The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Should we invite non-Christians to Church?

That is a question that was recently asked in a Reformed forum I participate in.
To my surprise the majority of the answers said absolutely not.
Church is for believers only, what business does the world have to do with the Church. They need to be saved before we invite them to Church.
I told them that although I believe that we should prioclam the Gospel whenever God provides the opportunity, however that does not mean we should not also invite them to Church.
In a uncompromising Gospel centered Church, we are not compromising anything. In fact as long as the Scrpture is preached uncompromisingly, God's will will happen in that person. The elect will repent an believe. Others will think it foolishness.
Unfortunately, almost everyone disagreed with me.
They all insisted that the Gospel should be the only thing given to a non-Christian; not an invitation to Church.

Thoughts?

Tom

IF an unbeliever shows some interest in visiting a true gospel church, which in most every instance, they have no idea what that means vs 99% +/- all other "churches", then why wouldn't you invite him/her to visit your church? The hypocrisy I see in most all of these churches which don't want unbelievers there is that the "worship" they practice is worldly and not biblically regulated. Most unbelievers want nothing to do with a doctrinally sound and biblically governed church. So, IF it is the Spirit of God working in the unbeliever for whatever reason; either to further harden their hearts or to bring them to repentance and faith through the hearing of the TRUE GOSPEL, and witnessing TRUE WORSHIP of God, why would anyone try and hinder that?

I am definitely familiar with churches that don't encourage bringing "strangers" through its doors. I ignored their Pharisaical practices and brought new people, both believers and unbelievers there, and I was invariably chided for doing so and warned not to do it again. I began seeing those churches as suffering from "spiritual incest". They were stagnant and distorted in many things and any increase in membership most always came from within, i.e., families having more children.

Pilgrim
Thank you, I needed to hear/read that from someone I trust.
I was starting to think I was missing something.
40 years as a Christian and this is the first time I remember having discussion with people that don't want to invite other people to Church. What was shocking is this was coming from supposedly Reformed believers.

Tom

I was thinking about this a little more and it occurred to me that I would ALMOST rather attend a seeker friendly Church than a Church that would tell people not to invite unsaved people.
Heavy on the word "ALMOST"; because a seeker friendly Church designs their services for so called seekers. However at least they want to reach the lost.
Both models are bad though.

Tom

Going a little too far I think. What are these "seeker friendly churches" reaching the lost with? What is their message? Do you think it is with the true gospel? OR is it something else?

tion

I think you missed my point. I used the word "ALMOST" in big letters to emphasize basically what you called attention to. Years ago, I was actually a deacon in a seeker sensitive Church. The idea was great, but it was very misinformed in that its motive was "what would attract the unsaved". I was involved in the process of becoming a so called "seeker sensitive Church". All of us on that board, had great intention. Yet on reflection, there are no seekers, not one! We had zeal, without biblical knowledge.
Yes we had success in terms of numbers, but it could not help but come at the expense of the truth of Scripture. We did not go as far in the seeker model as many Church go, because we were Calvinistic. We were not even aware, that we were not being consistent with what we claimed to believe.
For me, after a time I started to become aware of this and that was one of the things that made me not want to be a deacon anymore. Then eventually leaving that Church all together.

You can't mix worldly things with the Gospel and expect it to remain pure.

So my point really is, both are bad options. Both mix unbiblical things with the Gospel.

By the way, the better question for my former Church. Rather than what would attract the unsaved? Should have been something like, how can we be more Scripture centered so we can glorify God in our worship, evangelism and discipleship?

Tom

As has been discussed here myriad times in the past here and it is my unwavering view that Scripture teaches: It is ONLY through THE Gospel that any sinner CAN be saved. False gospels can only and do produce false confessions and thus a false sense of assurance of salvation. As Paul clearly wrote, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." (Rom 1:16) In Galatians 1:7,9 Paul strongly condemns anyone who preaches/teaches "another gospel", which he says doesn't exist, for there is ONLY ONE Gospel, let them be damned to eternal hell [anathema]. And again in 1Cor 11:1-4, Paul says in very clear words,

Rarely, if ever, will one find a "seeker friendly" church that hasn't corrupted the gospel to one degree or another to make it more 'attractive, palatable, comprehensible, etc.' so that people will readily accept it. Rarely, if ever will one find the truth of the gospel being taught and/or preached in the modern church where the depth of sin and corruption is brought forth with power and the need for regeneration by the Spirit Who comes to convict the sinner of his/her sinful and God-hating state, of righteousness and of judgment (Jh 16:8,9). And, to make clear that it is only through Spirit-wrought repentance and faith in Christ and His imputed righteousness does salvation come.

Pilgrim

I am writing this, because although I could not agree with you more in what you just said and I thought I confirmed that in my last post. I am not sure, but it seems by your reply, that I did not communicate that very well; regardless of how hard I tried to.

One line I made that I used intentionally, in order to communicate this was:


The main reason I shared my experience with a former Church, was that in that case I needed to learn the hard way. Which is something I have grown to realize, the Lord needs to do with us at times for our own good. (Romans 8:28-29)

Tom

That is surely true. HOWEVER, there are myriad people who will affirm that BUT they still believe that even through an unpure gospel, people by the thousands are being saved today throughout the world. My contention has always been and remains unwavering that ONLY by the hearing/reading of the one true Gospel (cf. 2Cor 11:1-14; Gal 1:7-9; Jude 3,4) CAN anyone be saved. False gospels can only produce false professions of so-called faith which result in a false assurance of faith. To speculate that God can use whatever He wishes to bring people to salvation is foolishness. God has revealed in His sure Word how He has ordained that sinners shall come to Christ; both the message and the means (1Cor 1:17-25; 1Cor 2:4-16; 1Cor 3:18-20) [Do you think that the Corinthians had a problem believing that the true Gospel is the 'power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes'?] Solomon was right, there is nothing new under the sun. Fallen men continually think they have a 'better way' than God.

Pilgrim
Was there something in any of my posts that indicated that I would disagree with that?

Tom