Brothers in Christ

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

 Bro.  Starcher:
 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."
 
 Mike:
 I can't speak for Bro.  Clifton, but as for me, again you are making false
claims about my personal belief.  I never said, nor do I believe that my
spiritual brothers are "only those Christians" "who are in complete doctrinal
agreement." I *do*  believe that any brother of mine (or sister) that has the
same mother and father as me would be my sibling.  You must be born again.
Until one has repented of their sins, been baptized in the name of Jesus for
the remission of their sins, and received the gift of the Holy Ghost as I
have, they are not my brother. 
 
 If this is the thesis statement of your post, (that for someone to be my
brother we have to be in "complete" doctrinal agreement) I guess that would
make the rest of your excursus moot.  However, I will address it any way.
 
 Bro.  Starcher:
  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.
 
 Mike:
 I find it interesting that you would use the book of Galatians to try and
prove your point.  These scriptures destroy your argument.
 
 Bro.  Starcher:
 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. 
 
 Mike:
 And a fact that you seem to have overlooked.

Bro.  Starcher:
  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. 
 
 Mike:
 Indeed, and that relationship is that they have already been born again, they
have already "put on Christ." (Gal 3:27) (making them Brothers)
 
 Bro.  Starcher:
 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).
 
 Mike:
 Does this mean to you they have been "unborn"? 

 Bro.  Starcher:
  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.
 
 Mike:
 That's right, he affirmed their faith because he was well aware that they had
already received the Holy Ghost (Gal.3:2-3).  And yes, Paul as you said,
"Firmly condemns [that] false gospel."  Exactly my point.  Why is it that when
I (and others) condemn false teachers and their doctrines like Paul did we are
"fundamentalists" (which I guess is a bad word), yet you seem to coddle these
Trinitarians teachers by calling them brother when they have never been born
again?
 
 Bro.  Starcher:
 The Galatians, those who are following after the false teachers are still his
BROTHERS (Gal 1:11).

 Mike:
 That is precisely the reason I still refer to you as "brother."  You were
born of water and spirit, you are still my brother, the false teachers that
you call brother, have not.  The Apostle said to let them be "accursed"
(Gal.1:8). 
 
 Bro.: Starcher:
 Throughout the epistle to the Galatians Paul has no reluctance in
calling these Christians BROTHERS and affirming their faith in Jesus
Christ.
 
 Mike:
 That is because those people were Christians.  The Baptists, Methodists, and
Catholics you call Christians are not people that have been born again and
strayed from the gospel that was once delivered to them (as the Galatians),
but are those living without the saving power of Jesus Christ. Thank God that
saving power is available to them. 
 
 Bro. Starcher:
  Paul's use of the term BROTHERS  in this epistle is far more expansive
than that allowed by my BROTHERS Reed and Clifton. 
 
 Mike:
 Again, you missed it.  I agree with Paul.  Those people were born again and
were brothers.  In contrast, your use of the term is far more expansive than
Paul's by including those that don't even worship Paul's God and teach their
people about a false image of God.
 
 Bro.  Starcher:
  Paul does not
hesitate to use the term for those who have embraced "another gospel",
who are "bewitched", who are becoming "enslaved again", who view him as
an "enemy", who do not have Christ completely "formed" in them, and who
are indulging their "sinful nature".
 
 Mike:
 This is my opinion, but I think the word "embrace" is a little strong here.
The Galatians were true Christians that were duped into following the carnal
ordinances and diverse washings of the law.  They were surrendering their
liberty to the law.  They were still true born again Christians that believed
in the mighty God in Christ.
 
 Bro.  Starcher:
 The only he condemnation Paul offers in this
epistle is directed toward the false teachers who pervert the Gospel of
Christ and create confusion
 
 Mike: 
 The very group you want to call "brother."
 
 Bro.  Starcher:
 The refusal to use the term BROTHERS when speaking of Christians who
embrace different doctrines and different lifestyles.... 
 
 Mike:
 Again for about the fifth time here, I have no problem calling those that are
born again "brother." 
 
 Bro.  Starcher:
... is an excellent example of how the Apostolic movement has allowed
Fundamentalist
theology to take precedence over Holy Scripture. 
 
 Mike:
 So far you have no scriptural bases for your argument.  All those referred to
in Galatians are brothers because they have been born again.
 
 Bro.  Starcher:
 ... the reality of the Christian faith of any of its
opponents.  The logic of Fundamentalism goes like this:  A) There is
only one gospel which is identical with Fundamentalist systematic
theology; B) Those who do not embrace Fundamentalist theology have
embraced another gospel;  C) If you embrace another gospel you are not
saved and are not Christian;  D) If you are not saved you are not a
brother in Christ.
 
 Mike:
 A) I am not sure if I agree with this point because your definitions are too
nebulas.
 B) Same as above
 C) I agree with this
 D) I agree with this as well.
 
  The rest of Brother Starchers post is the same stuff and has no need of a
response.  Brother Starcher missed in his premise," 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,"" and he
missed in his interpretation of the Paul's writings in Galatians.  If Brother
Starcher can somehow prove 1) that those that were *not* born again were
referred to as "brothers" anywhere in the scriptures, he might have an
argument.  Moreover, if 2) he can find anywhere since the day of Pentecost
someone was saved without having their sins remitted all my writings will be
null.  If, Brother Starcher is able to find these two points I would like him
to give us his reason why we should teach Jesus' name baptism at all.
 
                         Mike Reed