Whom do you call bretheren?

Status
Not open for further replies.

raderag

Puritan Board Sophomore
I assume many here have jobs out in the world, and have contact with many different kinds of religious people. Who do you or do you not call Brother or Sister?

Roman Catholics?
So called evangelicals.
Arminians?
All those who agree with Trinity, and basic christine doctrine?
Only non-synergist?
Professing Christians who don't go to church.

Are there any that you automatically assume not to be believers. Obviously, jw's or mormons would be one example, but what about Roman Catholics or Pentecostals?

Am I barking up the wrong tree?

What do you say to a heretic that wants to carry on a religious conversation as you are bretheren in the faith?

My mom denies the Trinity, knows I think she is in a false religion, and still caries on these religious conversations with me. I don't say too much, but every once in a while I will challenge her belief on the Godhead.

[Edited on 4-15-2004 by raderag]
 
Those who are true brethren are those who believe in the Bible undefiled.(spiritual)

The rest are my bretheren in adam.(flesh)

blade
 
Unless they demonstrate otherwise, I would call a professing Christian a "brother or sister." It may not be very liong that they demonstrate otherwise, but then it is a matter of correction.

I would never call a cult member, or a Roman Catholic a brother or sister.

I hesitate to call an Arminian a brother or sister because most of the time (at least in the churches we have been in and have in this area) they are so loose that you cannot tell the world from the church.

We should call those who are brethren "rbothers" who follow this criteria:

Acts 2:42 "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

That's going to cancel most people out. :)
 
[quote:739914b0be][i:739914b0be]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:739914b0be]

I would never call a cult member, or a Roman Catholic a brother or sister.

[/quote:739914b0be]

Why is Rome worse than say your average dispensationalist?
Dispensationalists deny sola gratia even moreso than say a thomist Roman Catholic.
 
[quote:adf25053d1][i:adf25053d1]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:adf25053d1]Acts 2:42 "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." [/quote:adf25053d1]

As defined in the creeds and Protestant confessions?
 
[quote:33eb7b58f0][i:33eb7b58f0]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:33eb7b58f0]
Anyone who accepts the 39 articles and drinks Guiness. [/quote:33eb7b58f0]

English and Irish beers are heretical.

German beers and their American counterparts are the only true beers.

Are you serious about the 39 articles? Must one accept those?
 
[quote:b9a460fcae][i:b9a460fcae]Originally posted by raderag[/i:b9a460fcae]
[quote:b9a460fcae][i:b9a460fcae]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:b9a460fcae]

I would never call a cult member, or a Roman Catholic a brother or sister.

[/quote:b9a460fcae]

Why is Rome worse than say your average dispensationalist?
Dispensationalists deny sola gratia even moreso than say a thomist Roman Catholic. [/quote:b9a460fcae]

Not true. Rome is not a true church.
 
Rome is the babylonian whore tis it not?

blade

p.s. except for those men who came out(minus augustine who stayed and preached the gospel)
 
[quote:950b5a0695][i:950b5a0695]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:950b5a0695]

Not true. Rome is not a true church. [/quote:950b5a0695]

Fred, I don't necessarily disagree here, but by what standard is Rome not a true church, and a "Bible Church" a true Church?
 
[quote:10489e2850][i:10489e2850]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:10489e2850]
Rome is the babylonian whore tis it not?

blade

p.s. except for those men who came out(minus augustine who stayed and preached the gospel) [/quote:10489e2850]

That is what many believe, but I am not sure. Augustine did not preach forensic justification though. He also preached a Romish doctrine on the Eucharist, Purgatory, and Ecclesiology.
 
Brett:

According to the NT, the church is the proper body to determine who is in or out. Matt 18:17: "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it [i:c0ae985fa5]to the church[/i:c0ae985fa5]; and if he refuses to listen even [i:c0ae985fa5]to the church[/i:c0ae985fa5], treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." See also 1 Cor. 5:4-5: "When you [i:c0ae985fa5]are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus[/i:c0ae985fa5] and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan . . ." I think the other "don't associate" passages should be understood in an ecclesial context.

