Do We Really Understand Fellowship?

That is his point TCG.
But on the converse his makes the same point (that I don't agree ) such as, there are also pagans (non-christians) out there that are really christians but don't wont know it till the die.

 

RE: Pinoy's Post, 12:52 Yesterday

Yeah, I'm concerned, too. Basically what you are saying Pinoy, is that you could join the Rotaty Club cause it's good for business ["timely salvation"] and let God worry about your eternal salvation (or lack thereof).

Let's rethink that, shall we? Eternal salvation "without believing in Christ," "without repentance," "without obedience" -- what is that? That would kinda mean that most of the hearthen population could be saved, doesn't it? I mean, you may not admit it, but llikely most of them live as good a life as you do - especially since you tear the definition of "good" right off its Foundation by your idea of eternal salvation!

And BTW, EVERY person with minimal intellectual capacity hears the "everlasting gospel" and are "without excuse."

skypair

 

BTW - what is your opinion of what I set forth in post #29??
:type:

 

Thank you for responding brother. Nothing in the above contradicts what I gave however. Actaully it establishes what I said. Pauls fellowship with the gentiles was not merely sitting in church with them, singing and listening to preaching. Thus biblical fellowship is much more that this (though it is an aspect of true fellowship). If we are in fellowship or in a partnership it would be self-destuctive to be in judgement about those things that are secondary. No one is in full agreement on everything but everyone should be in full agreement of the core or main things - thus I stated agreement with basic theology.

Do the presbyterians not believe in the gospel as we do?
Do the presbyterians not believe in believers baptism?
Do the presbyterians not believe in the same basic theology we do?

If yes, then by all means do not only go sit in the church services but bring them along side in the reaching and teaching for glory of the Kingdom of God. Are there certain aspects that are decidedly Baptistic and or Presbyterian? Yes but those are primarily secondary issues but if they are not (since each church is unique even under a church government as they hold) then that is cause for no fellowship. For them or the Assemblies of God, Lutherans, Methodists, Wesleyians, other baptists, et al.

 

I draw the line (after I am convinced we believe the same 7 unities of Eph 4:3-6) as any church that believes that "sanctifying grace" is given through any sacrament -- baptism and communion included. I've heard it said of the 'elements' "This IS Jesus" or "This imparts grace of forgiveness." etc. No, that is just making some other sacrifice equal to Jesus. Absolutely not!

Nor is the reciting of the "Apostle's Creed" though it is not as clear that this is meant to be somehow redemptive in purpose. I wonder sometimes if it is just their substitute for the "sinner's prayer" -- a "profession of the mouth" per Rom 10:9-10. Anyone have any feedback or thoughts on that?

skypair

 

I never thought of it like that but you may be right. The Apostles Creed is probably the oldest of the Christian creeds. Intially it was recited by candidates for baptism prior to their immersion, so it is a "profession of the mouth." When the reformed churches broke off from the Catholic church, they took the Creed with them and made it a part of their liturgies. Although I have never heard it recited in a Baptist church, it nicely sums up the elements of our faith (except for the line about communion of saints, which is somewhat unBaptist) and its recitation serves as a reminder of our beliefs.

 

Again, what is fellowship but a joint-participation and shared responsibilities toward a particular goal - or better what we call a partnership.

We see it in the Great Commission. Go..(1) preach the gospel.. (2) Baptising them in the name of .. (3) teaching them to observe those things Christ commanded.

This is what we are (as a Church) commanded the Church as whole to do and therefore each individual church is to be in a joint-participation in/of or in partnership with other churches to fulfill that of like mind and faith.

Secondly, it is also spoken of in the "one faith, one Lord, one baptism..." now this can mean the baptism of the Holy Spirit (and I think it does) but that does not negate the fact that believers baptism is equated in this as well due to its sybolism of having been baptised by the Spirit of God into Christ.

Thirdly, it is not only one of the ordinances that believers are to observe but is in fact the first act of obedience in the life of a convert. (to believe and be baptised).

 

I'm just correcting the wording of this part of my last post.

It should read:

This is what we are commanded to do as The Church (that which is made up of the individual or local churches) and therefore each individual church is to be in joint-partisipation or a partnership with other local churches of like mind and faith to fulfill Christ's commands.

