, getting late and I must have some sleep before going to work 😉

DAL

☝️What he said! Just baptized someone tonight in the name of Jesus!

Ok, no more theology (although I wouldn’t classify plain biblical declarations as “theology,” but rather biblical facts).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1069844#Comment_1069844

But, as you know, I do respect your [MJ's] linguistic/text critical abilities—and so I’ll just say that I will look into this further (been wanting to do that anyway).

It's always best to discuss evidence, versus letters of the alphabet. Phd's are good 5 minutes after they're awarded, after that, results only (my general opinion). The primary drivers are the absence of a bishop structure, and associated theology, especially formal instruction. Now, that could indicate early, and it could be a later group 'up in the hills' (away from bishopric control). The latter struggles due to many examples of bishops wildly stomping outliers, beginning with Ignatus.

👍👍

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1069932#Comment_1069932

I read excerpts from a university Ph.D. dissertation recently w. current quotes from bonafide scholars that speak to this same conclusion regarding the Didache.

I find that in theological studies (in contrast to linguistics or religious studies that touch on Christian subject), one of the first things to do in evaluating a source is to consider whether or not the "scholar" has a belief to protect. (see belief revision logic) and the theology bent of the school they attended. Why? personal experience. I attended for 1 year a religious college that I refuse to acknowledge that I know anything about. I knew it was a crap school despite its reputation when my biology teacher informed us that a certain chemical could not be made in the lab, a chemical that he considered crucial to evolution. Only problem was that the week before, I'd learned how to synthesize it in honors chemistry and it was more than a decade since it was first done.

Didache is not an area in which I am an expert. But from my quick review of the literature, it is a perfect example of why Logos needs a simple argument mapping tool. The original arguments for a early date that I have seen were quite weak - establishing the possibility but requiring substantial additional research. The original argument for a late date were a combination of quite strong objections to the early date and partisan objections to the inconvenience to their belief system of the earlier date. In what I have read, the additional research both due to studying newly found documents and due to dropping a Euro-centric study for a world-wide church study, have strengthened the early date position and weakened the objections that led to the later date position. Whether or not the shift is sufficient to lead someone to change their position is a judgment call but a simple argument mapping tool would allow one to lay the date out, modify the information as one's knowledge expands, and encourage the holding of beliefs based on the best information available to you rather than by habit (as in the biology prof at the unnamed school).

Have fun exploring the issue.

I like this last idea (last paragraph). Would be excellent for syllogisms in Bible class and public polemics.

Will dig further into the Didache. Although, since I am a sola scriptura kinda’ feller’—I personally don’t place a lot of stock in so-called early church father’s (many of whom would be classified as alleged “heretics” by today’s supposed “orthodoxy” 🙄).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1069961#Comment_1069961

Any sinner can host a devo at their home or attend potlucks or church related events, but at the end of the day and in the final biblical analysis, they’ll never become members until they get saved the Bible way. Period and end of discussion! 👍😁👌

Any more questions? I thought so...NEXT!

😜

DAL

Thank you God ... the only person authorized to speak this definitely. In other words, cut the theological stuff - you know better.

Is not theology is the Truth as hard as it is for you to accept it. I remember being in the big C' church (you know what C stands for "universal") and I remember the none sense being taught there. The drunk that beat his wife senseless was a member there and the guy actually prayed his way into heaven. The so called "father" would tell him: "Just pray a few ave marias (hail marys) some holy Fathers and 3 times around the rosary and you'll be fine. And by the way, try not to beat your wife senseless next time around. You could kill her and then what? who's gonna clean around the house, who's gonna cook for you, who's gonna take care of the kids? Just take it easy, she's a good woman. Go in peace my son." The drunk guy's membership was based on the fact that his ancestors were born into the big C church, because they had relatives that were born into the big C church, without actually becoming members. At the eulogy all the talk was about how the drunk was a child of God and how he was now at Jesus' side and how God was going to give him great privileges in heaven because he was there now. Remember, he prayed his way into heaven. ;-)

That to me, is not the truth, is none sense. But I'll tell you what, with an easy piecy doctrine like that, I'm feeling tempted to become a C like you are. I can be a drunk, beat my wife, have other women outside the house, etc. and I can just pray my way into heaven. That's easy piecy ham and cheesy.

By the way, maybe you can give me some quotes from your ancient none inspired literature to support praying hail Marys or Ave Marias as I know it or some quotes about praying 3 times or x number of times around the rosary.

All my respect to you MJ, but with all the smarts, logic and critical thinking skills you posses, some times I just wonder. That's all I'm going to say about that.

By the way, what I wrote about the big C church is not theology, so no need to worry about it. Actually, is called a sad reality.

And don't worry, I'm not going to email you to try to save you. I think the ones that have done that have done more harm than good. But seriously, you need to rethink your logic. I wonder what text book you've been using.

Happy Friday! Instead of TGIF (you know, to keep the theology out of the discussion).

DAL