Inter-Denominational Fellowship

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

I was at work today and saw a post by kyredneck regarding how folks used to share the same Church building. Now this is before my time, but some of my friends grandparents have told me about how the local community would alternate going to different Protestant churches. One week the Baptist Church would be open, the next week the Methodist Church would be open, and the next week the Presbyterian Church would be open. The entire community in these mountains would rotate their attendance.

Now, I'm brand new to this whole Christian scene, but it seems to me, based on this 'ol boy's limited experience, that compared to those days there's a lot more denominational divisions in the U.S in general. Maybe I'm a Liberal theologically (I don't know, I don't go in for big terms and labels and whatnot), but it seems to me that if someone agrees that Christ is the Son of God, that He died on the cross for your Sin, and that he rose from the dead that would qualify him to be called a "Brother".

I once helped an Evangelist out back when I was college, a year after I had been saved, and only afterwards did I find out he was a Presbyterian. It didn't matter to me much though as he preached just the gospel. Who knows though, I am still a young 'un, so maybe I'm naive. Anyone have any other input?

TL;DR: Are Christians more divided, and experiencing less inter-denominational fellowship nowadays than in the past?

 

[Salty]

Each of the churches you mentioned above (Bap,Met, Presb) have several doctrines that are totally different. Baptism, Church polity, and ect.
Having been in the Military, i attended the chapel - and had not problem for the most part in serving. I did have one situation - when I was asked to serve communion, but I opted out - as in the chapel, communion is freely given - ie no need for baptism, repentance, ect.

But within a local church there needs to a statement of doctrine. (more later)

 

[JonC]

I believe that churches are less divided today than they were in the past. I say this in part out of experience. The pastors of our largest Baptist church (in my area) send their children to one of two private schools. One is Church of Christ and the other Presbyterian. I know many who bounce between Baptist churches, Churches of Christ (larger, less "landmark" centered ones), Nazarene, and non-denominational churches. Talking to them, they do not discern a difference in taught doctrine (which amazes me). And there is the sheer number of "non-denominational" churches springing up all around us.

I believe that denominational ties are not as tight as before because doctrine is not something that is taken as seriously as it once was in our local churches as a whole.

 

[annsni]

In our county and in the next county, there is now a gathering of Evangelical pastors who meet monthly for fellowship, support and prayer. It's been wonderful because it's taking very separate churches and bringing them together as a community. Yes, we still have our own fellowships but we are close to each other, pray for each other corporately on Sunday mornings and even will refer people to other churches if they choose to leave ours. We had a situation that was outside of our control at our church and some people were leaving and my husband was able to recommend other good churches in the area that we knew preached the gospel and had great ministry. We do things together at times and support each other's programs as well. It's been great and I'd love to see this happen more and more!

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

Thanks for all y'all's replies! It's good to hear Born-Again believers working together across Denominational lines . I'm guessin' it may just be online where there's more Denominational fighting going on than in the real world.

I also agree with Salty that while I wouldn't break fellowship with some believers, I would certainly refuse to partake in something I disagreed with. But I wouldn't cause a big kerfuffle over it and would probably respond as he did.

 

[The Biblicist]

Thanks for all y'all's replies! It's good to hear Born-Again believers working together across Denominational lines . I'm guessin' it may just be online where there's more Denominational fighting going on than in the real world.

I also agree with Salty that while I wouldn't break fellowship with some believers, I would certainly refuse to partake in something I disagreed with. But I wouldn't cause a big kerfuffle over it and would probably respond as he did.

There is a great difference between church fellowship and personal Christian fellowship. Personal Christian fellowship may be based on a true confession of faith as members in the same family of God. However, church fellowship is defined by each church and their own qualifications for membership, which is the closest kind of working Christian fellowship there is.

New Testament Baptist churches demand a correct profession of faith in the true gospel by the mouth and in the symbol of baptism. They also have a disciplinary rule for continued fellowship within that membership (Mt. 18:15-18; 2 thes. 3:6-14) which when violated will remove a person from that membership fellowship.

What is happening today is not only inconsistent with the internal fellowship standards of each church, but contrary and inconsistent with the demands of scripture so that essential truth for BIBLICAL internal membership fellowship is being sacrified upon the alter of pragmaticism for the sake of a false ecumenicalism.

We can work with other denominations for social concerns, but we cannot have "church" fellowship with them without denying our own internal standards of church fellowship and disciplinary practice of our own membership.

 

[Salty]

I do work with our city council of churches. This past Resurrection Week, we had a joint service on a Friday night. Each pastor spoke for about 5 minutes. The Pentecostal pastor and myself presented the gospel in an uncompromising way! Some of those folks may never have actually heard the Gospel presented that way.
Now, I situation I would want to be careful of is Vacation Bible School.
One year, I did teach the Jr Boys - Now, there were several students from different churches.

Should I be careful of how to teach a doctrine - say such as Eternal Security???

 

[JonC]

.... we cannot have "church" fellowship with them without denying our own internal standards of church fellowship and disciplinary practice of our own membership.

As you are speaking of "other denominations", I disagree with this statement. Churches have and can fellowship as congregations with other denominations without denying their own internal standards of church fellowship and disciplinary practice of their own members. Fellowship does not mean assimilation whereby one congregation acquires the “errors” of the other. The integrity of the local church can be maintained in such situations. In fact, even when the churches of the same denomination and belief fellowship doctrinal responsibility, accountability, and church discipline still falls to the individual local church.

 

[The Biblicist]

As you are speaking of "other denominations", I disagree with this statement. Churches have and can fellowship as congregations with other denominations without denying their own internal standards of church fellowship and disciplinary practice of their own members. Fellowship does not mean assimilation whereby one congregation acquires the “errors” of the other. The integrity of the local church can be maintained in such situations. In fact, even when the churches of the same denomination and belief fellowship doctrinal responsibility, accountability, and church discipline still falls to the individual local church.

You are wrong! You cannot fellowship with leaven without being leavened. You cannot bring fire into your bosom without being burned. If our internal discipline requires that we separate ourselves from a "brother" who has embraced the very errors that characterize other denominations, it requires separation from whole assemblies of brethren who embrace such error (2 Thes. 3:6). Christ bids us to "come out of her" and not to fellowship with brethren in her (Rev. 18:4).

As I said, we can work together for social causes, we can fellowship on an individual level in family matters that we agree on, but we cannot have church to church fellowship without placing ourselves and our weaker members under dangerous influences.

Your view is called neo-fundamentalism by theologians and it is another step in the ongoing apostasy from the faith, but the Bible calls your view the Great Whore and her harlot daughters.

 

[JonC]

You are wrong! You cannot fellowship with leaven without being leavened. You cannot bring fire into your bosom without being burned. If our internal discipline requires that we separate ourselves from a "brother" who has embraced the very errors that characterize other denominations, it requires separation from whole assemblies of brethren who embrace such error (2 Thes. 3:6). Christ bids us to "come out of her" and not to fellowship with brethren in her (Rev. 18:4).

As I said, we can work together for social causes, we can fellowship on an individual level in family matters that we agree on, but we cannot have church to church fellowship without placing ourselves and our weaker members under dangerous influences.

Your view is called neo-fundamentalism by theologians and it is another step in the ongoing apostasy from the faith, but the Bible calls your view the Great Whore and her harlot daughters.

No, I am right. You are saying that the church in Jerusalem could not fellowship with the church in Corinth (in fact, this was an issue with the church in Jerusalem and Gentile churches), the church in Galatia could not fellowship with the church in Rome, because they would influence the others by their differences. None of the churches in Acts were the same. While they were united in Christ, none of them had exactly the same doctrine. But nowhere do we see Paul urging isolation from one another.

I clarified in my response that I am speaking of, as you indicated, other denominations. 2 Thessalonians 3:6 is speaking of keeping away from a brother who leads an unruly life not in accord with the teachings of the Apostles. Revelation 18:4 is not telling Christians or churches to come out of another Christian denomination. It is speaking of the judgment of Babylon. Your verses are not applicable. We do not have to associate only with churches that are like us. They do have to be Christian churches (i.e., another denomination….different but of the same kind). But we do not have to insist that every church adhere to our interpretations, our practices, and our traditions as a “test of fellowship”. That is not only wrong, it is unbiblical.

Your view is called hyper-fundamentalism and it another step in the ongoing apostasy into religious legalism and paganistic works-based ritual.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are saying that the church in Jerusalem could not fellowship with the church in Corinth (in fact, this was an issue with the church in Jerusalem and Gentile churches), the church in Galatia could not fellowship with the church in Rome, because they would influence the others by their differences. None of the churches in Acts were the same. While they were united in Christ, none of them had exactly the same doctrine. But nowhere do we see Paul urging isolation from one another.

No, that is not what I am saying. They were all equally constituted as churches of like faith and order with each other in the same apostolic faith. We have letters to them because they went astray from their foundations. If they had not repented they would have been disfellowshipped by other churches and their candlestick removed. There was no denominationalism in the New Testament period, only churches of LIKE FAITH AND ORDER that began to go astray but were corrected. The Great Commission is a reproductive cycle of like faith and order - going with the SAME gospel, SAME baptism, SAME teachings Christ commanded.

I clarified in my response that I am speaking of, as you indicated, other denominations. 2 Thessalonians 3:6 is speaking of keeping away from a brother who leads an unruly life not in accord with the teachings of the Apostles.

2 thessalonians 3:6 is speaking about departing from apostolic doctrine or "the tradition" as that doctrine was handed down from Christ to the Aposltes and from the apostles to the churches and then put in final form of New Testament Scriptures. So it includes both doctrine and practice and not merely immorality.

Revelation 18:4 is not telling Christians or churches to come out of another Christian denomination. It is speaking of the judgment of Babylon.

The "Mystery" religions of Babylon were then centered in the Roman Government at Rome or the city presently ruling over all the earth (Rev. 17:18). However, "she" rides on the back of government, thus separate from secular governments. This is a mixture of State and apostate Religion but state ruled by religion and it goes as far back as Babel and is the chief persecutor of all the saints that have ever lived upon the face of the earth as even Christ and the apostles died at the hands of Rome and an apostate nation of Israel. This metaphorical woman continues from the actual day of John (present tense) until just before the final head of the beast goes to war against Christ at His second advent. So it cannot be Jerualem which was destroyed or Roman Government which was destroyed very early in history. She is the metaphorical mother of metaphorical harlot religions (apostate religions) and her greatest manifestation is being clothed under the name of Christianity (as illustrated in the parable of the tares, as predicted by Christ in Matthew 24:24-25 and by Paul (1 Tim. 4:1) and etc. She is institutionalized religion that opposes another metaphorical woman in Rev. 19-21 who is also symbolized as a city. Saints in the harlot are not in the Bride and saints in the bride are not in the harlot. She is Satan's counterfeit church.

Your verses are not applicable.

They most certainly are applicable but your interpretation of them is not.

We do not have to associate only with churches that are like us.

You make this statement but then in the next line you understand your statement can't stand by itself as there must be at least some essential likenesses or your statement is foolish.

They do have to be Christian churches (i.e., another denomination….different but of the same kind). But we do not have to insist that every church adhere to our interpretations, our practices, and our traditions as a “test of fellowship”. That is not only wrong, it is unbiblical.

Let me ask you a series of questions to demonstrate how irrational and unbiblical your position is. You have a standard in your church for what sort of people are acceptable for membership do you not (if you don't you are unbiblical)? Membership is church fellowship as you are determining on a level of church fellowship what you will and will not fellowship with as a church. If you detemine that essential to your church fellowship is a profession of faith in the true gospel by mouth and by baptism, then no other Christians are permitted into church fellowship but are left outside the church. You cannot fellowship with a paedobaptist Reformed denomination without violating your own standard for what you allow into church fellowship. You cannot fellowship with denominations that hold the kind of errors you would removed by church discipline by those brethren existing in your church fellowship. And if you think church discipline is simply for moral and not doctrinal matters then you are sorely informed and poorly educated in the Scriptures.The point is, you cannot bring into church fellowship what your own church will not allow within your own church fellowship without being hypocritical and unbiblical.

Your view is called hyper-fundamentalism and it another step in the ongoing apostasy into religious legalism and paganistic works-based ritual.

lol, that very charge has been the trumpet call of all neo-orthodox Christians since its conception in the late 40's and early 50's of the twenthieth century. I will wear it with honor as it is both Biblical and reasonable.

