Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What constitutes matters of Brotherhood and Fellowship?
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 46 of 163 (557950)
04-28-2010 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by jaywill
04-28-2010 12:43 PM


jaywill writes:
Churches according to other boundaries other than locality are deformed entitities. At best they are improper assemblies. But the constituients may still be Christians regardless. They are divided improperly according to the New Testament standard of one church for one locality. But they are still members of the universal church and of the whole Body of Christ.
sorry, i dont get it.
What are 'other boundaries'? And in what way are they 'deformed'?
Why are they 'improper'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by jaywill, posted 04-28-2010 12:43 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jaywill, posted 04-29-2010 8:23 AM Peg has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 47 of 163 (557994)
04-29-2010 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Peg
04-28-2010 7:13 PM


sorry, i dont get it.
What are 'other boundaries'? And in what way are they 'deformed'?
Why are they 'improper'?
I said that the New Testament speaks of one Body of Christ. What makes this group the Body of Christ is that they have the life of Christ. Christ is living in them. That matter alone makes them members of His Body.
If someone has not been born again, that person is not in possession of Christ's Spirit. "Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him" (Rom. 8:9b). To not be "of Him [Christ]" is to not be a member of Him. And that is to be outside of the Body of Christ.
If anyone does not have [b]"the Spirit of Christ"{/b because he has not been born again that person does not have the divine life of Christ in the Holy Spirit. He certainly can have this life in the future. But while he does not have the Spirit of Christ he has no place in Christ's Body.
The unredeemed / unregenerated unbelievers are not in possession of Christ's life. And therefore they are not a member of Christ's Body.
Now let us move on to the local church by examining the problem in the city of Corinth in First Corinthians.
"For it has been made clear to me concerning you, my brothers, by those of [the household of] Chloe, that there are strifes among you. Now I mean this, that each of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ.
Is Christ divided ? Was Paul crucified for ? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul ?" (1 Cor. 1:11-13)
There was established in the city of Corinth one local church, "the church of God which is in Corinth" (1:2) But the Christian brothers were about to divide, to denominate. They in strife over the immature attitude of championing one servant of God over against another:
"I am of Paul, and another, I of Apollos..." (1:4)
This practice was to assume Christ was divided. This was to act as if Christ had more than one Body. This was the beginning of the practice of denominating the church in a locality into divisions which were either smaller than a city or larger than a city.
Suppose those who said "We are of Paul" separated themselves and started a "Pauline Church". Then suppose those who boasted 'Well, WE are of Apollos" separated to establish a "Apollosian Church" in the same city. Now suppose those who said "We are of Cephas" (who was Peter) founded a "Petrine Church". And lastly those who boasted "We are not like any of you. We are of Christ" meaning really "We are of Christ and other Christians are not of Christ". Then they separate themselves to be a "Church of Christ" but in an exclusive way not recognizing other Christians in Corinth.
These divisions, these denominations would be "deformed" and abnormals assemblies. The local ground of Corinth, as a boundary for the local church would be annulled and denominationalism would arise. But Paul said that this tendency was immature, fleshly. He said they were acting as infants in Christ. This was "soulish" and fleshy, not spiritual.
Those of these four groups may still be Christian brothers and sisters. They may still have the Spirit of Christ. And they may still be members in principle of the one Body of Christ. But they have divided the local church into divisions of deformed entitities.
The apostles established "the church of God in Corinth". Corinth is the ground and boundary of fellowship. God did not instruct them to establish churches (plural) in Corinth according to different servants of God, ie. Peter, Paul, Apollos.
So today, the practice of having in one city a Lutheran Church, a Wesleyian Church, a Presbyterian Church, a Baptist Church, a First Street Church, a Third Street Church, or a African Methodist Episcapal Church, and a Pentacostal Church, or a Nondenominational Church, a Chinese Church, a Black Church, an American Church, a Southern Baptist Church, a Church of England, a Greek Orthodox Church, a Catholic Church, a Christian Science Church, a Russian Orthodox Church, a White Church, a Korean Church, a Ethiopian Church, a Congregational Church, etc. etc. is a further development of the attitude condemned by the Apostle Paul.
In each case, man has established a "church" with a boundary either greater than or less than the local boundary of a city.
A First Street Church in Corinth is a boudary smaller than Corinth. This is improper. A American Church in Corinth is a boundary larger than the city of Corinth. That is likewise a deformed "church". Even if that is a "Greek Church" in Corinth it is deformed. Greece as a country is larger than the city of Corinth. But churches were established according to the boundary of localities in the New Testament.
Do you yet follow me ?
Now we come again to Revelation 1:11:
" ... What you see write in a scroll and send it to the seven churches"
Notice that Jesus did not say "send it to the Church in Asia". He did not lump all the seven churches "in Asia" (v.4) into one Asian church. Asia is larger than a locality. And John wrote to "the seven churches which are in Asia" (1:4)
What were the names of those churches ? They were effectively the name of each locality:
" ... What you see write in a scroll and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamos and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laocdicea."
The names of those churches were the names of those cities - Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thytira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea. One city - one church.
Man's has thought to try to improve on this God ordained model. Man has invented churches according to other things beside the locality. And I say that these, at best, are deformed "churches". I would go as far as to say that they are really are not churches.
Now. if you follow me up to this point I would hasten to indicate what I am NOT saying as well:
1.) I am NOT saying that the local church all has to physically meet in one building or one gathering. In "the church which was in Jerusalem" they met in the temple and from house to house. There were thousands of believers. Yet the "church" is singular for the city of Jerusalem.
2.) I am NOT saying that it may not be the case that all the participants in a local church may not be of one race. It may turn out that all the Christians in the city of Seoul in South Korean happen at the moment to be Korean. But that still must be "the church in Seoul". That cannot be "the Korean Church in Seoul".
It may be a fact that only Americans are presently meeting as "the church in Dallas" and only Canadians are meeting as "the church in Toronto". But they cannot say that this is a "American Church in Dallas" or "the Canadian Church in Toronto".
There is simply "the church in Dallas" or "the church in Toronto" or "the church in Seoul". Churches should not be established according to countries or races or ethic identities.
3.) I also am NOT saying that you cannot have a language speaking meeting in a local church.
It may be practical that in Mexico City there be a Spanish speaking meeting in the church in Mexico city in one place and an English speaking meeting in the church in Mexico city in another place. These are simply meetings. These are language groups meeting together with like languages to fulfill the practical need of communication. But to establish a English Speaking Church and a Spanish Speaking Church in that one city is deformed.
Meetings can be divided into practical purpose serving groups. But they should not be established as "churches". The church is attached to the locality. The church is established according to the God ordained model of one city - one church.
4.) Also I am not saying that the local church is a utopian paradise where there cannot be any more problems. This is obviously not true. One city - one church is just a minimum requirement of practical unity. It does not garuantee that the local church will be without problems.
Usually each of the churches in the New Testament still had some spiritual problems or we would not have so many letters trying to deal with those problems.
One city - one church does not mean a idealistic utopia. But it is an answer to many problems. It is healthier than today's practice of denominating the church into factions. Factions are the work of the flesh according to Galatians 5:20.
5.) I also am NOT saying that to not meet on the local ground is to lose salvation, or to not be able to be used by God. A Christians is still a Christian whether or not they meet as the local church.
6.) I am NOT saying that Christians should not form other kinds of associations or entities like a Christian evangelistic outreach, or a Christian school, or a Christian hospital, or a Christian work for some specific purpose.
As long as these do not become "churches" there is no problem, in principle. Christians in Corinth who were burdened to have a soup kitchen could have a "Christian Soup Kitchen" in Corinth. They should not make it "The Soup Kitchen Church" in Corinth.
It may be okay to establish a work, an outreach, a specific ministry center, or an association of likeminded laborers to fulfill a specific work. For instance, there may be a "Christian / Missionary Alliance" as a specific outreach. There should not be, however, a "Christian / Missionary Alliance Church".
Can you discern the difference? Churches should be established according to locality. We cannot improve upon this God ordained principle seen in the New Testament.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Peg, posted 04-28-2010 7:13 PM Peg has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 48 of 163 (558001)
04-29-2010 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Natural_Design
04-27-2010 4:46 PM


