Brothers in Christ

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

ReedActs@aol.com wrote:


>  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 I understand you correctly then, if one has followed your
understanding of what constitutes Apostolic salvation, then they are
your Brothers in Christ.  If complete agreement with your every aspect
of your theology is not required for someone to be accepted as your
Brother in Christ then I stand corrected.  Does this mean that you
accept the Apostolics who do not embrace stringent Holiness Standards? 
Also, there are quite a few Trinitarian Pentecostal Christians who have
been baptized in Jesus name.  According to your definition, they are
your Brothers in Christ, having experienced the Apostolic salvation but
not having received the revelation of the fullness of God in Christ.  I
applaud you for acknowledging the reality of their salvation experiences
while disagreeing with their theology.  We are in agreement here Brother
Reed!


>  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?


I agree with you Brother Reed.  Like Paul, we should affirm the faith of
those who have received the baptism in the Holy Spirit.  I have been
doing this for a long time and find it is a great way to share my
Apostolic distinctives. The majority of Christians who have received the
baptism in the Holy Spirit are not Apostolic.  And, as noted above,
according to your definition of who is a brother, you would receive a
Trinitarian as a brother as long as he had been baptized in Jesus name.  

I speak of fundamentalism because the theology you are presenting you
have inherited from Fundamentalism. Why not study it a little and find
out about it?

Also, I don't coddle Trinitarians.  I have a lot of criticisms of the
doctrine of the Trinity which I will share with you as I continue my
posts on the Apostolic Dialogue with Catholics.  Although Trinitarians
have not been "born again" following the Apostolic pattern of salvation,
they have placed their faith in Christ and are seeking to serve him. 
How can we Apostolics present our faith to them if we refuse to
acknowledge their faith and call them brothers?

We should expose false teaching.  But should we not do it gently with
the goal of reconciliation and restoration rather than with a barrage of
condemnations, often uniformed, which leads only to further alienation
and separation? 


> 
>  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).

Let me try to understand your logic here Brother Reed.  A Trinitarian
who has never followed the Apostolic plan of salvation, Acts 2:38 is not
your brother.  An Apostolic, such as Gregory Boyd, Author of "Oneness
Pentecostals and the Trinity, who has followed the Apostolic plan of
salvation but backslid to become a vehement opponent is still your
brother.  Is this what you are saying?  How about another example.  A
Trinitarian, lets say a Catholic Charismatic just to make it
interesting, is serving God to the best of their knowledge living a
simplistic lifestyle and ministering to the poor and needy in the inner
city, is not your brother in Christ. But an Apostolic preacher who has
committed adultery, left his family and ministry, and now is not serving
God in any way is your brother in Christ?  I guess I need some
clarification!

The distinction Paul makes between the false teachers in this epistle
and the Galatians is interesting.  Paul condemns the false teachers
while seeking to restore the Galatians to faith.  From the context the
reason for Paul's condemnation is apparent.  These false teachers had
minimized the person and work of Jesus Christ.  Their orientation and
faith was not toward  Christ, but  Judaism.  The orientation and faith
of the Galatians, however, was toward Jesus Christ.  It seems that
Paul's dealings with those who embraced false doctrines was not as
uniform as many Apostolic suggest.  He sought to restore the Galatians,
calling them his brothers because he perceived they still possessed
faith in Christ.  He condemned the false teachers because their faith
was not placed in Christ.  

Brother Reed, is the faith of Trinitarians not oriented toward Jesus
Christ?  Are they not reading Scripture, praying, and seeking him? 
Should they not be restored gently as the Galatians rather than
condemned as false teachers who have no faith or orientation toward
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.

No Brother Reed, they have not been born again according to our
Apostolic Pentecostal understanding of Salvation.  But they do possess
faith.  This faith is very similar to our Apostolic forefathers who
responded to the Apostolic gospel when it was proclaimed to them. 
Incidentally, Brother Reed, our Apostolic forefathers in the Assemblies
of God received trinitarians as their brothers and did not want to leave
the organization.  Conditions were created where they were impelled to
leave.  And many left still calling Trinitarians Brothers!

 
>  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.

This is a stereotype Brother Reed.  The God Trinitarians worship and
seek is Jesus Christ.  In my opinion they just need to learn how to
better express it.

> 
>  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.

Paul says they are alienated from Christ and have fallen from Grace (Gal
5:4).  We would call it backsliding. Is it better to be a backslidden
Apostolic living for the devil that a devout Trinitarian serving God
with all of your heart mind soul and strength?  

