What constitutes matters of Brotherhood and Fellowship?

To admin Here is the New topic I recommended, I hpoe it meets with your approval. I suppose it could go in the Bible study area, of course Ill let you decide that, I really dont know. Thanks for your considerationJaywill writes:John 10 writes:In the previous thread Peg represented Jehovah's witnesses position on whether Jesus was God.. I think it is safe to say they do not believe Jesus was and is not God in the sense of being the eternal God, mentioned in the Bible. Each side was convinced of their position and the correctness of thier beliefs. Neither side seems to be diswayed from their doctrinal belief. Due to the extreme nature of that doctrine, one would naturally wonder if it becomes a matter of fellowship. By fellowship I mean of course, whether we would consider Peg and those that believe as she does a member of the body of Christ in the first place and whether we could have fellowship with them. Would this doctrine that Jesus is not the eternal God, be enough to part fellowship with Peg and those that believe as they do concerning this matter? One may not consider them brothers and sisters in Christ to begin with, if that is the case, those issues could be a backdrop for the initial framework of this discussion.To start the ball rolling I would state that the scriptures are very clear that we are to correct and disfellowship in matters of moral principles, to this we can all agree, even Peg and their little group, ha ha (just kidding Peg)There is however and has always been two areas that "Christians" have made matters of fellowship concerning matters of doctrine. Those areas are of course, what it takes to become a child of God and what one believes and teaches after one is a child of God.What I would like discussed in this thread is whether Peg or ourselves considers each other brothers or sisters in Christ, members of the body of Christ to begin with and whether the nature of the Godhead is an issue to divide and part company for holding and maintaining such a belief in the first place.Do Jehovah’s witnesses consider those that have obeyed the Gospel according to the scriptures, their brothers and sisters in Christ. If they do, would and does the doctrine of the non-deity or deity of Christ, become a matter of fellowship for them and us?Do mainstream christians consider JWs as members of the body of Christ and if they do would they part company from a fellowship matter, due to the doctrine of the deity of Christ?Again Jaywill writes:here again we are getting some hints concerning his positionThere are two passages I would like to begin with, Galatians 1:6 2 John 1:1Are these passage stating, the doctrine about the nature and mission of Christ or are they speaking to every doctrinal detail about what Christ preached and taught?
IOWs, must we get every doctrinal detail correct, to maintain fellowship. Further, where is the dividing line from a doctrinal standpoint? Since all of us do not have everything correct, (except for myself of course), how much and what is the nature of doctrinal disagreement to part company, with those that profess to believe in Christ as the Son of God. Is belief in Gods son and accepting as the Savior enough or do we at some point make inter-doctrinal issues a matter of faith and fellowship a contention.I am not yet stating a position here, just yet, I am simply asking the Christians here, their perspective, of course from a Biblical perspective.Since we are told to believe that Jesus is God’s son and that he is the Messiah, yet not specifically commanded to believe that Jesus is God, does this constitute a matter of debarkation for au to fellowship with such individuals.I hope this makes sense. I look forward to all the Christians and non-Christians perspective on this subject, but please try and keep it in a Biblical perspective, for those that are not specifically ChristianEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix typo in title.

As usual you are very throuogh and comprehensive. You have posed some very interesting propositions in the body of your comments. i will wait till others, (Peg for example), if they do, respond, to form questions and make comments on yours.Thanks again, if you are not a staff writer for someone you certainly should consider it.EAM

No not at all Peg
You trip me out every time I read one of your posts, I bet you are a funny person in person. No intense offended here but only a women would read my OP and come away with the idea that I was saying what you state above. Your funny Peg.No Im not saying that, I was only using that as an illustration to start the main discussion about what constitues matters of fellowship. IOWs some people may consider your disavowing that Christ as God Almighty as a matter of discommunication. I know most and the majority in the Chruches of Christ would. I myself and not totally sure that is the case, so lets explore what the scriptures makes matters of faith and fellowshipLets be frank though right off the bat. Im not actually named frank that is just an expression. To start the conversation off correctly, I think it would be appropriate as the masterful Jaywill has indicated that he includes even JWs that have obeyed the gospel and recieved the Spirit, as Children of God and members of the body as well.Do you and your members consider anyone outside your group apart of the body of Christ. that is do they consider them as children of God. If not why not? If so, do they classify them (us) in a lower state of fellowship, like say do the Mormons classify non MormonsIt seems these are reasonable questions to start with before discussing whether matters of doctrine and what doctrinal issues would cause one to debark in the first place. if a group does not even consider others as members of the body of Christ, the doctrinal issues become a mute point.Since I dont know to much about JWs, a good place to start would be, what do you consider the conditions for one to enter the kingdom of God. But like I said do you consider others outside your group as saved in the first place?Please dont give me a watered down version of your groups beliefs. Simply tell what their creed(written or unwritten) states, then you own personal beliefs in that connection. that is if you are so inclinedYou do have to admit Peg that what Jaywill said about Mt Rushmore (however you spell that) was funny, I laughed for two minutes straightAnywho
EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Sorry i have not got bact to this, I am burning the candle at both ends. I will get to it soon as i canEAM

