What constitutes matters of Brotherhood and Fellowship?

It makes sense to me. I understand the nature of the questions you pose.Let me start my views with a brief introductory explanation. I believe that there could be and probably are Christian who have received Christ spiritually who have been CAUGHT in an anti-Christ teaching group.I would regard such an accidental member of that group as my Christian brother not because of that group's teaching but in spite of it.They may have received the Holy Spirit and then been caught up in the Jehovah's Witnesses. How they are able to survive in that atmosphere I do not know. It is probably by God's mercy.The fellowship of the Body of Christ is because of the divine life received by its members. Just as the flow of electricity in a room keeps all the lights in that room in a kind of fellowship, so the flow of the Spirit of Christ keeps the believers in a kind of fellowship of life.If a man does not have that divine life he is not in that fellowship. If he does not have the Spirit of Christ he is not of Christ: "Yet is anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him" (Romans 8:9b) Is it possible that someone who attends the Jehovah Witness Kingdom Hall meetings could have the Spirit of Christ in spite of their teaching ? I think it is possible. That unfortunate person I regard as a Christian brother.Now in Romans 8:9-11 the Spirit of Christ is the Spirit of God. " ... if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him "The two terms the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ are used interhangeably. Today the only Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ.Not only is the Spirit of God the Spirit of Christ. But the Spirit of Christ is also Christ Himself. "Yet is anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him. But if Christ is in you, ..." (8:9c,10a)The Spirit of Christ is the Spirit of God. But the Spirit of God is Christ Himself. To have Christ Himself indwelling one is therefore the requirement to be Christ's. And to be Christ's is to be in the fellowship of the church of Christ at least in prinicple if not practically.It would be very uncomfortable for one who has Christ, who has the Spirit of Christ which is the Spirit of God, to sit under a teaching saying such things repeatedly like:1.) Christ is not God.
2.) The Spirit of God is only a force and not a Person
3.) Christ is the arch-angel Michael.
4.) The Trinity is a Babylonian heresy and Jesus is not God.But if such a tragedy were to happen, that a genuine reborn Christian had been carried away into a cult denying the that Christ is God and Man, such a "captive" would still be a brother in Christ.I would counsel such that he should get out of such a cult.Anyone who receives the life of God is in the brotherhood of Christians. This life was with the Father and the apostles handled it and declare it to us (1 John 1:1-3)It is the possession of the divine life that brings humans into the divine fellowship. The life of God was incarnated, handled, seen, touched, died and rose, and become the indwelling One in those who receive Him.The one who has the Son of God has the divine life. The one who does not have the Son of God does not have the divine life; Being in the divine fellowship of the Body of Christ requires having the life of God. The one who confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him: Now I would come to the crux of EMA's challenge. Does not admitting that Jesus is God put one out of the fellowship of the Body of Christ.Today, I would say maybe not necessarily. But such a one's declaration, if that one does have the Son of God, is destructive to the Body. And it may be a cause to put him OUT of the local church.In practicality it may be hard to receive him as a brother in practicality because he denies that Jesus is God incarnate as the Gospel of John and other Bible passages teach.At best, this is a deceived brother if a brother. And this is a brother who is not holding to the apostles' teaching. This is a brother in serious error. It is a more serious sin than a sin against God's holiness. It is a sin against God's authority.I think a moral sin against the holiness of God is more easily dealt with than a rebel's revolting sin against God's authority and the authority of His word.He may not be put out of the universal church. But he may have to be put out of the local church practically because of the contagion of his serious anti-Christ teaching.

No. I simply mean that I may change my mind. I am not too sure. I could be mistaken but I give my answer how I presently feel. What I mean is that it is not possible for man to man out of the universal church. That is not something in man's hands which man is able to do.In Matthew Jesus mentions the church twice. The first time He speaks of the universal church (Matt. 16:18). The second time He speaks of the local church (Matt. 18:17). Practically, a troublesome brother may be charged not to gather with the local church. But there is no way a troublesome brother can be put out of the universal church.The church that Jesus said we should take out problem to in Matthew 18:17 is the practical church life on earth, the local church. You and I as Christians cannot take our problem to the universal church which covers all time and all places (Matt. 16:18)Now we see that some Christian brothers were put out of the local church (wrongly) by an ambitious self assuming leader: "Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not receive us ... neither does he himself receive the brothers, and those intending to do so he forbids and casts out of the church." (3 John 9,10) The only point I make here is that 3 John 9,10 shows that a Christian brother can be cast out of the local church. However, Diotrephes had no authority or ability to cause them to be no longer members of the universal church. Do you see?So my point was that conceivably the local elders may put a extremely erring saint out of the local church. And by local church I mean "one city - one church". That is the normal practice of establishing local churches should be a city wide congregation or a locality wide assembly. I don't think breaking fellowship with a Christian completely makes it unable to receive grace from God. And there are less severe steps that a congregation could take before breaking fellowship.But if asking such a one not to attend the church meetings and advizing the believers not to contact such a brother is the step taken, I do not believe that this means they are totally unable to receive grace from God.I do not think man has authority to take away another man's salvation, regardless of how much in error the erring one may be. Where I meet we do not use the term excommunication. But there have been instances where a teacher was "quarintined". That means the believers were advized that this was a contentious teacher whose errors were contagious and that the saints should avoid contacting such a one.If you ask me then I prefer the phrase quarintine to excommunicate. We are assuming here that the one quarintined is a genuine Christian.An outsider who comes teaching heresy is not put out of the church in the same way. He or she was never really in the church if he or she had not received Christ. I'll come back to this another time. I cannot write more now. I'll try to comment latter.