 
> 
>  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."

I don't recall saying that the false teachers were my brothers.  But
since you brought it up lets ask the question, who more closely
resembles the false teachers Paul was condemning Trinitarians or
Apostolics?  The false teachers Paul was condemning were Judaizers who
insisted that faith alone was not sufficient for salvation.  These false
teachers required believers to follow a legalistic code of conduct to be
saved.  The false teachers were not Trinitarians but Jewish Christian
legalists who had perverted the Gospel by reintroducing the Jewish law. 
Are there not Apostolics today who believe in a very similar theology?
For these Apostolics salvation is accomplished by rigid obedience to
holiness standards.  Galatians is the favorite Epistle of those
Apostolics who have moderated their position on holiness.  Galatians
presents Paul's condemnation of legalism in any form as a means to be
saved.  For Paul, Christians are justified by faith, set free from the
law, legalism, to live a life of freedom by the power of the Holy Spirit
manifesting the Spirit's fruits. 

Apostolic legalists more closely resemble the false teachers Paul was
condemning in another way.  Their orientation is not toward Christ and
Holy Scripture but toward their theology and philosophy, a system of
beliefs.  Salvation is not a relationship with God but adherence to a
set of beliefs.  The Judaizers of Paul's day were son's of Abraham who
had replaced the personal Jewish relationship with the God  of Abraham
Isaac and Jacob, the covenant, with an impersonal theological system of
beliefs which defined "orthodoxy".  Sounds familiar doesn't it!


>  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.

I assume that by saying that they Galatians were "born again" you mean
that their salvation experience mirrors that of your Apostolic salvation
experience.  In my posts on Salvation the Pentecostal Way I demonstrated
that Acts 2:38 does not define the salvation experience throughout the
Acts of the Apostles.  Acts 2:38 is never repeated, and salvation is
experienced in a variety of different ways.  As an Apostolic I also
assign a priority to Acts 2:38 in describing my salvation experience and
ardently defend it, believe it or not, when it is challenged by
Trinitarian Pentecostals.  But, I have to allow the scriptures to speak
their message in all of their diversity.  In describing the salvation
experience of the Galatians Paul does not explicitly state that they
were born again the Apostolic way.  Apostolics may say "Yes, but it is
implicit".  This is the same form of argumentation Trinitarians use to
justify their dogmatic theological beliefs.  For Paul salvation involves
faith.  Justification before God is by faith, and faith acts, water
baptism, and receiving the Holy Spirit.  But Paul does not repeat Acts
2:38 in Galatians.  Neither does he link the reception of the Spirit
with speaking in tongues. (Does Luke record the Galatians being born
again the Apostolic way in Acts?)  One would think that if Paul was
really all that Apostolic he would have instructed the Galatians to go
find an alter and "pray through" until they spoke in tongues!  

> 
>  Bro.  Starcher:

> 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.
>

Well, lets rephrase this for you: 

The logic of Brother Reed goes like this:  A) There is
only one gospel which is identical with my Apostolic  systematic
theology; B) Those who do not embrace my Apostolic 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 my
brother in Christ.

Does this express your position Brother Reed?
 

>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. 


Who is the brother spoken of in the parable of the unmerciful servant
(Mt 18:21-35)?  Was Jesus only talking about forgiving born again
Apostolics in this passage? This passage is paralleled in Luke 17:3,4.

Paul was called a brother before his conversion experience in Acts,
(Acts 9:17). 

"Anyone who claims to be in the light and hates his brother is still in
the darkness...." (1John 2:9).  Was John only instructing Christians to
love those who were born again Brother Reed?  Or was he calling
Christians to love all of humankind as their Brothers in order that they
might be the light of the world?  

Do I have an argument Brother Reed?

 2) he can find anywhere since the day of
> Pentecost
> someone was saved without having their sins remitted all my writings
> will be
> null.  

I guess this statement wanders a little bit doesn't it!  Salvation does
involve the forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus Christ.  I
haven't challenged this have I?  


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.

Well, Brother Reed, it was a long post!  These last two points just
don't "hang together" in the context of the discussion.  I've written
several posts on higher-fire supporting Jesus name baptism so I won't be
repetitive here.  You know I baptize in Jesus name and ardently defend
it.

As always, I enjoy discussing our common Apostolic faith.

God Bless!

Steve