 

I don't know if this is a southern thing, but up to about the late 70's if a pastor was leaving the church which he was the pastor of the other churches in town would go to their Sunday night service. I'm talking about Baptist which would be Southern, Independent, Free Will and Calvinistic, Christian Church, United Methodist, Southern Methodist , Independent Methodist, Grace Brethren, Presbyterian, there were two type of them in town. At tent meeting all of the churches listed above were at them. I don't believe the Church of Christ or the one Pentecostal Church or the Episcopal Church were in the mix, due to their stand or maybe ours, I not sure. We had fellowship with one another, rebuilt each others homes and barns when they went down to fire or storms, helped feed each other and pay bills when one lost their job(there might have been more of that in the 40's, 50's and 60's).
If you agreed on the Fundamentals of the faith we seemed to do well together, we knew where we disagreed. I would say we had a larger percent of folks going to church in my part of the country then and more often, like 3 or more times a week. No HS ball games on Wednesday night due to folks were at church.
Around the 70's sometime it started to have less fellowship if you didn't agree with me on my theology, more fighting on who is correct. I recall folks like John R. Rice, Oliver B. Green and J. Vernon McGee would have tent meeting or at a church but most if not all of the churches listed above would have its folks there and they all tried to bring the lost in so they could here the Gospel. Times have changed.

 

And so has the theology of those some of those churches. Take the Methodists for example - In the main from north to south (and I'm orginally from the south most of my life) their view of salvation is purely works based. Very few can answer biblically a question regarding salvation and most give themselves about a 65% to 70%chance of getting into heaven because they have not kept the 10 commandments or lived a godly life so their salvation is isn't assured. One must live good enough to go to heaven. Yes, I do know there are some Methodist churches who might preach a true gospel but I have yet to personally meet one. The Lutherans are another group (though it seems those up North are seemingly more prone to this) who believe much the same as the afore mentioned Methodists. But then again some baptists seem to be going in the same direction.

The point about John Rice and J. Vernon McGee and others having all of them come to their meetings is a good thing and I would encourage all of them and the Catholics to come here me preach as well. But here is the real question that needs be answered - would they go to one of those churches preachings bringing with them their congregations? (John of Japan - grandson of John R. Rice here on the BB can give you a definate answer concerning his grandfather)

 

Very true, but what I said was that they were in agreement on the fundamentals of the faith. If my history is correct the Methodist and Presbyterians did more to get the Gospel out in the early days of our country than Baptist or any other group. They were about as far a part as you can get in much of their theology but did well on getting the Word out and working together at times.

Today I see in the SBC and other groups we don't even fellowship well with each other. We aren't in agreement on our theology with in our churches, how are we going to be out side of our churches?

I think we can disagree on some points and still agree on the fundamentals of the faith and have fellowship with others with in the Body of Christ. I'm sure we would agree on most doctrine but disagree on some, but I could see us having fellowship with each other.

I went on a deal with Adrian Rogers and Charles Stanley about 20 some years ago and we had some Southern Methodist pastors and some Presbyterians pastors and some Calvinistic Baptist pastors there and we still had great teaching and fellowship, we knew where we disagreed. J. Vernon McGee was Calvinistic and I have been blessed with his teaching but I know where we disagree. I have been to the church that D. James Kennedy pastored and had great fellowship even though we didn't agree on everything. I have spend much time with him and found him to be a very Christ like, but I still didn't buy in on all of his theology, or him on mine.

I would not make it a point to go every week to a church that I disagreed with.

 

I've seen them work with local pastors out of their camp, I believe John will agree with me on that. About taking their congregations, I don't know, because by the late 50's I don't think Dr. John was a pastor, I think McGee was still a pastor and I'm not sure that Oliver B. Greene was ever a pastor. I'm sure an agreement was met before any of their meetings, or I should say I think so.

I have many years ago given a message in Calvinistic Churches and I didn't speak on where I disagree with them. Even though we disagree, I didn't and don't question their salvation nor did they question mine, but I do disagree with their theology as they disagree with mine.

 

I see, you can use it as the means to validate fellowship or unity with other churches of a different denomination (as seen below from post #28) but when it is used to show why one shouldn't it only refers to the Jew/Gentile relationship??

Come on TCGreek you can't have it both ways. Either it is or it isn't and according the passage in question 'baptism' indeed is apart of the criteria of unity or fellowship. (along with the other aspects I previously gave).

 

I don't disagree that in the beginning they held many truths they eventually walked away from and some only recently in the last couple of decades.

Also I do not disagree with the fact that many local church of different demon hold to truths others have left thus ablility for real fellowship with them is not only possible but actual. I do not judge a local congregation typically on their denomination view is because most vary from extremely liberal to overtly concervitive individually. I look individually at the local congregations views and practices to know whether I am able to extend the right hand of fellowship toward my fellow brothers and sisters of the faith.

 

If the Prebyterians practice believers baptism there is no violation but if they do not then you have a fellowship problem.
Secondly we do not isolate anyone but identify those of like faith and practice via the test of scripture. Therefore any isolation that is produced from this examination is caused through a difference in their faith and practice. Thus if one practices improper baptism it is not I who isolates them but the scriptures themselves which gives explict instrustions on both the 'how' and the 'why'.

As I stated earlier regarding Baptism: