Brothers in Christ

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

This post is from Brother Clifton/


>> >  Bro.  Starcher:.
>
>> >  As Apostolics we can treat other
>> > Christians with dignity and respect by acknowledging their faith in
>> > Christ and Christian experience while sharing our distinctive
>> Apostolic
>> > beliefs.
>
>
>> >  Mike Reed:
>
>> >  I know we have been through this before, but since you have not
>> trouble
>> > bringing it up again, I have no trouble acknowledging your error.
>> There are
>> > no "other Christians."  They worship a trinity, a false image of
>> God.
>> > Christians do not worship false images.  Having a live faith in a
>> dead God is
>> > tantamount to having a dead faith in a live God, with either you
>> will come up
>> > short on Judgment Day.
>
>> >  While I have no problem with treating anyone with respect (Hindus,
>> Buddhists,
>> > and Atheists included) I cannot lend credence to there doctrines by
>> > considering them "other Christians."
>
>> >Brother Clifton:
>
>> I agree, I can treat them well and with respect but they are not my
>> brethern. I do
>> a great deal of doctrinal discussion in my life and in email. I have
>> many friends
>> that do not have life faith and I pray for them I talk to them and
>> witness to
>> them...but I fear they are not saved...they beleive the lie that the
>> religious
>> world portrays.
>
>Who are our Brothers in Christ?  According to Brothers Reed and Clifton
>only those Christians who are in complete doctrinal agreement with their
>understanding of Apostolic theology should be called "Brothers".  For
>them, using this designation implies acceptance of doctrinal beliefs and
>lifestyles which are contrary to Scripture.

Contrary to scriptures, calling people that do not follow the Word of God
brethern is contrary to scriptures. In the OT if you were not circumcized
you were not part of the Abrahamic Covenent plain and simple - you either
obeyed or you did not. There was no middle ground and my Bible tells me that
God never changes so I believe that there is no middle ground now.

Jesus Himself defined the use of the term brethern....
Matt 12:47-50
Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without,
desiring to speak with thee.
But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who
are my brethren?
And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my
mother and my brethren!
For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is
my brother, and sister, and mother.

Now the question that begs answering is what is the will of the Father...

Is it to place the traditions of man over His Word or is it to obey His
Word?

Acts 5:32  And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy
Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.



>In this brief excursus I
>would like to examine Paul's use of the term Brothers in the epistle to
>the Galatians and see if his usage is consistent with the understandings
>of my BROTHERS in Christ, Reed and Clifton.
>
>Paul writes to the "churches" in Galatia (Gal 1:2).  The fact that Paul
>is writing his epistle to churches is routinely overlooked by
>Apostolics.  The church is the body of Christ comprised of those who
>have experienced salvation.  To say that there are churches in Galatia
>implies that there are Christians who through faith have established a
>relationship with Christ.  Paul's epistle is addressed to these
>Christians, to correct and strengthen their faith.


I have never over looked this, in fact most Apostolics I know us that fact
(as with the rest of the Epistles of Paul) as proof that salvation is not
found there. He would not talk the plan of salvation to those that are
already saved, he talks of living for Christ.

It is important to note that Paul formed the chrurch(s) he writes to and as
such know the with what Gospel that they were formed. Is a person that
obeyed Acts 2:38 and has backslidden a brother? I think so....Paul called
them that in Galations. But nowhere does he call people that deny the Word a
brother.

>
>The Galatians were having great difficulty with their Christian  faith.
>Paul is astonished that the Galatians are so quickly deserting the one
>who called them by the grace of God and are turning to a different
>Gospel (Gal 1:6). The Galatians were being influenced by false teachers
>who were preaching "another Gospel" (Gal 1:6).  Paul firmly condemns
>this false gospel (Gal 1:9), while affirming the Christian faith of the
>Galatians. The Galatians, those who are following after the false
>teachers are still his BROTHERS (Gal 1:11).


Back slidden or decieved Acts 2:38 Christians....not the teachers that
confused,bewitched and lie to them!


>How could Paul have written an epistle like Galatians if he embraced
>Fundamentalist theology?  The Galatians had embraced "another gospel",
>they were not his BROTHERS. The Galatians were "bewitched", they were
>not his BROTHERS.

Do you really read my posts or do you just like putting words in my mouth??
Paul only taught ONE GOSPEL...if people that knew THAT ONE GOSPEL fell away
he still considered them his brethern. However those that did not follow
that ONE GOSPEL he never called brethern....the people at Mars Hill - he
called them "ye men of Athens". The Galatians were not Protestants,
Catholics or Mormons....they were people of a Acts 2:38 church that had been
swayed towards the Jewish thoughts of works!


> Following Fundamentalist theology
>one would expect Paul to issue a wholesale condemnation of all
>Galatians, refuse to call them Christian, consider them Churches, and
>acknowledge them as BROTHERS.

NOT TRUE....he does exactly what he should do, he sets them straight. He
does not accept their "new found gospel" he chastizes them for it because he
loves them and wants them saved.

>But Paul does not embrace or follow Fundamentalist theology.

Well by what I have heard as the definition of Fundamentalism, it seems he
did.  He sure was not a eucaminical liberal!

>
>Could it be that Paul has a more dynamic understanding of salvation
>which transcends the notions of doctrinal correctness and perfection of
>lifestyle?

Romans 12:1-2 and Pauls constant exhortation to living for the Lord denies
this statement as does the book of Galations. They had to be right or he
knew they would be lost!

I tire of this conversation on how bad Apostolic are because they stand firm
upon a salvation doctrine that was taught by all the recorded Apostolic
teachers and by the Lord Himself.  How we are bad for not playing footsies
with the ecumenical movement and for not blindly accepting the followers of
the Pagan church (the Roman Catholic Church) or the easy believers of the
main stream Protestant movement. I tire of your assumed arrogance to be
better than us poor misguided Fundamentalist. Your superiority because you
rub shoulders with the denominal world and it doesn't affect your walk with
the Lord (BTW - you believe they all are saved and heaven bound).

However, I will not cease to rebuke your false teaching. I will not fence
sit not be called luke warm. I will not back from the precious gospel of
Jesus Christ because it makes people feel easier. I do not want them to feel
easier...because without the truth....they will not see heaven!

Lord Bless;
Bro. Bill Clifton



--
In the service of the King....
Kirk Moore
United Pentecostal Church of Renton
Renton, WA

Black holes are created when God divides by zero