Welcome to the Forum.I love the Lord Jesus the Son of God.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The word does indeed translate o assembly. But when we study all that this special assembly is we see that it has many deeper layers than simply a gathering.The book which most discribes these deeper layers of what the church is is the book of Ephesians.Yes, the church is a called out assembly. But is it merely a called out assembly of Christians living worldly lives and backslidden ? To be a mere gathering is the most superfiscial aspect of the church. It is indeed necessary to gather together. But this is only the initial step.The church in Ephesians is also the household of God, the kingdom with citizens, the Body of Christ, the One New Man, the Masterpiece or POEMA of God, the habitation of God in spirit, the corporate Bride and Wife of Christ, and a corporate warrior with armor of God for fighting spiritual warefare.So, the assembly is only the initial and most elementary aspect of what the church is.Now in Matthew 16 the church is the one church which Jesus says He will build. So it is universal and covers all time and includes all saints (believers in Christ).But in Matthew 18 the church is a practical assembly to which two or three Christians may bring their problem for fellowship, prayer, and solution.Two or three brothers in Christ cannot take their problem to the universal church. They can take it to the practical local church. They can take it to the representative responsible elders of a local church. And this way the church in Matthew 18 must be practical.So Matthew 16 speaks of the church to which all Christians in all time from every area of the world belong. And Matthew 18 speaks of the practical local assembly that some Christians may present their problems to. The distinction between "churches" in the New Testament is geographical. What distinquishes one church from another church is locality. " What you see write in a scroll and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamos and to Thytaria and to Sardus and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea." (Rev. 1:11) Each of these churches was designated by a locality. The name of the locality was effectively the name also of the church there. There were not churches according to streets, or doctrines, or particular servants, or countries, or races, or ethnic identities, or spiritual gifts, etc.The church was designated by the geographic locality. And this is the patter we see throughout the New Testament. Where the city is mentioned the church is always mentioned in the singular.The jurisdition of a church was not larger or smaller than a locality.There are four places which mention a church in someone's house. But these four passages also speak of city wide local churches. It is only the case that churches usually started in the homes of someone.When a locality larger than a city is mentioned the church is refered to in the plural. So you have plural churches is Asia, plural churches in Judea, plural churches of the Gentiles (nations).One city has one church. They may meet from house to house in many house meetings as we see in Jerusalem in the book of Acts. But the Bible always says the church in Jerusalem and not the churches (plural) in the city of Jerusalem.The practice today of having many kinds of "churches" in one city is abnormal. But some Christians are coming out of these divisions to meet as the city wide local church according to the pattern revealed in the New Testament.

Do you actually mean that you read through my post about the church in Ephesians and you could not discern that I was not talking about a physical building ?People, of course. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Hold on. Just hold on.In the verse you quote Paul is talking about the Body of Christ. Nowhere does Paul refer to plural BODIES of Christ. True.However, the New Testament does repeatedly use the plural term CHURCHES. So we have to deal with the FACT that there can be many churches. This is what the Bible says.Once again - One Body , but multiple churchES is what we read.So the issue is WHAT distinguishes one church from another church ? The answer is locality.Now on the other hand there are not multiple universal churches. There is only "MY CHURCH" which the Lord said He would build (Matthew 16:18). Across all localities and in every age there is one universal church. His church, it is.Martin Luther is a member, as is Calvin, as is Paul, as is Barnabus, as is Wesley, as is Sojourner Truth, as is Billy Graham, as it every other man, women, or child who has ever been born again.This is like there being one moon in the sky. But if you go to London you have the moon over London. If you go to Dallas Texas you see the moon over Dallas Texas. If you go to Lagos Nigeria you see the moon over Lagos Nigeria. These are not different moons. This is the one moon seen in many different localities.So the one universal church across all ages and over all the world is expressed in various localities just as the one moon is seen over various localities.Churches according to other boundaries other than locality are deformed entitities. At best they are improper assemblies. But the constituients may still be Christians regardless. They are divided improperly according to the New Testament standard of one church for one locality. But they are still members of the universal church and of the whole Body of Christ.

I said that the New Testament speaks of one Body of Christ. What makes this group the Body of Christ is that they have the life of Christ. Christ is living in them. That matter alone makes them members of His Body.If someone has not been born again, that person is not in possession of Christ's Spirit. "Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him" (Rom. 8:9b). To not be "of Him [Christ]" is to not be a member of Him. And that is to be outside of the Body of Christ.If anyone does not have [b]"the Spirit of Christ"{/b because he has not been born again that person does not have the divine life of Christ in the Holy Spirit. He certainly can have this life in the future. But while he does not have the Spirit of Christ he has no place in Christ's Body.The unredeemed / unregenerated unbelievers are not in possession of Christ's life. And therefore they are not a member of Christ's Body.Now let us move on to the local church by examining the problem in the city of Corinth in First Corinthians. "For it has been made clear to me concerning you, my brothers, by those of [the household of] Chloe, that there are strifes among you. Now I mean this, that each of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ.

​

Is Christ divided ? Was Paul crucified for ? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul ?" (1 Cor. 1:11-13)There was established in the city of Corinth one local church, "the church of God which is in Corinth" (1:2) But the Christian brothers were about to divide, to denominate. They in strife over the immature attitude of championing one servant of God over against another: "I am of Paul, and another, I of Apollos..." (1:4) This practice was to assume Christ was divided. This was to act as if Christ had more than one Body. This was the beginning of the practice of denominating the church in a locality into divisions which were either smaller than a city or larger than a city.Suppose those who said "We are of Paul" separated themselves and started a "Pauline Church". Then suppose those who boasted 'Well, WE are of Apollos" separated to establish a "Apollosian Church" in the same city. Now suppose those who said "We are of Cephas" (who was Peter) founded a "Petrine Church". And lastly those who boasted "We are not like any of you. We are of Christ" meaning really "We are of Christ and other Christians are not of Christ". Then they separate themselves to be a "Church of Christ" but in an exclusive way not recognizing other Christians in Corinth.These divisions, these denominations would be "deformed" and abnormals assemblies. The local ground of Corinth, as a boundary for the local church would be annulled and denominationalism would arise. But Paul said that this tendency was immature, fleshly. He said they were acting as infants in Christ. This was "soulish" and fleshy, not spiritual.Those of these four groups may still be Christian brothers and sisters. They may still have the Spirit of Christ. And they may still be members in principle of the one Body of Christ. But they have divided the local church into divisions of deformed entitities.The apostles established "the church of God in Corinth". Corinth is the ground and boundary of fellowship. God did not instruct them to establish churches (plural) in Corinth according to different servants of God, ie. Peter, Paul, Apollos.So today, the practice of having in one city a Lutheran Church, a Wesleyian Church, a Presbyterian Church, a Baptist Church, a First Street Church, a Third Street Church, or a African Methodist Episcapal Church, and a Pentacostal Church, or a Nondenominational Church, a Chinese Church, a Black Church, an American Church, a Southern Baptist Church, a Church of England, a Greek Orthodox Church, a Catholic Church, a Christian Science Church, a Russian Orthodox Church, a White Church, a Korean Church, a Ethiopian Church, a Congregational Church, etc. etc. is a further development of the attitude condemned by the Apostle Paul.In each case, man has established a "church" with a boundary either greater than or less than the local boundary of a city.A First Street Church in Corinth is a boudary smaller than Corinth. This is improper. A American Church in Corinth is a boundary larger than the city of Corinth. That is likewise a deformed "church". Even if that is a "Greek Church" in Corinth it is deformed. Greece as a country is larger than the city of Corinth. But churches were established according to the boundary of localities in the New Testament.Do you yet follow me ?Now we come again to Revelation 1:11: Notice that Jesus did not say "send it to the Church in Asia". He did not lump all the seven churches "in Asia" (v.4) into one Asian church. Asia is larger than a locality. And John wrote to "the seven churches which are in Asia" (1:4)What were the names of those churches ? They were effectively the name of each locality: The names of those churches were the names of those cities - Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thytira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea. One city - one church.Man's has thought to try to improve on this God ordained model. Man has invented churches according to other things beside the locality. And I say that these, at best, are deformed "churches". I would go as far as to say that they are really are not churches.Now. if you follow me up to this point I would hasten to indicate what I am NOT saying as well:1.) I am NOT saying that the local church all has to physically meet in one building or one gathering. In "the church which was in Jerusalem" they met in the temple and from house to house. There were thousands of believers. Yet the "church" is singular for the city of Jerusalem.2.) I am NOT saying that it may not be the case that all the participants in a local church may not be of one race. It may turn out that all the Christians in the city of Seoul in South Korean happen at the moment to be Korean. But that still must be "the church in Seoul". That cannot be "the Korean Church in Seoul".It may be a fact that only Americans are presently meeting as "the church in Dallas" and only Canadians are meeting as "the church in Toronto". But they cannot say that this is a "American Church in Dallas" or "the Canadian Church in Toronto".There is simply "the church in Dallas" or "the church in Toronto" or "the church in Seoul". Churches should not be established according to countries or races or ethic identities.3.) I also am NOT saying that you cannot have a language speaking meeting in a local church.It may be practical that in Mexico City there be a Spanish speaking meeting in the church in Mexico city in one place and an English speaking meeting in the church in Mexico city in another place. These are simply meetings. These are language groups meeting together with like languages to fulfill the practical need of communication. But to establish a English Speaking Church and a Spanish Speaking Church in that one city is deformed.Meetings can be divided into practical purpose serving groups. But they should not be established as "churches". The church is attached to the locality. The church is established according to the God ordained model of one city - one church.4.) Also I am not saying that the local church is a utopian paradise where there cannot be any more problems. This is obviously not true. One city - one church is just a minimum requirement of practical unity. It does not garuantee that the local church will be without problems.Usually each of the churches in the New Testament still had some spiritual problems or we would not have so many letters trying to deal with those problems.One city - one church does not mean a idealistic utopia. But it is an answer to many problems. It is healthier than today's practice of denominating the church into factions. Factions are the work of the flesh according to Galatians 5:20. 5.) I also am NOT saying that to not meet on the local ground is to lose salvation, or to not be able to be used by God. A Christians is still a Christian whether or not they meet as the local church.6.) I am NOT saying that Christians should not form other kinds of associations or entities like a Christian evangelistic outreach, or a Christian school, or a Christian hospital, or a Christian work for some specific purpose.As long as these do not become "churches" there is no problem, in principle. Christians in Corinth who were burdened to have a soup kitchen could have a "Christian Soup Kitchen" in Corinth. They should not make it "The Soup Kitchen Church" in Corinth.It may be okay to establish a work, an outreach, a specific ministry center, or an association of likeminded laborers to fulfill a specific work. For instance, there may be a "Christian / Missionary Alliance" as a specific outreach. There should not be, however, a "Christian / Missionary Alliance Church".Can you discern the difference? Churches should be established according to locality. We cannot improve upon this God ordained principle seen in the New Testament. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The disciplined one's eternal redemption and eternal is not deprived him because of church discipline.Consider the brother in Corinth who was living in such fornication at which the unbelivers would blush (1 Cor. 5:1). It was the mind of the Holy Spirit, and the apostles, and eventually the enlightened church on Corinth to remove this offender from the gatherings. He was put out of the church's fellowship.How did this effect his eternal redemption ? Did he become "unborn again" because of his sins? No. Paul writes: "In the name of the Lord Jesus, when you and my spirit have been assembled, with the power of our Lord Jesus, to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." (1 cor. 5:5) Because this backslidder served Satan, he was turned over to Satan. But the phrase "that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord" has to mean that he has not lost the gift of eternal life. And he has not lost the gift of eternal redemption.I believe each case with a disciplined Christian is the same. (Probably, I need to look up exactly how the term "excommunication" is usually understood). Yes. In many cases the believers are carrying out the mind of the Holy Spirit.This should be clear from John 20:22,23)"And when He had said this, He breathed into them and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit. Whosever sins you forgive, they are forgiven them; and whoever sins you retain, they are retained." (John 20:22,23) I do not believe that this forgiveness of the disciples echoed by God relates to eternal redemption. I do believe it relates to forgiveness for inclusion of fellowship in the church life on earth.For example, the forgiveness of the congregation in Corinth of the above offending brother allowed him to re-enter the church fellowship: "Sufficient for such a one is this punishment by the majority, So that on the contrary you should rather forgive and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with excessive sorrow. Therefore I exhort you to confirm your love toward him,,, But whom you forgive anything, I also forgive; for also what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, it is for your sake in the person of Christ." (2 Cor. 2:6-10)This sinning brother who was kicked out of the church apparently sorrowed and repented. The saints in Corinth then forgave him. He was re-united to the fellowship. Paul forgave him. And I think the Holy Spirit forgave and comforted him.My belief is that at no time was he without eternal life. As I said above, hopefully this discipline is with the saints in harmony with the Holy Spirit.The forgiveness relates to church participation. It does not relate to eternal redemption. That matter is settled by God forever when this one believed into Christ. He as born again.Once a person is born, he cannot become unborn. He may not be on very good terms with his parents for a season. But he cannot undo that "organic" relationship of life with them. And when a unruly born again person is disciplined under the direction of the Holy Spirit by a church, he is not unborn of God because of that. I would agree. Sometimes the local saints have to judge. Clearly, sometimes the church had to judge a situation. It should be done righteously, as you indicated. I do not understand this passage to mean the lose of eternal redemption of one who has believed into Jesus Christ.It is not necessary or possible or right to expect Christ to die more than once for the sins of the sinner. This passage does not mean that a man who is born again, who thereafter sins willfully is unborn again. Arminian theology takes it that way. But that is an error to do so. A Christian who is born again may have unconfessed sins. And he may not be in fellowship with the Father or with his fellow Christians. This does not mean that he is not eternally redeemed. And this does not mean that he has gone from being born again to being unborn again.There are different kinds of forgiveness to Christians in the New Testament. This passage relates to the daily walk, with a clear conscience and in the divine fellowship of the Father and the fellow believers. One should confess his sins when he becomes aware of them.This need to apply the blood of Jesus to sins are they are made known to us is a life long process from which a Christian never graduates. The forgiveness here is not related to eternal redemption. It is related to daily spiritual communion, spiritual walk, and a normal healthy one accord with the Father and fellow believers.You and I both have sins that in the future we will realize need confession for deeper fellowship with God. We are not unsaved because we are ignorant of those sins. When the light grows within and we become aware of them we have to apply the blood of Jesus to those sins.If you are a born again Christian and you have some behaviors which God sees as sins but you have not YET realized are sins, you do not lose eternal redemption because of that. It may arrest your spiritual growth if you do not learn to confess and forsake those sins. We may be out of fellowship with God. We are not unborn again because of that. We may be out of fellowship with God because of some cherished sinning which we will not confess or forsake through His grace. Our spiritual growth may stop. It may be arrested. And we could be disciplined in this life OR even after the second coming of Christ.However, we are not unborn again because of these unforsaken sins if we are born again. No problem you probing a bit and asking. I notice though how many Christian discussions eventually gravitate to the same old matter - "Who is saved and who is not?"Many, many Bible studies and Christian discussions seem to eventually return to elementary matters around the assurance of salvation. I hope that we will not also gravitate to a debate on the assurance of salvation.Having said that, I would say that fellowship can be deep or superfiscial. It is not entirely a binary situation. We may be in fellowship with other believers in Christ on a level that is really deep, or that is less deep, or that is rather shallow, or that is almost non-existent.I would be careful not to simplify it into a binary matter that one is either in fellowship or out of fellowship.Paul and Barnabus had a sharp contention between them. They could no longer labor together. Formerly they operated as a team. After the disagreement over John Mark they could no longer labor as a team. Thought that was indeed a weakening of their fellowship I don't believe that they totally cut each other off, treating each other as no longer Christian brothers.Do you see what I mean? I will mention a few that I think apply:1.) Denial of Christ as the Lord and Savior.2.) Denial of the Bible as God's word.3.) Chronic and consistent unrepented of idolatry.4.) Chronic and consistent unrepented of moral failure.5.) Chronic causing of division and rebellion against the responsible overseers of the church.These may be some, and perhaps not all, the causes for the local church to tell someone "Leave our midst. Do not meet here with us anymore. And we will avoid you. If you repent we may be able to continue fellowshipping with you. We love you. And we will pray for you. But for now, you must not gather with us." Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Maybe I can clarify what I mean. Take five brothers:1.) Brother#1 shares the bread and cup with all the saints at the Lord's table. He has rich fellowship with all who contact him.
But he still could advance more of course.2.) Brother#2 has something on his conscience. Maybe he has an unforgiven offense that he has not overcome. He comes to the table meeting but does not feel he can in good conscience share the wine and bread. When the cup/s and bread come to him, he passes them on without partaking. But at least he does come to the meeting.His fellowship has a limitation upon it and hopefully he can be restored soon.3.) Brother#3 - Let us say that he has been instructed to forsake a certain moral problem he has which effects the church. He has not yet. He feels he should not even come to the table meeting for fellowhip until this matter is resolved. However, he still attends a Bible Study or some other functions of the congregation. His fellowship is further weakened. It needs to be restored and enriched.4.) Brother#4 not only does not attend the Lord's Table meeting. He does not attend ANY of the church meetings. He is really out of fellowship. However, saints do give him a phone call now and then. When they do he is amiable to pray with them one on one or hear them read him a Psalm.His fellowship is rather limited and weak. But he is not altogether closed to all his brothers and sisters. Individually, he receives their phone calls.5.) Brother#5 also does not attend any meetings. Yet worse than that when any of the saints try to call them he scolds them. He yells at them not to call him anymore.This troubled brother is really in need of restoral to fellowship in a serious way. If the saints pray and pray for him (binding and loosing according to Matt. 18), almost as if he were an unbeliever, even he may be one day restored to fellowship.Now these things I have seen happen. As you can see, there are degrees of being in the fellowship.That is really all I mean by being careful not to make fellowship an overly simplistic BINARY matter. These five cases assume that each of them concerns a genuine Christian. That is touching. However, I don't think there are two Christians on the earth that always agree on everything. You might find a couple angels in heaven who agree down the line on everything.But us opionated human beings are likely not to agree on everything. It is splendid though if we can confess the major things in harmony. And concerning the minor things we have the humility to admit that we could be wrong.I could be wrong. And love covers a multitude of offenses. So let us continue to discuss. I am not afraid of disagreement on minor matters. Rather it is quite good for me that you disagree with me a little bit.That will cause me to gain more Jesus. Disagreements among brothers can be USED by them to gain grace and maturity. It is possible to be what I call "Dead Right". You may be correct doctrinally but have no inward joy and peace.Yet you may have a minority opinion with some brothers and sisters. But your heart is full of love for them anyway. And they receive from you the presence of Christ. You minister to them the Person of Jesus not just "right" opinions.Look forward to your future posts.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

My time is limited this afternoon. Let me see if concise replies will help our mutual understanding.I am not "calvinist" to the point of what I observe in strict Calvinism.Calvinists take all passages which seem to indicate punishment or discipline of Christians and interpret them to mean thay apply to FALSE Christians. I definitely am not Calvinist to that degree.A Christian, for whom the problem of eternal redemption has been settled, may be punished by God in this life or even after the second coming of Christ.Such punishment, however, is not the loss of the GIFT of eternal life. I don't think most Calvinists would agree with this. I have given you my reasons why I do not fall into one extreme on one side - hyper Calvinism. Now I will indicate that neither do I fall into the extreme on the other side - a hype Arminianism.Arminism school points to many passages saying that they indicate divine punishment administered to real Christians. I would agree on many instances. In that regard I would say the Arminian understanding is correct against the Calvinist understanding that only "false" Christians would be punished by Christ.Where I stop agreeing with Arminian school is that these instances refer to the loss of the gift of eternal life. For example, to be sent to the lake of fire forever is one thing. To be sent to "the outer darkness" is another.That the phrase "weeping and gnashing of teeth" is associated with both the fire and the darkness does not prove that they are both eternal perdition but that they are both unpleasant.Here I sense we are close to doing as I spoke, gravitating into a discussion about the assurance of salvation - the oft repeated direction of tens of thousands of Bible studies through the years.But I do want to make some things clear. I am not sure I follow you here. I'll think about it.The record of what happened has little to do with my feelings. In First Corinthians the man was disciplined by Paul and the church. In Second Corinthians the man was restored to fellowship. That is unless we insist that a different man is being discussed in Second Corinthians, which I think is unlikely, but perhaps possible.Whether a different believer or the same one, someone almost overcome with sorrow that he fell out of good favor with the church is restored and comforted. That is the record. My feelings have little to do with it. I think we are on the same page here. Of course there is nothing forbidding him from being baptized again if he wishes.But I agree, it is not necessary. But if one feels to renew such a confession to the Christian public I see nothing in the NT ruling that he CANNOT.Over the course of decades of discipleship, I have been immersed more than once. Shall we say, uh, "welcome to the crowd." He should feel right at home. You and I are still erring here and there, I bet. Hmmm. This paragraph requires some meditation.But for now let me say that a sin unto death should not be interpreted as a sin unto eternal damnation.For a believer to be disciplined by physical death is not for him to be disciplined by eternal punishment.I think, we may agree here ? Allow me to