As the thread would naturally dwindle due to the simplicity of the topic and the relative opinions involved, I think it best to discuss each issue of contention and teaching (not to far however) then see if it constitues a matter of fellowshipabove, you make a distinction we do not in "other Sheep". of course we believe Christ here is refering to the gentiles, that were grafted in after the ressurection.lets start here.For example paul said, "There is neither Jew nor Greek bond or free, male or female, all are one in Christ"The distinction seems only to be jew and Gentile. Where and how are applying Other Sheep?EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Dont you you think this kind of a stretch. Dose this passage really speak about an eternal existence on earth. can this passage in Psalms really have anything to do with the Other Sheep, jesus was speaking about. i suppose in general the general principle applies. Ouch, bit of a stretch Is your implication here that because people did ot personally know or hear about Christ, God did not have a plan for them until Christ Is your implicationhere that people (Other sheep) can be saved after the second comingIf not then what is the fate of those that are designated as other sheepAgain, the only real identifiable distinction that I can see made in the rest of the NT are identified in the following passages as Jew and GentilesRomans 11:1 [qs]I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don't you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijahhow he appealed to God against Israel: 3"Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me"[a]? 4And what was God's answer to him? "I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal."[b] 5So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.[c]
7What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written:
"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see
and ears so that they could not hear,
to this very day."[d] 9And David says:
"May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever."[e]Ingrafted Branches
11Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!
13I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree![/qs]Look closely at verse 24.Again in Ephesians chapter 2 John 10:14 and the whole context seems to have more to do with what paul is talking about above, than it seems to have to do with the FINAL JUDGEMENT. Look at this verse, then the whole context of John 10 and compare it to, the passages above "I must bring them also" he did this through his entire mission and this is what Paul is pointing outMaybe this is what Christ meant by OTHER SHEEP, not of this FOLD.What do you think?EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Its as clear as mud, ha ha. One moment you seem to be saying your a member of Christs body, the next you say your not.If they both come under the same conditions and are made Christians, why are they both not members of the body of Christ?Why are there two sets of fellowship, if they are all children of God? fellowship where, while we are here.Are you implying that people outside your group are the other sheep and we will be the ones to hang out here for an eternitySo per your first paragraph above, are youse guys (JWs) members of the body of Christ, or other sheep? becuase earlier you said you werent a member of the body of Christ So you wont be one of the ones obtaining a heavenly kingdom, correct? Or am I missing something A Bit confusing?EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

I agree that his purpose was for humans to live on earth initially, but why does that have to be his only purpose. Even you admit it is not, by implying that CERTAIN lucky humans will actually get to live in heaven, due to this or that reason, correct?For example here you say: Shouldnt the small number of humans that are slatted for heaven actually have to live here as well, since that was Gods original plan for humans? Why change a hard fast rule?Paul seems to indicate that in 1 Thess 4 that "We which are alive and remain will be caught up together in the AIR with the Lord, to be with him forever"He seems to be talking to all Christians not a select few So then the expression in Matthew that "These shall go away into everlasting punishment but the righteouss into eternal life", should not be understood as literal or real?Matt 25 there seems to be an indication that not ALL will be saved So the expression that "as often as you eat and drink, do this in remembrance of me", should be understood only for the ApostlesIn 1 Cor 11 Paul seems to indicate that the covenant was made by Christ for all ChristiansChrist said "this is the blood of my covenant which is SHED FOR MANY FOR THE REMMISION OF SINS"This seems to be the reason for the institution of that memorial that evening This seems to be an unwarrented conclusion since Christ is the head of the church, which is his body.The church is the bride of Christ, not just the Apostles The only designation of this usage would be those that are not saved outside of Christ, that I see in the scriptures.One could easily conclude that ONLY Peter James and John, were the only persons saved or going to be with Christ in heaven, because on several occasions he included only them in his doings Memorial celebration, sounds interesting. What is the purpose for this celebration?How do you decide who partakes of the bread and wine, in this instance? or is it an impulse actionIn contrast however in seems that Paul in 1 Cor 11 includes all christians in the Lords supper and that we are to partake in a worthy mannerKeeping in the spirit of the thread one would naturally ask what does Peter mean when he states: Wow these are heavy words and they seem to indicate that we need to make every effort to get the doctrine correctIt is this very point that I wish to make the theme of this thread. it seems that from Peters words ignorance and instablity are no excuse for heretical teaching. What do you and jaywill think in this connection?EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Sorry double postEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