Anyway, this kind of ideal is nearly impossible to accomplish in the current broken ecclesiastical situation (many separate sects and denominations). So, the answer to your question is I think ambiguous. The Bible speaks in terms of a single, unified church. We have a scattered and divided church. Because of the collective present disobedience in terms of eccesiology, I don't think there is an easy answer to your question.

I think that John Frame's Evangelical Reunion is a great starting place:
http://www.thirdmill.org/magpt_main.asp#frame

As a practical matter, I would engage whomever wants to discuss true doctrine. I would call those who are part of a true visible church (as determined by the marks of Word and Sacrament) as brothers. As Calvin, Westminster, et al taught, there is no salvation ordinarily possible outside of the visible church. It is the church (individual congregation) that is making the judgment, not the individual. It also relates to your category "Professing Christians who don't go to church."

Scott
 
I do too, but that is only because they disobey the Roman Church and do not believe what she requires, which is no gospel at all. (Gal. 1)

I say this as one who weeps daily for my family trapped in the bondage of Romanism.
 
[quote:a0d5b283cb][i:a0d5b283cb]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:a0d5b283cb]
I do too, but that is only because they disobey the Roman Church and do not believe what she requires, which is no gospel at all. (Gal. 1)

I say this as one who weeps daily for my family trapped in the bondage of Romanism. [/quote:a0d5b283cb]

Reply...

Fred, were you Catholic too?
 
Yes.

Catholic school, altar boy, the whole 9 yards.

I'm Italian and Polish, so the only way my family gets more Catholic is if they are Irish. (My wife is part Spanish as well!)
 
[quote:f7c461edaa][i:f7c461edaa]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:f7c461edaa]
Yes.

Catholic school, altar boy, the whole 9 yards.

I'm Italian and Polish, so the only way my family gets more Catholic is if they are Irish. (My wife is part Spanish as well!) [/quote:f7c461edaa]

Reply...

Irish Catholic for 37 years. No longer Catholic but still Irish.:bouncy:
 
[quote:35b1120b26][i:35b1120b26]Originally posted by raderag[/i:35b1120b26]
[quote:35b1120b26][i:35b1120b26]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:35b1120b26]

Not true. Rome is not a true church. [/quote:35b1120b26]

Fred, I don't necessarily disagree here, but by what standard is Rome not a true church, and a "Bible Church" a true Church? [/quote:35b1120b26]

I stand on the idea that Rome does NOT even worship the same Christ of the scriptures. Take out their catechism and see for yourself. Granted, they embrace the apostles creed, yet in the same breath, based upon their theology, they deny it.
 
[quote:99d403e4b3][i:99d403e4b3]Originally posted by Scott[/i:99d403e4b3]
Brett:

According to the NT, the church is the proper body to determine who is in or out. Matt 18:17: "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it [i:99d403e4b3]to the church[/i:99d403e4b3]; and if he refuses to listen even [i:99d403e4b3]to the church[/i:99d403e4b3], treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." See also 1 Cor. 5:4-5: "When you [i:99d403e4b3]are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus[/i:99d403e4b3] and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan . . ." I think the other "don't associate" passages should be understood in an ecclesial context.

Anyway, this kind of ideal is nearly impossible to accomplish in the current broken ecclesiastical situation (many separate sects and denominations). So, the answer to your question is I think ambiguous. The Bible speaks in terms of a single, unified church. We have a scattered and divided church. Because of the collective present disobedience in terms of eccesiology, I don't think there is an easy answer to your question.

I think that John Frame's Evangelical Reunion is a great starting place:
http://www.thirdmill.org/magpt_main.asp#frame

As a practical matter, I would engage whomever wants to discuss true doctrine. I would call those who are part of a true visible church (as determined by the marks of Word and Sacrament) as brothers. As Calvin, Westminster, et al taught, there is no salvation ordinarily possible outside of the visible church. It is the church (individual congregation) that is making the judgment, not the individual. It also relates to your category "Professing Christians who don't go to church."