comment latter. I think, possibly, you are making comments as if you anticipate what the standard Calvinist would be arguing.I think it might help to first ascertain what it is that I in particular might believe here. I never intended to maintain that the discipline of the Hebrews verse can only refer to non-believers.I have no problem taking it as it appears to be intended, to speak to a Hebrew Christian who was tempted to leave the new covenant church and return to Judaism. In other words, this word was specifically spoken to Jewish Christians who were tempted to forsake the church life and go back to the Old Testament sacrifices.This is not possible. This is not necessary. And this is not right to do.What benefit we can get from the application of this passage is important. But strictly speaking, I think neither of us was in this specific situation of trying to go back to offering bulls and goats in contradiction to the Gospel of Christ's one sacrifice once and for all.Now the sinning willfully part can certainly be transfered to other areas of the Christian life. Maybe I'll comment further latter. Okay. I'll have to think about what you mean here. But since I am not postured to defend Calvinism wholesale, I may have no comment.I take from Calvin what I think is true. And I take from the Arminian understanding what portions I think are true. I agree that John is speaking of a Christian brother. Temper ? Oh yes, sometimes with some of the skeptics here my temper does come out.But here I think you are doing something quite expected and necessary. I think you are dealing with the weaknesses of something called the "One Saved Always Saved" argument.Let me briefly see if this will concisely express what I see in the New Testament.God's plan is to conform His redeemed people to the image of His Son. It is not nearly so much a matter of ushering us to a happy place called Heaven. It is more of transforming us "metabolically" into the image of Christ.We can slow this process down. But we cannot STOP it altogether. IF God does not get through in this age He still has the age to come to work on us. Eventually, every redeemed sinner will be presented spotlesss before God matured, full grown and in the image of Jesus. We will be like Him.Now, for the matter of punishment for this is important. God may punish us during the church age. God may punish us after the second coming in the age following the church age. Some of the unpleasant things spoken of happening to the Lord's servants concern His punishment of some of His people in the age to come.By the time the eternal age begins, with the new heaven and new earth, all discipline and punishment of redeemed believers has been completed.The extreme of Calvinism, I think, is that God would never punish a redeemed sinner after the second coming of Christ. That is wrong. He would.The other extreme or Arminian thought is that all punishment of Christians during this age or after the second coming MUST be the loss of the gift of eternal life. This too is wrong.God has great latitude. And there is a very large scope of things He can do to perfect His childen short of damning them forever.That's all the time I have now. God bless with Himself.

That's the first time I have seen someone use the formal rules of logic to interpret Mark 16:16. Interesting.But don't you have two little conditions "believes and is baptized" ?ie. (p & r) -- q ( I am rusty on the proper notation )Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Dear "Brother EMA",Since you call me brother I have to assume that you do regard me a Christian brother.Many of the real hard core Baptismal Regeneration people I have met in the past do not regard other Christians as "brothers" unless they are certain that they have been properly immersed in their water "With An Unnnnderstanding !!!" that this was for the remission of sins.You seem a bit different because you acknowlege me as your brother in Christ. And I think your acknowledgement is correct.
From what I have seen of your beliefs I also have no problem in receiving you as my brother in Christ too.But some real hard line Disciples of Christ - Church of Christ brethren I have debated, when you came down to it, DID NOT recognize me as a brother. I did not stop loving them for that reason. I still assumed that they were my brother.I do not ask Christians what "kind" of Christians they are. I do not ask brothers what denomination or faction or other identification they carry. But from a few posts you do sound like someone enfluenced by the teachings of Alexander and Charles Campbell, and Walter Scott.While in Boston in the 70 and 80s I ran into a very strong strain of Disciples of Christ saints identifying themselves as the Boston Church of Christ. They well trained and mobilized all thier members to be able to debate baptismal remission in thier water.Does this ring any bells of familiarity ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

We seemed to have evolved in this discussion from What Constitutes the Brotherhood and Fellowship? to "Is Baptism Necessary to be saved from eternal punishment?"To answer the original questions I would return to the matter of having the life of Christ. The Christians are called "brothers" because they share having the life of Jesus. Jesus is living in them. God is living in them. The Holy Spirit is living in them. Since they share the divine life which has been imparted into them by God, they are called "brothers".And it is not because they are males they are brothers. But it is because they are indwelt with by THE Elder Brother Jesus Christ. That unites them in one brotherhood.Before Ananias baptized Paul he refered to him as "brother Saul". It is not conclusive to me whether Ananias meant "Christian brother Saul" or "Jewish brother Saul".You may state your view on this (Acts 9:17). I don't think it could be proved either way. But I could be wrong.At any rate, one who has not become a possesser of the life of God cannot be regarded as a brother in the Christian brotherhood, I am pretty certain.Now fellowship is rather hard to pin down. It is the flowing out of this life from brother to brother. It is the dispensing of this Spirit of Christ from within a brother to another brother.
.I have to come back. I have been called away. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Concerning discipline administered by Jesus to believers after the second coming of Christ: From the scripture. Do you believe in a 1,000 year millennial kingdom spoken of in Revelation 20? Count how many times "thousand years" is mentioned in Revelation 20. I want you to count it for yourself. You should notice six times.You should also notice that the time of the new heaven and new earth follows after the thousand years is mentioned. So we should see that from the end of the church age to the beginning of the eternal age of the new heaven and new earth (Rev. 21 & 22) is the thousand year millennial kingdom of Revelation 20.In other words, there is still a period of at least 10 centries in which God has time to deal with some of His people who may need further dealing after the church age.If you can see that the sequence is:The church age
The millennial kingdom
The eternal age of the new heaven and new earththen you may see how some of the New Testament's teachings, parables, warnings, etc. fit into this scheme.I will give you now only ONE example - Matthew 18:23-35. This is the teaching of the unforgiving servant. And I will not expound all the verses. I will only make these observations.The teaching of the unforgiving servant should be understood as Jesus dealing with of His servants AFTER the second coming of Christ at the close of the church age: "Then his master called him to him and said to him, Evil slave, all that debt I forgave you, because you begged me." (v.32) Because the master (representing Jesus) calls the servant to Himself, this is best understood as the servant coming before the judgment seat of Christ (2 Cor. 5:10; Rom. 14:10).1.) Because the man is called the servant of the master he must represent a true Christian.2.) Because he is called to the master, this must represent the servant coming before the Lord Jesus after the second coming of Jesus.3.) The servant is punished by the master - "And his master became angry and delivered him to the torturers ...(v.34)4.) The punishment of the servant is not eternal. It has a limit to it and is expected to be terminated - "And his master became angry and delivered him to the torturers until he would repay all that was owed." (v.34)The word "UNTIL" proves that the master indends only to temporarily punish this servant.The question is: At what time AFTER the second coming of Jesus would He have time to temporarily punish one of His servants and still grant such a one eternal life?The answer is during the thousand year millennial kingdom. That age comes AFTER the second coming of Christ but PRECEEDS the eternal age of the new heaven and the new earth.The teaching should not mean that anyone can earn the gift of eternal redemption or anyone can actually pay back Jesus for dying for his sins.The teaching ends with a warning that the Father will do such to His children who do not learn to forgive their fellow servants during the church age: "So also will My heavenly Father do to you if each of you does not forgive his brother from your hearts." (v.35)Now the jist of the teacning is this. For some Christians, who have eternal life, but have held unforgiving grudges against fellow Christians, the danger of a dispensational punishment of a temporary nature may await them. This unpleasantness will be administered to some of the Lord's servants. It will not be forever. It cannot last more than the thousand years. It may last some portion of that thousand years. " ... delivered him to the torturers until he would repay all that was owed.".During that unpleasant discipline during the millennial kingdom that servant is perfected, adjusted, transformed, and ,made ready by making up lessons that he should have learned in the age of grace, the church age.This means that by the time of the end of the millennial kingdom when the eternal age comes, all such of God's children who were disciplined have been perfected by that time.And there are more examples I could show you. Do you have problems with this example of Matthew 18:23-35?Concerning the "sin unto death" John mentions I believe that you made this comment. Maybe we do not know. I hope that I am ministering to you spiritual life and not just knowledge. Even in the teaching John says that one brother should give the sinning brother life. That is the divine spiritual life, the ZOE life of Christ.This touches on the matter of fellowship. The last Adam became a life giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45) We Christians who have the life giving Spirit must minister life to one another. If you have not noticed yet you may eventually see that it is very easy to give out more and more knowledge. It is not easy to impart spiritual life.Paul told the Ephesian elders to feed the sheep. He did not simply say teach the sheep. Our fellowhip should help people touch the Person of Jesus Himself. That gives them life.I think whether the sin unto death is just physical death or eternal perdition is not as important to me as the phrase "give him life". Christ gave us life. In our fellowship we should also give life to others.I may be digressing. Of course. That is precisely why you should not reject the millennial kingdom.Let me explain. The thousand year kingdom BEFORE the eternal age is one of reward. Reward is related to earning. Gift is not related to earning but to receiving freely.Before the enjoyment of the GIFT God set up a preliminary time so that those who cooperate may receive reward positively or discipline negatively. The thousand year kingdom serves as that preliminary time before the eternal age begins.Anyone who does not see that the eternal age does not commence immediately after the second coming of Christ will have difficulty understanding temporary reward and temporary discipline administered to the saved children of God. Let us consider the teaching I have elaborated above Matt. 18:23-35. The essential matter of Christian brothers forgiving one another can be seen in chapter 5: "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy." (Matt. 5:7)Now an atheist who rejects Christ as Lord and Savior will not be saved because he is merciful to others. If his name is not recorded in the book of life it will not matter how merciful he has been. He has rejected Christ's salvation.So Matthew 5:7 should be an exhortation to Christians. Like the unforgiving servant of Matthew 18. Because he was unmerciful the Lord was not merciful to him. Though he was dealt with harshly by the Lord for his unforgiveness, it was not eternal. It was UNTIL a certain lesson was learned.Therefore, believers in Jesus can be shown MERCY during the millennial kingdom before the eternal age begins. This mercy relates not to eternal redemption. It relates to reward or discipline during the thousand year millennial kingdom.If you reject this understanding, I think you are left with this error -" Matthew 5:7 means we are saved eternally by being merciful to others. We may reject the Son of God, regard him only as a martyr. We may even be an atheist. But if we are merciful to others God will be merciful to us and we will receive eternal life."This has to be an error and negates the gospel of John and much of Romans. The kingdom people in Matthew must learn to be strict towards themselves but merciful towards others. If they are merciful towards others when it comes time to reward them in the millennium Christ will be merciful to them. Mercy triumphs over judgment.It they keep offense, forgetting all that they have been forgiven, they must learn that lesson of forgiveness under unpleasant circumstances in the millennium until they are perfected.Therefore, what Christians do not learn during the age of grace, the church age, willingly they will learn under stricter circumstances after the second coming of Christ. Since we all need mercy before the Lord it behooves us to forgive our fellow servants 70 times 7 as Peter was taught (Matt. 18:21,22)Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Sorry, but I didn't quite understand all of this. This I understand a little better. Prisca and Aquilla helped Apollos to understand the Gospel better. Wonderful. I hope you can help me.You can help me, (and perhaps I you also) if we direct our comments to things we wrote here.Other debates between other two people may confuse the matter. And I am concerned about each of us assuming that we are defending positions which we may not actually hold. I am not farmiliar with that particular debate. There may be elements of P which are problematic. But in the example that I used Matthew 18:23-35, we have-1.) A servant of the Lord who has been forgiven.
2.) A servant who is examined by the Lord for his service.
3.) A servant who is diciplined for a temporary time.
4.) A warning that the Father will do the same to the disciples.When could these things occur to the disciples ? When could they appear before the Lord to be examined ? When could discipline be administered to them for a temporary time? When could they be punished until they reached some settlement with the Lord?I believe that the Catholics may have understood this to be Purgatory. I do not believe it refers to any Purgatory, especially one in which indulgences sold by the living helps the dead person shorten the time of his punishment.It is better understood as a warning that the Father might do this after the second coming of Christ. I would refer to that passage to prove that Jesus sees levels of reponsibility according to the amount of light one has received during the church age. It is a fact of life that some see into the will of God deeper than others.What we did with what we received is the key. To whom much was given much will be expected.Many teachers recognize degrees of reward administered to the Lord's servasnts. It is strange that they do not also recognize degrees of punishment. It is preferable that we do take the opportunity in the church age to learn these lessons. I agree.This is not a teaching that one should wait. Of course not. If you can learn to forgive your brother from your heart in the age of grace, by all means learn the lesson now. Whether by discipline or more willingly, the church age is the time to be conformed to the image of Christ. "And the Lord is the Spirit ... And we all with unveiled face, beholding and reflecting like a mirror the glory of the Lord are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory even as from the Lord Spirit." (See 2 Cor. 3:17,18)Today in the age of grace we should grasp the time available to log much time in the Holy Spirit for transformation. That includes transformation in our emotion so that we go from holding grudges to forgving one another in Christ.What I have shared above is of course not an exhortation to postpone learning to forgive. And it is not a teaching that there is no discipline from God to educate us during the church age.The sad fact of the matter is that not all of us avail ourselves of that discipline during the age of grace. Brothers and sisters, unfortunately, do go to the grave with unforgiven offenses. They just could not take the grace to overcome these problems.When will they be dealt with? When will they undergo transformation ? Will simply taking them to a happy place called Heaven solve their problem in the soul ?The age to come will last at least 1,000 years. To some it will be a graduation party. To others it will be Summer School. Summer School is not always too pleasant. You have to make up lessons which you should have learned during the regular school semester.In Summer School you have to graduate anyway. But you graduate late. All graduate. All do not graduate in a timely manner.So, please, my teaching on Matthew 18:23-35 is not an exhortation that for the sake of Premillennialism one should postpone learning lessons of discipleship. In a latter post it might be helpful to bring in confirming passages. Some reinforcement might help.But I want first to correct an impression I may have given. I did not figure these things out on my own. I was helped by others with deeper experience to see these things. But once given the essential keys it was not hard to reseach as a Berean and confirm that these things were reliable from many other angles as well.Now, could we be wrong ? Yes.But I ask you this. Does the teaching tend to cause you to want to draw closer to the Lord today or not? If a teaching encreases a Christian's hunger for Christ, it is safe. If you live according to that understanding and turn out to be wrong, I think you have gained anyway.As it stands I am pretty confident that the matter is true. What is the matter ? It is that Christians can be dealt with by the Lord Jesus not only in the church age but in the age following the church age, the age of the millennial kingdom.The taste, I think, will be different. But He will continue to work Christ into our personalities. He will continue to saturate us with His divine nature. He will continue to transform us into His own image. He has to do this to build the New Jerusalem the climax of His eternal purpose.Paul wanted to present all those whom he helped fullgrown in Christ. He labored that Christ would be formed within the believers. Paul was faithful. Will we be faithful ? Will be be presented mature or will there still be a need for transformation when we meet the Lord ?Even in light of this the merciful shall obtain mercy (Matt. 5:7). Try to direct your analysis to specific things I have written here.Are you unconvinced that the six mentions of thousand years in Revelation 20 speaks of years following the coming of Christ ?Whatever problems you have with premillennism, (and there may be some problems), it should be clear that this period of one thousand years is after Christ has returned.Those beheaded for thier faithfulness to Jesus were resurrected and made to reign with Christ for a thousand years. This is called the first resurrection. And the rest of the dead did not rise until after the thousand years a completed.The passage speaks of reward given to some Christians for their sacrifice of life for Jesus during the whole age of the church before they are resurrected. Unless you are aware of some believers who have been resurrected and made to be kings during the last 2000 years, I think we should understand this as not having happened yet.The entire flow and context of the passage is that it is something following the battle of Armegeddon which also I do not think has happened yet. So at some time future to today Satan is bound for 1,000 years and martyrs of Christ are resurrected to reign with Christ for 1,000 years - "the first resurrection".Though this particular passage does not elaborate on the matter of Matthew 18:23-35, I think it is the appropriate time when such matters should also be occuring. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.