I agree, but at an earlier date you stated: So does he want humans in heaven, yes or No Us and You means someone different than those to which he is speaking???? Whaaaaa? You specifically said earlier that everyone will eventually be saved. How do you come out of everlasting punishment to be saved? Dont these verses just show what I and the rest of the Nt teaches that one is either in Christ or outside of Christ, depending on whether one has been saved or not? Do you see a distinction here between all members and a select few, I dontYou conclusions seem to be counterfactual to the words and imagery the NT gives for the Bride and the Chruch. You conclusions may only be valid, if one starts with the idea that 144,00o is to be taken literally in the first place.the rest of the scriptures do not support the idea that this number should be taken literallyconsider this fact. At an earlier date you inferred that Peter was one of the 144,000. Yet revelations says they are virgins. yet we know Peter was married. How could he be one of the 144,000 if this is a literal number and desigantion of people The division of the lay church and the one you are contending seems to be forced into the scriptures to the point that you are forced to make the following comment But its not just Pauls words in this passage that could be taken literally but nearly all his words concering the body of Christ and the bride of Christ. Consider the following passages: You cant be member of the body with out recieveing the Spirit."WE were ALL baptized into ONE BODY by ONE SPIRIT" Since there is only ONE body by one spirit, it would follow that the same Spirit was given to ALL members of the same body, which is the Church or the BrideThe distinction you are trying to make is not in scripture, in fact it says just the oppositeEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Armageddon, thats funny PegIn a manner of speaking you are correct,but there is certainly the sense in the scriptures that we may know we are presently saved.heres why In 1 John he says "if we (Christians) walk in the light as he is in the light we have fellowship one with another and the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin" That presently and I can know that presently There is not a specific number given in Revelations, it is a figurative number to represent a metaphor, meaning a great number or incalulable in nature.Let EMA demonstrate it to you. The number is figurative, the illustration of virgins is figurative, the whole thing is figurative in the passage, because it refers to the number of those that have recieved Christ through the centuries.Peg watch this, 144,000 is not a specifc number, 144,321 is a specific number. the fact that the number is rounded off to 144,000 should clue you in.the entire context should clue you into the fact that you are dealing with the figurative.Here are some illustrations from scripture.Samson slew 1000 philistines with the jawbone of an ass. Do you really think that only 1000 or even exacally 1000 philistines attacked Samson? Or do you think when he got to 998 that he said Ill stop at 1000, that s nice even number and Im tired anywho.Or would you say he killed a large number of those seaside dwellers and this is what the writer is trying to conveyChrist will reign 1000 years. Satan will be locked up 1000 yearsthe children wandered in the desert for forty years. Was it really exacally to the minute 40 years, when they were one minute in the desert, the in the promise landMoses was 40 years old when he left Egypt. Do you think Moses left Egypt on his birthdayYou get the idea, its figurativeThe 144,00 are those collectively (and figuratively) that have purified themselves in Christ through the centuries, they are represented as pure or virgins. They are virgins or pure because of Christ, not due to their actions or behaviorIf EAM, from across the Pond says Ill see you in a month and I show up in 26 days, did I lie because a month is 30 or 31 days? You would you understand me to mean around that time or time frame Possibly my friend Armageddon is simply a figurative war between good and evil, when God will with a simple thought bring into collection the forces of evil and restrain them as desribed in Revelations Your a riot sometimes Peg.Also, I was not aware that Bertrand Russell, (you keep saying Mr. Russell) was a Jehovahs Witness, I thought he was a hard line atheistIf its ok with you I would like to begin with Jaywills initial post in conjunction with yours concerning fellowship as we discuss these other issues.EAM Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

You make a couple of comments that are of extreme interest to this discussion. You write: Do you mean by 'today' a time removed from the first century or am i missing a point here?You make a clear distinction between the local and universal church and say one should be out of the local but not the universal church. Am I correct in your implication?By OUT do you mean breaking fellowship with such a person or do you mean that person may be out of the graces of God for persisting in this error or any error concerning the scriptures.In short should a brother that insists and persists in teaching that is contrary to the Apostles teaching be excommunicated from the fellowship?What doctrinal teachings and principles besides Moral principles, would constitue such actions.or should we leave this to the local officials in the person of the Elders to decide these matters?My intentions here are not to be nit picky, but define perhaps when and how disfellowship becomes imparative

fair enough. Do these constitue matters of fellowship with other christians. that is would you fellowship with said individuals if they were a part of your group or not a part of your group, if they practiced such things.I suppose with yourself, i should ask, first, if you believe people outside, that are not JWs, are they christians in the first place.if not why not?besides ourselves, does God make these issues you present ,matters of fellowship for himself? Would you say he believes a persons persistence in these items constitues a wilfull and deliberate disobedience?these and other issues I am presenting and our views on those issues will start to narrow our views down from our different perspectives, I hopeEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

herein lies the problem and the crux of our discussion. we have sevearal verses and we will discuss each one of them as time goes by (thats also the name of a british comedy) that concern themselves with fellowship.What Christ commanded and what is simply stated as a martter of fact at times can and is distinquished by individuals as different than that which is to be stricly adheard to in matters of fellowship.While you see a christmas tree as a pagan tradition, Paul seems to want to allow others to participate in ritual days and seasons and the such like and to not to make to many things a circumstance for disfellowship and disagreementSo your view of the scriptures and what is acceptable may be different for others. What you make a matter of fellowship may indeed not be for many othersIm not trying to water down the Word of God, but am trying to define exacally what the scriptures define as a definition for fellowship.As will be demonstrated, even the verse that deal with the 'Doctrine of Christ', etc and how and what they are refering to will be disagreed upon, which is normal but mabe we can make some sense from their context As an example, where are we told directly or indirectly or in principle not to celebrate Christs birth/Did not the Magi worship and celebrate Christs birth. Does not getting the right day really matter and should we make such a thing a matter of fellowship"And away we go" Jackie Gleasonit seems as though, right off the bat your method of determining what are matters of fellowship and how it is to be applied is faulty
no offense intended. The passage in matthew 7 is much like the one in 1 Cor 13, it has to do with the heart and not specific actions or doctrine.In judgement and in matt 7 and 1 Cor 13, God is simply saying your HEART was not in it and doctrine is of little use if your heart is not in the right place. these passages are probably not dealing with the correctness of doctrine specificallyhere is another one. if we misapply the method of what should be considered matters of fellowship and how they are to be applied. that is, if we make rules and guidelines where God did not make such rules have WE now become guilty of the very thingwe are trying to apply.Christ said to the Pharisses "You teach for doctrine the commandments of men"Sometimes we have been taught things so long that we believe they are actually doctrine, when in fact they are notas you can see this is not an easy topic."And away we go" Moving hands forward in a pointy motion while slidding body in the same direction.EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Could you provide a specific passage that says they were required to not celebrate birthdays You are mencing words here. You are sidestepping to avoid an obvious point. yes his birth was a part of the visit and yes there was an actual celebration. If they are Peg you are rationalizing your behavior and you should not participate in event he appearence of evilIf the giving of gifts is a pagan tradition and it can only be associated with that idea, Joseph and Mary and God were breaking their own lawsYou see the fallacy in this in your own life in your attempts to ATTEND a Christmas celebration or birthday, but pretend you are not participating. If these things are actually evil, then you should abstain, because the Apostle said,"avoid even the appearence of evil'The truth of the matter is that birthdays and Christmas are just like eating meat that was served to idols. It is the INTENT and PURPOSE of eating the meat. Are you eating it because you believe it helps you serve the god it was sacrificed to, or you eating it SIMPLY because you bought in the market place."Eat what is put before you asking no question for conscience sake"Likewise, am I celebrating someones birth in conjunction with worshipping a god or am I just celebrating the fact that THAT INDIVIDUAL came into the world in that DAY.Am I celebrating Christmas because it is some pagan gods birthday or am I celebrating like the Magi his wonderful entrance into the world.Funally Paul concludes, look if it is that big of deal, "I will eat no meat offered to idols, as long as the world stands, if it causes my brother to stumble"1 Cor 8 Not because its wrong but because it can become an occasion of offense to a weak brotherwe have a certain amount of liberty in Christ that we did not under the Old Law."Arise peter kill and eat, do not call unclean what God has made clean"In contrast however and to show complete objectivity, I dont think Christians should celebrate Halloween. Due to the fac that its sole purpose is to celebrate the dead, worship through the dead and celebrate evil spirits, human sacrifice and the such like.I can find no justification for its celebration, so many have changed it to a fall festival, with costumes, if that makes any senseMost of the time we do these things so our kids wont feel left outOn the other hand some of us cant win for losing. I have to repeadly and each halloween convince her I am not celebrating Halloween, because she continuoulsy keeps repeating will you please take off that mask. "Sweetie its not a mask"Some poor folk just cant win for losingEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.