Another thing I would like to say is I always see people all over the net have this argument over '' God created us in his image '' This is somewhat true but Allah definitely did not create us (Man) out of the image that he see's in a Mirror. We were created out of the image he had of us in his Mind. I just wanted to clarify that.
Thank you for reading and I'll be around these forums more often now.
Your one heavy dude man, your trippin me out up in this mug. Welcome with that heavy stuff and wow.
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Natural_Design, posted 04-27-2010 4:46 PM Natural_Design has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 49 of 163 (558006)
04-29-2010 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by ICANT
04-26-2010 5:01 PM


Re: FELLOWSHIP
Anyone who adds anything to God's requirements for entry into heaven is anti-christ. Regardless of what they claim.
Is this an indirect implication regarding my and the Chruch of Christs beliefs regarding Baptism, given what you said above
Now doctrine and teachings are a whole different kettle of fish, which have nothing to do with entrance into heaven.
yeah thats where we are at in this thread and I thnk you for following along. I hadnt seen you for a while on a post, thoght you had left us. Your imput is always insightful
EAM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ICANT, posted 04-26-2010 5:01 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by ICANT, posted 04-30-2010 12:42 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 50 of 163 (558016)
04-29-2010 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Peg
04-28-2010 2:24 AM


you seem to be saying that its ok to participate in pagan ceremonies if you are not participating for the pupose of worship. To me that is not what Paul is talking about.
No Im saying its ok to use the same symbols, if you ARE NOT participating in a Pagan cerimony or worship of Pagan Gods. Now watch, if the symbol doesnt violate a moral principle set out in the NT
Pagan cerimonies and the symbols had to do with the worship of their Gods. The symbol (meat or candles) Paul says are not evil in and of themselves, if used for the right purposes. In this instance, not to worship false Gods, talk to the dead, fornication, prostitution in temples, etc, etc, etc
The NT is very clear when it says that christians are to avoide false religious practices. But what Paul is talking about are things to do with the mosaic law, the eating of certain meat....hes not talking about participating in cremonies. Nowhere does he say that is acceptable for christians.
Niether am I
We have refined this portionof the discussion down to a fine point, nearly a logical empass.
If indeed it is your belief that we must avoid all practices that concernor involve themselves with Pagan practices, then that would include today as well. how many things do we as modern humans today (Christians) that imulate or involve the USAGE AND PRACTICE, where the same things are used in modern pagan practices.
This is not what the Apostle had in mind, look at the verse closely
Paul spoke very bluntly about the celebrations of the nations when he said at
1Corintians 10:20 No; but I say that the things which the nations sacrifice they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want YOU to become sharers with the demons
Paul didnt believe that the things the nations did (including their birthday celebrations) was something that came from God, so he strongly denounced getting involved with such things. Even if you dont beleive you are participating in a pagan ceremony, the fact is that birthdays were originally a pagan ceremony and therefore were influenced by the demons and their false worship.
On the contrary, the flavor of Pauls statement is not that it is wrong, but that we should not use our LIBERTY as a weapon. or that we should not think of and use the symbols for those reasons.
His deeper implication is that we should avoid these practices because they emulate these people and their practices, inclusing their symbols, not that the symbols are evil in and of themselves.
We are at a time removed from such practices and they dont carry the same application or meaning as they once did. We really dont have to worry about the eating of any meat offered to idols, therefore the reference does not have to do with what is right or wrong stricly, but what influence it would have on the modern day christianity.
Likewise, birthday celebrations dont have the same meaning as they once did, our purpoese are different and they violate no moral principle of the NT. Since celebrating birthdays was never wrong in the first place and it was avoided because of its conotations,we are in no harm for this very reason
Today we have adopted another practice of the same form. Once while at a youth rally, I saw a young man with a tee shirt on that that said "Air Jesus", a clear refernce to Michael Jordan. it had Jesus flying through the air with his right hand streched out.
Now Im sure MJ is as good a person you would want to meet, but does this mean we have to adopt and incoorperate things of the world to get our point across.
MJ is not wrong and basketball is not wrong. But is certainly wrong to equate or reduce Christ or God with some modern day triviality
This is what Paul was talking about
If you wish to eat the meat, do it with the understanding that your brother may be offended. If that is the case then dont eat it, because its not that big of a deal. because there is nothing wrong with meat or the birthday
Besides this you keep refernceing BIRTHDAYS, but have not YET provided one reference in SCRIPTURE or even a reference in Pagan practices and their usage of those symbols or what they were used for. Perhaps you could provide that and what they did in this connection
I think it is perfectly alright for you to adopt such a belief concerning these things. The real question would be would you make it a matter of fellowship if others did not
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Peg, posted 04-28-2010 2:24 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Peg, posted 04-29-2010 5:54 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 51 of 163 (558032)
04-29-2010 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by jaywill
04-26-2010 5:55 PM


I don't think breaking fellowship with a Christian completely makes it unable to receive grace from God. And there are less severe steps that a congregation could take before breaking fellowship.
But if asking such a one not to attend the church meetings and advizing the believers not to contact such a brother is the step taken, I do not believe that this means they are totally unable to receive grace from God.
I do not think man has authority to take away another man's salvation, regardless of how much in error the erring one may be.
Ive gathered the flavor in the preceeding posts on what you are regarding as Church. however, let me clarify that you believe a person can be excommunicated for moral or doctrinal reasons but not at the same time be out of favor or fellowship from God. If I am incorrect please correct me.
Isnt it actually God doing the disfellowshiping and not us
Since God has inspired his word and it is direct revelation from him to us regarding his principles, would you still regard this as man disfellowshiping man, or God doing this through his word.
You are ocrrect man does not have this authority, but wouldnt you say he has empowered us to judge others through his word. Not that we are judging them but the Word does.
"Judge not according to appearance BUT JUDGE RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT" We would do this by his word
"If we sin willfully after we have recieved a knowledge of the TRUTH, there remains, NO MORE A SACRIFICE FOR SIN"
IF WE (Christians) walk in the light as he is in the light WE HAVE FELLOWSHIP one with another and the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin."
Would not the opposite be true, if we do not walk in the light and we sin willfully and continuously, a lose of fellowship with God?
Im certainly not trying to be judgemental here, just a few thoughts
If I missed what you said please correct me.
I guess I should have clarified in the OP and I did not, that what I meant by fellowship was not only man to man, brother to brother, but fellowship with God and the things he deems as necessary to maintain that fellowship. Also what reasons we could cite doctrinally that would cause us to remove that fellowship, that is considering him or her wayward or backslidden.
Thanks as always
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jaywill, posted 04-26-2010 5:55 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Natural_Design, posted 04-29-2010 2:56 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 55 by jaywill, posted 04-29-2010 7:14 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Natural_Design
Junior Member (Idle past 5081 days)
Posts: 12
From: Flint, Michigan, USA
Joined: 04-27-2010


Message 52 of 163 (558047)
04-29-2010 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dawn Bertot
04-29-2010 1:12 PM


'' Your one heavy dude man, your trippin me out up in this mug. Welcome with that heavy stuff and wow.
EAM ''
Thanks EMA. I hope you're being serious. I'll admit -- I'm not the smartest guy but I do like to use my mind. I sit around a lot and have deep thoughts on stuff that I read on the net. I, like you, am just seeking answers in this life. I'm not much of a debater -- I just like giving my opinion on certain subjects. I don't wish to engage in serious debate with people because I really respect most peoples opinions... Only thing I cannot agree with or respect is when people say Jesus is God. lol... =))
~ Matt ~

I reject your reality and substitute my own

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-29-2010 1:12 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-29-2010 4:41 PM Natural_Design has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 53 of 163 (558065)
04-29-2010 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Natural_Design
04-29-2010 2:56 PM


Thanks EMA. I hope you're being serious. I'll admit -- I'm not the smartest guy but I do like to use my mind. I sit around a lot and have deep thoughts on stuff that I read on the net. I, like you, am just seeking answers in this life. I'm not much of a debater -- I just like giving my opinion on certain subjects. I don't wish to engage in serious debate with people because I really respect most peoples opinions... Only thing I cannot agree with or respect is when people say Jesus is God. lol... =))
hello and welcome. And I hope you are serious. You may have to get serious about debate if you wish to stay here, because some of us are quite serious about Jesus being God and most of us try and be very specific and accurate both with logic and information.
Its a trademark of this website
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Natural_Design, posted 04-29-2010 2:56 PM Natural_Design has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 54 of 163 (558074)
04-29-2010 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Dawn Bertot
04-29-2010 10:57 AM


EMA writes:
Besides this you keep refernceing BIRTHDAYS, but have not YET provided one reference in SCRIPTURE or even a reference in Pagan practices and their usage of those symbols or what they were used for. Perhaps you could provide that and what they did in this connection
I can provide you evidence that the early christians did not celebrate. Did you know that the christian writer Origen wrote in one of his writings, homily on Leviticus xii 2, "none of the saints can be found who ever held a feast or a banquet upon his birthday, or rejoiced on the day when his son or his daughter was born. But sinners rejoice and make merry on such days.
I wonder what motivated Origen to write this about birthdays? What it indicates is that the early century christians did not celebrate birthdays and obviously viewed them negatively.
And the nations who celebrated birthdays had religious reasons for doing so as the following shows.
The Lore of Birthdays, Ralph and Adelin Linton writes:
The Greeks believed that everyone had a protective spirit or daemon who attended his birth and watched over him in life. This spirit had a mystic relation with the god on whose birthday the individual was born. The Romans also subscribed to this idea. They called the spirit the genius. This notion was carried down in human belief and is reflected in the guardian angel, the fairy godmother and the patron saint...
The keeping of birthday records was important in ancient times principally because a birth date was essential for the casting of a horoscope
The custom of lighted candles on the cakes started with the Greeks, Philochorus [an ancient Greek historian] records that on the sixth day of each month, the birthday of Artemis, [the fertility] goddess of the moon and the hunt, honey cakes round as the moon and lit with tapers were placed on the temple altars of this goddess.
Birthday candles, in folk belief, are endowed with special magic for granting wishes ... Lighted tapers and sacrificial fires have had a special mystic significance ever since man first set up altars to his gods. The birthday candles are thus an honor and tribute to the birthday child and bring good fortune,
Birthday greetings and wishes for happiness are an intrinsic part of this holiday. ... originally the idea was rooted in magic. The working of spells for good and evil is the chief usage of witchcraft. One is especially susceptible to such spells on his birthday, as one’s personal spirits are about at the time. ... Birthday greetings have power for good or ill because one is closer to the spirit world on this day.Page 20.
Can we today celebrate such things? Yes sure we can. But how might it affect ones standing with God?
thats for you to decide. If you are happy to do it and dont believe it would bother your conscience or Gods view, then go for it.
EMA writes:
I think it is perfectly alright for you to adopt such a belief concerning these things. The real question would be would you make it a matter of fellowship if others did not
in our congregation it does because everyone has taken the same stand against birthdays. So if someone tried to bring such a custom into their congregation, it would not be permitted. Either they would have to stop, or they would have to leave. It's even a baptismal requirement that one understands where birthdays originate from and the principles involved before they can be baptized. If they dont agree then they wont be baptized until they agree.
For us it also comes down to Jesus words about being 'no part of the world' in John 15:19. Originally the early christians remained no part of the world by rejecting such celebrations and customs. But later in the 4th century, when the church was trying to hellenize and be accepted by the roman world, they decided to accept the pagan customs. But
nowhere do the Scriptures authorize the church to reject Jesus’ statement that you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. So on who's authority did the 4th century church decide to reject Jesus’ words? What gave them the right to become part of the world? Certainly not Jesus or God or the Apostles.
James is very clear when he says at James 4:4 Adulteresses, do you not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God.
so this is another strong reason to reject these worldly customs and celebrations...they put one at enmity with God according to the scriptures.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-29-2010 10:57 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 55 of 163 (558092)
04-29-2010 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dawn Bertot
04-29-2010 1:12 PM


Ive gathered the flavor in the preceeding posts on what you are regarding as Church. however, let me clarify that you believe a person can be excommunicated for moral or doctrinal reasons but not at the same time be out of favor or fellowship from God. If I am incorrect please correct me.
The disciplined one's eternal redemption and eternal is not deprived him because of church discipline.
Consider the brother in Corinth who was living in such fornication at which the unbelivers would blush (1 Cor. 5:1). It was the mind of the Holy Spirit, and the apostles, and eventually the enlightened church on Corinth to remove this offender from the gatherings. He was put out of the church's fellowship.
How did this effect his eternal redemption ? Did he become "unborn again" because of his sins? No. Paul writes:
"In the name of the Lord Jesus, when you and my spirit have been assembled, with the power of our Lord Jesus, to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." (1 cor. 5:5)
Because this backslidder served Satan, he was turned over to Satan. But the phrase "that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord" has to mean that he has not lost the gift of eternal life. And he has not lost the gift of eternal redemption.
I believe each case with a disciplined Christian is the same. (Probably, I need to look up exactly how the term "excommunication" is usually understood).
Isnt it actually God doing the disfellowshiping and not us
Yes. In many cases the believers are carrying out the mind of the Holy Spirit.
This should be clear from John 20:22,23)
"And when He had said this, He breathed into them and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit. Whosever sins you forgive, they are forgiven them; and whoever sins you retain, they are retained." (John 20:22,23)
I do not believe that this forgiveness of the disciples echoed by God relates to eternal redemption. I do believe it relates to forgiveness for inclusion of fellowship in the church life on earth.
For example, the forgiveness of the congregation in Corinth of the above offending brother allowed him to re-enter the church fellowship:
"Sufficient for such a one is this punishment by the majority, So that on the contrary you should rather forgive and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with excessive sorrow. Therefore I exhort you to confirm your love toward him,,, But whom you forgive anything, I also forgive; for also what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, it is for your sake in the person of Christ." (2 Cor. 2:6-10)
This sinning brother who was kicked out of the church apparently sorrowed and repented. The saints in Corinth then forgave him. He was re-united to the fellowship. Paul forgave him. And I think the Holy Spirit forgave and comforted him.
My belief is that at no time was he without eternal life.
Since God has inspired his word and it is direct revelation from him to us regarding his principles, would you still regard this as man disfellowshiping man, or God doing this through his word.
As I said above, hopefully this discipline is with the saints in harmony with the Holy Spirit.
The forgiveness relates to church participation. It does not relate to eternal redemption. That matter is settled by God forever when this one believed into Christ. He as born again.
Once a person is born, he cannot become unborn. He may not be on very good terms with his parents for a season. But he cannot undo that "organic" relationship of life with them. And when a unruly born again person is disciplined under the direction of the Holy Spirit by a church, he is not unborn of God because of that.
You are ocrrect man does not have this authority, but wouldnt you say he has empowered us to judge others through his word. Not that we are judging them but the Word does.
I would agree. Sometimes the local saints have to judge.
"Judge not according to appearance BUT JUDGE RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT" We would do this by his word
Clearly, sometimes the church had to judge a situation. It should be done righteously, as you indicated.
"If we sin willfully after we have recieved a knowledge of the TRUTH, there remains, NO MORE A SACRIFICE FOR SIN"
I do not understand this passage to mean the lose of eternal redemption of one who has believed into Jesus Christ.
It is not necessary or possible or right to expect Christ to die more than once for the sins of the sinner. This passage does not mean that a man who is born again, who thereafter sins willfully is unborn again. Arminian theology takes it that way. But that is an error to do so.
IF WE (Christians) walk in the light as he is in the light WE HAVE FELLOWSHIP one with another and the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin."
A Christian who is born again may have unconfessed sins. And he may not be in fellowship with the Father or with his fellow Christians. This does not mean that he is not eternally redeemed. And this does not mean that he has gone from being born again to being unborn again.
There are different kinds of forgiveness to Christians in the New Testament. This passage relates to the daily walk, with a clear conscience and in the divine fellowship of the Father and the fellow believers. One should confess his sins when he becomes aware of them.
This need to apply the blood of Jesus to sins are they are made known to us is a life long process from which a Christian never graduates. The forgiveness here is not related to eternal redemption. It is related to daily spiritual communion, spiritual walk, and a normal healthy one accord with the Father and fellow believers.
You and I both have sins that in the future we will realize need confession for deeper fellowship with God. We are not unsaved because we are ignorant of those sins. When the light grows within and we become aware of them we have to apply the blood of Jesus to those sins.
If you are a born again Christian and you have some behaviors which God sees as sins but you have not YET realized are sins, you do not lose eternal redemption because of that. It may arrest your spiritual growth if you do not learn to confess and forsake those sins.
Would not the opposite be true, if we do not walk in the light and we sin willfully and continuously, a lose of fellowship with God?
We may be out of fellowship with God. We are not unborn again because of that. We may be out of fellowship with God because of some cherished sinning which we will not confess or forsake through His grace. Our spiritual growth may stop. It may be arrested. And we could be disciplined in this life OR even after the second coming of Christ.
However, we are not unborn again because of these unforsaken sins if we are born again.
Im certainly not trying to be judgemental here, just a few thoughts
No problem you probing a bit and asking. I notice though how many Christian discussions eventually gravitate to the same old matter - "Who is saved and who is not?"
Many, many Bible studies and Christian discussions seem to eventually return to elementary matters around the assurance of salvation. I hope that we will not also gravitate to a debate on the assurance of salvation.
Having said that, I would say that fellowship can be deep or superfiscial. It is not entirely a binary situation. We may be in fellowship with other believers in Christ on a level that is really deep, or that is less deep, or that is rather shallow, or that is almost non-existent.
I would be careful not to simplify it into a binary matter that one is either in fellowship or out of fellowship.
Paul and Barnabus had a sharp contention between them. They could no longer labor together. Formerly they operated as a team. After the disagreement over John Mark they could no longer labor as a team. Thought that was indeed a weakening of their fellowship I don't believe that they totally cut each other off, treating each other as no longer Christian brothers.
Do you see what I mean?
If I missed what you said please correct me.
I guess I should have clarified in the OP and I did not, that what I meant by fellowship was not only man to man, brother to brother, but fellowship with God and the things he deems as necessary to maintain that fellowship. Also what reasons we could cite doctrinally that would cause us to remove that fellowship, that is considering him or her wayward or backslidden.
Thanks as always
I will mention a few that I think apply:
1.) Denial of Christ as the Lord and Savior.
2.) Denial of the Bible as God's word.
3.) Chronic and consistent unrepented of idolatry.
4.) Chronic and consistent unrepented of moral failure.
5.) Chronic causing of division and rebellion against the responsible overseers of the church.
These may be some, and perhaps not all, the causes for the local church to tell someone "Leave our midst. Do not meet here with us anymore. And we will avoid you. If you repent we may be able to continue fellowshipping with you. We love you. And we will pray for you. But for now, you must not gather with us."
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-29-2010 1:12 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-29-2010 8:15 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 58 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-30-2010 12:23 PM jaywill has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 56 of 163 (558101)
04-29-2010 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by jaywill
04-29-2010 7:14 PM


I would be careful not to simplify it into a binary matter that one is either in fellowship or out of fellowship.
Im afraid it is, as i will demonstrate as we go along. I am confident however that we can find common ground
I was hoping you and I could go through the whole process on this website and never disagree on one single thing
Well it probably doesnt matter between us since we are brothers any how. but it certainly matters as to the false doctrine to which that involves and its implications twords people
These may be some, and perhaps not all, the causes for the local church to tell someone "Leave our midst. Do not meet here with us anymore. And we will avoid you. If you repent we may be able to continue fellowshipping with you. We love you. And we will pray for you. But for now, you must not gather with us now."
Those are scary words and scary thoughts arent they
Ill start a reply to your last post as soon as possible
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by jaywill, posted 04-29-2010 7:14 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by jaywill, posted 04-30-2010 10:13 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 57 of 163 (558206)
04-30-2010 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Dawn Bertot
04-29-2010 8:15 PM


Im afraid it is, as i will demonstrate as we go along. I am confident however that we can find common ground
Maybe I can clarify what I mean. Take five brothers:
1.) Brother#1 shares the bread and cup with all the saints at the Lord's table. He has rich fellowship with all who contact him.
But he still could advance more of course.
2.) Brother#2 has something on his conscience. Maybe he has an unforgiven offense that he has not overcome. He comes to the table meeting but does not feel he can in good conscience share the wine and bread. When the cup/s and bread come to him, he passes them on without partaking. But at least he does come to the meeting.
His fellowship has a limitation upon it and hopefully he can be restored soon.
3.) Brother#3 - Let us say that he has been instructed to forsake a certain moral problem he has which effects the church. He has not yet. He feels he should not even come to the table meeting for fellowhip until this matter is resolved. However, he still attends a Bible Study or some other functions of the congregation. His fellowship is further weakened. It needs to be restored and enriched.
4.) Brother#4 not only does not attend the Lord's Table meeting. He does not attend ANY of the church meetings. He is really out of fellowship. However, saints do give him a phone call now and then. When they do he is amiable to pray with them one on one or hear them read him a Psalm.
His fellowship is rather limited and weak. But he is not altogether closed to all his brothers and sisters. Individually, he receives their phone calls.
5.) Brother#5 also does not attend any meetings. Yet worse than that when any of the saints try to call them he scolds them. He yells at them not to call him anymore.
This troubled brother is really in need of restoral to fellowship in a serious way. If the saints pray and pray for him (binding and loosing according to Matt. 18), almost as if he were an unbeliever, even he may be one day restored to fellowship.
Now these things I have seen happen. As you can see, there are degrees of being in the fellowship.
That is really all I mean by being careful not to make fellowship an overly simplistic BINARY matter. These five cases assume that each of them concerns a genuine Christian.
I was hoping you and I could go through the whole process on this website and never disagree on one single thing
That is touching. However, I don't think there are two Christians on the earth that always agree on everything. You might find a couple angels in heaven who agree down the line on everything.
But us opionated human beings are likely not to agree on everything. It is splendid though if we can confess the major things in harmony. And concerning the minor things we have the humility to admit that we could be wrong.
I could be wrong. And love covers a multitude of offenses. So let us continue to discuss. I am not afraid of disagreement on minor matters. Rather it is quite good for me that you disagree with me a little bit.
That will cause me to gain more Jesus.
Well it probably doesnt matter between us since we are brothers any how. but it certainly matters as to the false doctrine to which that involves and its implications twords people
Disagreements among brothers can be USED by them to gain grace and maturity. It is possible to be what I call "Dead Right". You may be correct doctrinally but have no inward joy and peace.
Yet you may have a minority opinion with some brothers and sisters. But your heart is full of love for them anyway. And they receive from you the presence of Christ. You minister to them the Person of Jesus not just "right" opinions.
Look forward to your future posts.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-29-2010 8:15 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 58 of 163 (558239)
04-30-2010 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by jaywill
04-29-2010 7:14 PM


Consider the brother in Corinth who was living in such fornication at which the unbelivers would blush (1 Cor. 5:1). It was the mind of the Holy Spirit, and the apostles, and eventually the enlightened church on Corinth to remove this offender from the gatherings. He was put out of the church's fellowship.
How did this effect his eternal redemption ? Did he become "unborn again" because of his sins? No. Paul writes:
"In the name of the Lord Jesus, when you and my spirit have been assembled, with the power of our Lord Jesus, to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." (1 cor. 5:5)
Because this backslidder served Satan, he was turned over to Satan. But the phrase "that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord" has to mean that he has not lost the gift of eternal life. And he has not lost the gift of eternal redemption.
lets start he Jayswill. i think you are probably a very loving and consilliatory person. You want and hope for the best in things and people. So its no doubt that you have adopted this calvanistic teaching for that very reason.
Ive often said its easier to refute Atheistic and Catholic doctrine than it is to refute Calvinism, becasue Calvinism gets real close to t he truth and is almost indistinquishable from it, unless you have been trained to recognize its weaknesses
For example in 1 cor 5:5 in should be easy enough to see that this is the purpose, that you turn one over to Satan, not that that will always be the result. Your reading into the verse something you as a very good person wants to see happen
Secondly, you are correct in assuming he did not become unborn as you put it. This why nothing is required but repentance, not rebaptism or being born again, so to speak.
He is an erring child of God
I do not believe that this forgiveness of the disciples echoed by God relates to eternal redemption. I do believe it relates to forgiveness for inclusion of fellowship in the church life on earth.
Everything relates to redemption. One is either in a correct relationship with God or he is not. A person certainly has every opportunity in this lifetime to correct or mend their behavior, but there is a sin UNTO DEATH. There is no reason to believe this relates only to non-believers
Now a person certainly has unforgiven sin and unconfessed sin. But as we know this is taken care of if we are doing our best to maintain a relationship with Christ. If however one WILFULLY AND KNOWINGLY ignores what they know to be true, "Him that knoweth to good and doeth it not it is sin"
"For if we sin wilfully after we have recieved a knowledge of the truth, THERE REAMINS NO MORE A SACRIFICE FOR SIN"
There is no reason to believe this applies to only non Christians, when this writer and so many others speak to Christians in the same manner
The scriptures make a clear distinction between unconfessed sin and wilfull deliberate sin
I do not understand this passage to mean the lose of eternal redemption of one who has believed into Jesus Christ.
It is not necessary or possible or right to expect Christ to die more than once for the sins of the sinner. This passage does not mean that a man who is born again, who thereafter sins willfully is unborn again. Arminian theology takes it that way. But that is an error to do so.
its not necessary for Christ to die again for a person that is already his child. repentance as in the Prodigal is all that is required
Here is the problem you have with that manner of thinking. You and no Calvanist can provide me with any scripture, that says or implies that WE OURSELVES AS CHRISTIANS AND FREE THINKING PERSONS cannot remove ourselves from that status by wilfull disobedience
In fact that is what the scriptures directly state time and time again
1 John 5
16If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.
here a clear distinction is made between unconfessed sin and wilfull unrepentant sin of the brother. That sin even by a brother can and has lead up even to death. he is not here speaking about non-christians
The opposite would be ridiculous. To say that God would maintain and accept our wilfull disobedience in direct oppositon to his will, knowingly and usher us into heaven or into his grace is simply beyond reason. Again there is clear distinction between unconfessed, omission and wilfull disobedience
Nor am I implying that a person is unborn or can be born again. The prodigal amde a choice to come back. In fact it could have been just the opposite, he could have stayed and ided in that condition
The indirect implication and logical conclusion of the doctrine of ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED, regardless of how one acts, even unto death, implies that God ackowledges and accepts wilfull sin, especially from his children
Well start here, I hope I havent made you angry already, I know that temper of yours, ha ha
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by jaywill, posted 04-29-2010 7:14 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by ICANT, posted 04-30-2010 1:26 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 65 by jaywill, posted 04-30-2010 2:06 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 59 of 163 (558250)
04-30-2010 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Dawn Bertot
04-29-2010 10:18 AM


Re: FELLOWSHIP
Hi EMA,
EMA writes:
Is this an indirect implication regarding my and the Chruch of Christs beliefs regarding Baptism, given what you said above
Ward Hogland explained the Church of Christ belief on baptism many times back in the 60's. That it was necessary in order for a person to go to heaven.
But he could never produce a scripture that said if you are not baptized you will end up in the lake of fire.
He failed to explain how the thief on the cross could go to paradise and be with Jesus without being baptized.
He failed to explain John 3:18 which plainly states why a person is condemned.
John writes:
3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
This verse plainly states a person is condemned because he has not believed.
It did not included church membership, good works, or baptism as necessary for a person not to be condemened.
If you have a verse that contradicts this verse please present it.
Remember anti means against, so a person that adds to the Words of Jesus is against Him.
God Bles

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-29-2010 10:18 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-30-2010 12:59 PM ICANT has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 60 of 163 (558258)
04-30-2010 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by ICANT
04-30-2010 12:42 PM


Re: FELLOWSHIP
Ward Hogland explained the Church of Christ belief on baptism many times back in the 60's. That it was necessary in order for a person to go to heaven.
But he could never produce a scripture that said if you are not baptized you will end up in the lake of fire.
sure he did you just werent paying attention. Mark 16:16. He that is believes and is Baptized SHALL be saved, he that believeth not is condemned.
If you dont do these things what would the opposite , you will not be saved.
Belief is a precondition to baptism, the proper candadate for Baptism to BE VALID IS ONE THAT BELIEVES. If the person does not believe, dunking someone in water is not baptism and not valid. This why Christ left baptism off of the latter part of the statement.
Question. is it necessary to believe to be properly baptized, Yes or No
Question. If a person is dunked in water not believing Christ, does this constitute a scriptural baptism in Christ?
Question. Can a person obey christ and be saved in Mark 16:16 without believing and being baptized?
You know you ole Calvinist cannot stand against us Campblites, ha ha
You should have paid closer attention to his argument, Brother A
Ill get to the theif and the rest later
Remember anti means against, so a person that adds to the Words of Jesus is against Him.
It is you you ole calvinist that is subtracting form Gods word, ha ha, just alittle fun there, but you are indeed subtracting form his word
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by ICANT, posted 04-30-2010 12:42 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 04-30-2010 1:53 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024