Who Is Really My Brother Or Sister In The Lord?

I don't know, is the honest answer, Brother.

But here's what I feel.
Just as I don't know if they are not my brethren, I don't also know if they are. God knows those who are His.

Personally, I feel safer calling somebody who believes the same way I do, and practice the same way I do, as brother or sister.

But I cannot feel the same way even with a fellow Baptist, unless I know him/her very well. I guess part of it is because ever since I first converted from Roman Catholicism, I have always been part of Baptist churches that observe "closed" communion, that is, communion between members of a local church only.

To tell the truth, I felt somewhat uncomfortable with Close communion, or communion among members of churches of like faith and practice only, at first when I joined Columbia Primitive Baptist church in Maryland.

 

Sorry about that chief, as Maxwell Smart used to say. I have to confess something also. Your name, reformed believer, made me equate Calvinism to being exclusionary, which is not correct. Presbyterians are strongly Calvinist but very open communion for example.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. No doubt there are plenty of free will types who want exclusionary definitions to be called brother.

 

No, I wouldn't.

As it happens we are "out of town" in a sense since we (my wife and I) are away from our church home and our church family.

My wife and I hold our own Sunday services at home. Just the 2 of us.

We sing, pray, and I do the preaching.

Other times we drive to Evans, New York, about 40 or so miles away, to worship at a Reformed Baptist (New Covenant) Church.

Their first 3 communions we didn't participate.

Their last one, we did, and that is because we have gotten to know them pretty well, and believe they are children of God, as they regard us to be the same.

This Sunday we will worship at home, after which we will drive to Rochester, to attend a Sacred Harp Singing convention at the Mennonite Fellowship Hall there.

 

I think we go back to your original question there.

I know them well now (we've been going there for almost a year), they know us better now (they've been coming to visit us for the same amount of time), there have been pleasant interaction (they have been kind enough to help out my daughter in the Philippines whom they have never met, when she lost half her house to a typhoon, without solicitation from me or my wife), they know our stand on missions and gospel regeneration and respect it as we do theirs, they love the Lord very dearly, and they know we love the Lord as dearly.

Therefore, except for the denomination, we are brethren. We decided to partake of the Lord's Supper with them trusting the Lord is there with us at the table, since His promise to be present concerns His children and not their denomination.

 

In post #43, TCGreek asked this question of pinoybaptist:

pinoy gave his answers in posts #44 and 46.

pinoy gave a reasoned explanation. And it raises a couple of questions.

Pinoy, if you enjoy the fellowship at New Covenant Church, you are comfortable worshipping there, and comfortable at the Lord's table with them, why does there seem to be something that prevents you from committing to a covenant relationship with them by asking for membership?

I don't want to speculate on your possible answers, but if it is some theological or ecclesiological difference, a division exists--a lack of unity, in other words.

That possibility would keep me from participating in their Lord's Supper, despite our personal regard for each other. That's why Paul castigated the church at Corinth. They had divisions among them, and warned them about taking the Lord's Supper while those divisions existed.

Paul (in I Cor11) taught that there was more to communion that just being believers.

If Paul thought the other things were important, shouldn't we as well?

 

I don't know. What do you think he was saying was more important than just being believers?

Here's how I read it: They were getting drunk and eating up all the food before some people even arrived. They were treating it like a pot-luck kegger, when it was supposed to be the Lord's supper. In short, they were not discerning the Lord's body, but having a par-tay and gettin' down and dirty.

Somehow, people have taken that and turned it into things like, "If you have any spot or blemish, or any unconfessed sin in your life, you cannot partake of communion!" Maybe some people have even twisted that into, "If we don't agree on every point of theology, we cannot partake together!" If you can make those kinds of connections from 1 Cor 11, I'd love to see how.

 

I am probably one of the more liberal members of this board in which groups I believe I would find members who are brothers and sisters in Christ.

And I agree it is problematic to elevate our theological constructs over the basic message of salvation.

Yet at the same time, I'm reminded of Jesus and Paul's serious warning of false teachers and the destruction they bring with them.

It is difficult to maintain that delicate balance.

 

My question would be, "what is the false teaching?" Is it something I just don't agree with? Does it undermine the gospel or the Glory of God? Is this person seriously committed to the "false teaching"?

That last question is often an important one, IMO. I know a lot of Catholics who couldn't care less about Catholic doctrines. They believe the gospel and for the most part they've got their head on straight, but they attend Catholic church because that's what their family has always done. You can call them lazy Christians, but I don't think you can say they've been indoctrinated with things like praying to Mary, idol worship or popery, etc. And they certainly don't push this false teaching on others, since they don't take it seriously, themselves.

 

Sorry, Tom. I didn't see this post early.

Let's put it this way. I am not "comfortable" in the sense that you use comfortable worshipping there.
We look at missions differently, and I have a different view of salvation than they do.
My view is that salvation is a finished fact for all the elect, before, during, and after the cross, even those elect that will still be born should the Lord tarry His coming. I believe that what is going on at this time and age is that the Holy Spirit is doing His part in the salvation plan of the Triune God, which is quickening God's children.

They hold to means: preaching, the Gospel, witnessing, missions, and the like.

I do not feel comfortable singing with somebody strumming a guitar.

My preferred method is acapella.

However, whether my view of salvation or theirs is right or wrong is immaterial when we get to heaven, and I am pretty sure, based on what I have observed for over a year, that we will see each other in heaven.

In other words, we sat down at the Lord's Table with them because in our hearts we knew they were our brothers and sisters in the Lord and I fully trusted our Lord is there at the table with them, not because of their, or our doctrinal positions, but because He bought us with His blood, called us His brethren, knew our names before the foundation of the world, and loved us before we loved Him.

They held to the Doctrine of Grace as I did, albeit we had a different interpretation.

As far as we wereconcerned, therefore, the differences of how we interpreted the Doctrine of Grace was inferior to the fact that we were brothers and sisters in the Lord.

However, if we were just passing through, just happened to be in that town, haven't known them well, we will not participate in their communion even if they did the communion at 6pm on a Sunday afternoon, and we found out they held to the Doctrine of Grace views the way we did, the only difference being they are not Primitive Baptists.

 

Pinoy, thanks for your answer. Although I disagree, you have obviously given this question serious thought, and I respect that.

 

I wouldn't feel very comfortable going to a non Doctrine of Grace church, brother, although I respect what you said.

Not that I doubt the eternal standing of one who espouses Arminian or Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian doctrines because if doctrines were the yardstick I think there will be many among the staunchest Doctrine of Grace adherents that I will not be sure of.

It's just that I feel very uncomfortable when the "altar call" is sounded and people are "urged" to come and "receive" Jesus as Savior, especially after the preacher delivers a strong, systematic, fiery sermon on Christ.

It's like watching and hearing someone make a very convincing presentation and then retract everything, if you undersand what I mean.

There are many powerful, wonderful, and eloquent preachers in the Arminian churches, I submit to you. The one under whose preaching I was converted is one, at a time when I was a hard-core atheist/armed revolutionary a few steps away from becoming a card-bearing member of the party back in the early 70's.

I feel much more at home, and my spirit much more in agreement, with Calvinist churches.

 

My church that I have Pastored for the last 17 years, or our association would not be too happy with me, if I visited other denominations, unless it was a special occasion, like a funeral.

BBob,

 

Yes, BBob....is that a good thing, or a bad thing ?

If it is a bad thing, why is it a bad thing ?