Scott [/quote:99d403e4b3]

Scott, I am thinking along these same lines. Would you exclude all Roman Catholics from Christian fellowship?
 
[quote:35b272dbe0][i:35b272dbe0]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:35b272dbe0]
[quote:35b272dbe0][i:35b272dbe0]Originally posted by raderag[/i:35b272dbe0]
[quote:35b272dbe0][i:35b272dbe0]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:35b272dbe0]

Not true. Rome is not a true church. [/quote:35b272dbe0]

Fred, I don't necessarily disagree here, but by what standard is Rome not a true church, and a "Bible Church" a true Church? [/quote:35b272dbe0]

I stand on the idea that Rome does NOT even worship the same Christ of the scriptures. Take out their catechism and see for yourself. Granted, they embrace the apostles creed, yet in the same breath, based upon their theology, they deny it. [/quote:35b272dbe0]

Ok, so did the midieval Church (for example Thomas Aquinas) have the right Christ? If not, isn't that Cambellism?
 
[quote:71893eee68][i:71893eee68]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:71893eee68]
Take out their catechism and see for yourself. Granted, they embrace the apostles creed, yet in the same breath, based upon their theology, they deny it. [/quote:71893eee68]

Scott, their Catechism is pretty big. Can you show me which part of the catechism deny's, implicitly or explicitly, the Apostles Creed? I have never heard this before.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by raderag]

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by raderag]
 
[quote:f20ad24758][i:f20ad24758]Originally posted by Scott[/i:f20ad24758]
The Catechism of the Catholic Church expressly affirms the Apostle's Creed. Indeed, a large portion of the catechism is devoted to it.

I would identify Rome as a true church. Here is an article by Charles Hodge that I think is right:

Is the Church of Rome Part of the Visible Church
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/con...urch_of_rome_a_part_of_the_visible_church.htm

Scott [/quote:f20ad24758]

BTW, you know that I was addressing Scott Bushey and not you. I am glad you answered, but didn't want you to think I was straw-manning you.
 
Brett:
I think that strawmen have their own church. Their creed is off the wall, though. I don't think anybody lets them in. I think they're all in Oz, looking for a brain.
 
Here is a section of the Confession that I think applies to Rome quite well:

[quote:9c635fe772]
The purest churches under Heaven are subject to mixture and error, and[u:9c635fe772] some have degenerated so much that they have ceased to be churches of Christ and have become synagogues of Satan[/u:9c635fe772]. Nevertheless Christ always has had, and always will (to the end of time) have a kingdom in this world, made up of those who believe in Him, and make profession of His name.[/quote:9c635fe772]

Phillip
 
There are several questions left unanswered.

[quote:afac78e614][i:afac78e614]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:afac78e614]
Here is a section of the Confession that I think applies to Rome quite well:

[quote:afac78e614]
The purest churches under Heaven are subject to mixture and error, and[u:afac78e614] some have degenerated so much that they have ceased to be churches of Christ and have become synagogues of Satan[/u:afac78e614]. Nevertheless Christ always has had, and always will (to the end of time) have a kingdom in this world, made up of those who believe in Him, and make profession of His name.[/quote:afac78e614]

Phillip [/quote:afac78e614]

Phillip, I realize that the reformed church thought of Rome in this way. I also think that may have been true then, but it would not have to be true now.

I have asked this question several times, with no answers yet. By what standard is Rome not a true church, and yet the evangelical arminian church a true church?

Secondly, Did the RC become false only after trent, or was most of the midieval church a heresy. Does that mean the church had to be restored instead of reformed?
 
[quote:0e5b1c1f07][i:0e5b1c1f07]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:0e5b1c1f07]
There are a few threads that have dealt with this issue where I have made some relevant comments:

Romish Baptism

Is Roman Catholic baptism valid? [/quote:0e5b1c1f07]

Fred, I read over those threads, but it doesn't answer my question to you. You said that Rome is not a true church, and your answer implied that a evangelical church is true.

By what standard is Rome false and the evangelical church true?

Both deny sola gratia.

Secondly, was there no true church in mideival times?

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by raderag]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top