 

[JonC]

They were all equally constituted as churches of like faith and order with each other in the same apostolic faith. We have letters to them because they went astray from their foundations.

I said “Christian denominations”, not “mystery religions”, “non-Christian organizations”, cults, non-Christian “churches”, etc. So that we are not speaking past each other, I do not accept as a Christian denomination a “church” that is not Christian. Likewise, I refuse to assault Christ by attacking other Christian churches that hold different interpretations and views than I. Your definition of “Cristian denomination” is a bit odd.

Let me ask you a series of questions to demonstrate how irrational and unbiblical your position is. You have a standard in your church for what sort of people are acceptable for membership do you not (if you don't you are unbiblical)? Membership is church fellowship as you are determining on a level of church fellowship what you will and will not fellowship with as a church. If you detemine that essential to your church fellowship is a profession of faith in the true gospel by mouth and by baptism, then no other Christians are permitted into church fellowship but are left outside the church. You cannot fellowship with a paedobaptist Reformed denomination without violating your own standard for what you allow into church fellowship. You cannot fellowship with denominations that hold the kind of errors you would removed by church discipline by those brethren existing in your church fellowship. And if you think church discipline is simply for moral and not doctrinal matters then you are sorely informed and poorly educated in the Scriptures.The point is, you cannot bring into church fellowship what your own church will not allow within your own church fellowship without being hypocritical and unbiblical.

We believe and teach the eternal security of the believer. We do not use this belief as a test of church fellowship. A church can easily fellowship with other Christians and other Christian churches without accepting those individuals or those doctrines within their walls. I do not understand why you think your position here is biblical (the verses you have offered in support do not reflect the argument, they are not applicable). We are not talking about a “different baptism” because that “baptism” is not the water baptism of which you allude. It is being baptized in Christ, the work of which water baptism testifies.

that very charge has been the trumpet call of all neo-orthodox Christians since its conception in the late 40's and early 50's of the twenthieth century. I will wear it with honor as it is both Biblical and reasonable.

Yes, I’ve noticed that the neo-orthodox are often sparked by legitimate concerns and errors within the Church. It is typically that way. The Emergent Church movement also began as a reaction to error within the Church. Perhaps instead of pridefully wearing it as a badge of honor (a haughty spirit) you should examine the error and tweak your doctrine to align more with Scripture.

 

[annsni]

I agree Jon. We partner with churches with the same core beliefs as us. They may have some differences on music, Bible version they use, time of their service, etc. - non essentials - but we agree on the essentials of the faith. The non-negotiables. There is no reason to say that we cannot partner with Grace Church when we have pretty much the same exact statement of belief and even our practices are much the same. They are just in a different town than us. But they are a wonderful church and if I were looking for a church, I would feel fully comfortable becoming a member there. So we partner together on things along with pray for each other, minister to each other and the like.

 

[The Biblicist]

They may have some differences on music, Bible version they use, time of their service, etc. - non essentials - but we agree on the essentials of the faith. The non-negotiables.

And here is the crux of the issue isn't it! What you might define as non-essentials other may define as essential. It seems that your kind (Jon's kind) of church wants to limit the "non-negotiables" merely to what is essential to salvation - period. However, scriptures also include into the area of "non-negotiables" doctrines and practices of service or church related issues.

For example, in the Great Commission baptism stands SECOND. I have said this before and I will say it again, please find either by precept or way of example any such thing as an unbaptized congregation in the scriptures. Where there is no scriptural baptism there can be no true NT congregation. BTW we are not called "Bapitsts" for no reason. If salvation essentials were the only non-negotiables we ought to have been called "Salvationists" but we are called 'Baptists."

Where there is not the:

1. Right mode - immersion only there is no baptism and therefore no true NT church but only wet believers at best and no church to fellowship with.

2. Right candidate - repentant believers in the gospel and where there is no such proper candidates there is no true NT congregation but only wet unregenerates and no church to fellowship with.

3. Right design - public symbolic identification with Christ, his gospel and his church - where these things are deficient there is no true NT church but only wet unregenerates or misguided believers at best and no church to fellowship with.

4. Right administrator - the contextually defined "ye" of the Great Commission and not those identified as "them" in the Great Commission - administrator that is like faith and order with Great Commission essentials. Where this essential is not present there is just wet believers at best and no church to fellowship with.

The proper administration of baptism requires the administrator to identify correctly with every major aspect of Biblical theology and that is why baptism precedes church membership and why the Great Commission restricts the administrator to those like faith and order with churches in the NT.

 

[The Biblicist]

I said “Christian denominations”, not “mystery religions”, “non-Christian organizations”, cults, non-Christian “churches”, etc. So that we are not speaking past each other, I do not accept as a Christian denomination a “church” that is not Christian. Likewise, I refuse to assault Christ by attacking other Christian churches that hold different interpretations and views than I. Your definition of “Cristian denomination” is a bit odd.

You need to reread what you said as your response above has nothing to do with what you said except the use of "Christian denominations." You were making a false and distorted charge as I said no such thing nor implied any such thing as you explicitly said:

You are saying that the church in Jerusalem could not fellowship with the church in Corinth (in fact, this was an issue with the church in Jerusalem and Gentile churches), the church in Galatia could not fellowship with the church in Rome, because they would influence the others by their differences. None of the churches in Acts were the same. While they were united in Christ, none of them had exactly the same doctrine. But nowhere do we see Paul urging isolation from one another.

At no time did I ever say or imply or use such an analogy or even suggest that these were "mystery" religion churches (although their doctrinal heresies that were corrupting them did in fact originate with "mystery Babylon" and her false doctrines and if they had continued in their errors they would have indeed been "mystery religions" under the name of Christianity just as the church of Rome became part of the Mystery Religions under a Christianized veneer).

We believe and teach the eternal security of the believer. We do not use this belief as a test of church fellowship.

Eternal security of the believer MUST be the test of fellowship with regard to doctrine of salvation because denying it is asserting justification by works as nothing but YOUR WORKS (of will or actions) can be attributed for TRUE Christians losing salvation. Please don't give me this malarky about Arminian's doctrine of the free will as an example. If the Arminian doctrine of the free will claims one can will themselves out of salvation than that is a clear cut case of justification by works - period. But you know that evangelical arminians do not believe that for the very reason it contradicts justification by grace without works. They are inconsistent but they know where the line must be drawn between grace and works even with their doctrine of the will and it is the point of eternal security.

A church can easily fellowship with other Christians and other Christian churches without accepting those individuals or those doctrines within their walls. I do not understand why you think your position here is biblical (the verses you have offered in support do not reflect the argument, they are not applicable). We are not talking about a “different baptism” because that “baptism” is not the water baptism of which you allude. It is being baptized in Christ, the work of which water baptism testifies.

As long as you are ignorant of basic essential Biblical truths you will be a captive of this kind of thinking. I have thoroughly exposed the folly of your view of the baptism in the Spirit as it opposes the very essentials of Biblical salvation. The baptism in the Spirit is an ACTION that is fixed in time as a COMPLETED ACTION on Pentecost to the Jewish church at Jerusalem and then repeated as a completed Action upon Gentiles so they could be received into the church by water baptism. In every text prior to Pentecost it is future tense proving it had no prior existence in the manner of its predicted application. In every text prior to Pentecost it is directed towads ONLY water baptized believers in Christ. It is LOCATION fixed as they must wait in "Jerusalem" and therefore it had no UNIVERSAL application to other believers located elsewhere and outside Jerusalem except those "in one accord in one place" (Acts 2:1). It occurs with EXTERNAL phenomena of both SOUNDS and VISIBLE expressions. It is the common ordinary divine accreditation that occurred historically AFTER a new house of God for public worship was completed (Ex. 40:35; 2 Chron. 7:1-3). It had to occur in Jerusalem in direct connection with the Temple or else the Jews would never have accepted it as a replacement for the temple as the public house of worship where a qualified ministry, qualified ordinances, qualified gospel mission, etc.

Your view of the baptism in the Spirit is absolutely heretical and anti-gospel as it pretends to remove sinners out of the "in Adam" state to the "in Christ" state when in fact the Bible clearly and expressly teaches that it is regeneration/quickening as a creative act of God that puts believers "in Christ" (Eph. 2:1-10). Spiritual union is merely the opposite of spiritual separation. Spiritual separation is spiritual death while spiritual union is spritiual life - thus the act of quickening.

We are "in the flesh" because we are "born of the flesh" and thus "in Adam." We are "in the Spirit" because we are BORN of the Spirit, thus "in Christ." No baptism of any kind, no church of any kind is involved in spiritual union with Christ but simple NEW BIRTH. You baptism and church texts refer only to water baptism and the abstract institutional use of ekklesia and its synonyms.

You have a church salvation doctrine and a baptismal salvation doctrine while we preach gospel salvation from Genesis to Revelation.

Yes, I’ve noticed that the neo-orthodox are often sparked by legitimate concerns and errors within the Church. It is typically that way. The Emergent Church movement also began as a reaction to error within the Church.

You have it backwards. Both are errors in reaction to truth.

Perhaps instead of pridefully wearing it as a badge of honor (a haughty spirit) you should examine the error and tweak your doctrine to align more with Scripture.

It is an honor to suffer reproach for the name of Christ. No thank you, why should I exchange the badge of honor for the badge of shame that you are wearing and promoting. Truth separates (Jn. 17:17) while your type of Christianity is a continuing spiriling series of compromises.

I have no ill will toward your person but your doctrine I utterly despise and hate as you can probably tell.

 

[JonC]

You were making a false and distorted charge

Brother, with all due respect, you need to revisit your posts to me. I was not making a charge at all. You corrected my rephrasing of what I thought you said (I apologize if you took that restatement as imposing upon you a belief) in post #11. I was stating what I took your post to mean (and what, in truth, I still think the logical outcome of your convictions). But as you state that your conclusion does not extend to all doctrine (that it does not extend to differing doctrines within the churches of Acts), I left it alone and accepted your response. It is not, in my opinion, logical because the crux of what is acceptable goes beyond Christ and the gospel message and is determined by you (or other men with whom you find agreement). But that is just a difference we will not reconcile here.

At no time did I ever use such an analogy or even suggest that these were "mystery" religion churches

I stated that I believed that Christians and Christian churches could fellowship across denominational lines. Twice you introduced these mystery religions (once by posting the verse in Revelation and once by expounding to affirm you were referring to these mystery religions).

Eternal security of the believer MUST be the test of fellowship with regard to doctrine of salvation because denying it is asserting justification by works as nothing but YOUR WORKS (of will or actions) can be attributed for TRUE Christians losing salvation.

I disagree. You are imposing your "logical conclusions" on others by this statement. There are Christians who deny the eternal security of the believer without asserting justification by works. With you, I believe that denying eternal security logically leads to a works based salvation, but many holding that doctrine simply do not follow that logic.

As long as you are ignorant of basic essential Biblical truths you will be a captive of this kind of thinking.

You confuse ignorance with fully rejecting your conclusions. I am saying that far too often we see people blinded by what Spurgeon called "puffery in doctrine". I am saying that this is you. I understand exactly what you mean and I understand exactly the logical conclusions of your doctrine here. You reject Scriptural authority in favor of romish cohesion.

I have thoroughly exposed the folly of your view of the baptism in the Spirit as it opposes the very essentials of Biblical salvation.

You don't even know my view of the baptism in the Spirit. My point was that "baptism" is not always (or perhaps even most of the time" the symbolic water baptism in which you seem to place so much faith. When we talk of the "same baptism" we (Baptists who do not believe in baptismal regeneration) typically speak of the salvation of which baptism symbolizes. Your error is the divide between the Stone-Campbell movement and legitimate Baptist churches (which does, come to think of it, go right along with Landmarkism). Your doctrine seems more in line with Campbellism than it does with Baptist theology, and unfortunately you seem right at the line of that heresy.

You have a church salvation doctrine and a baptismal salvation doctrine while we preach gospel salvation from Genesis to Revelation.

Yes, I've heard this argument several times. I live in middle Tennessee and we have a lot of people who advocate your views. I can't tell you how many time's I've listened to - "We preach gospel salvation while y'all preach a church salvation doctrine"; "We follow Jesus while y'all follow men", "We are the true Church of Christ while y'all are denominations". I am VERY familiar with your doctrine, and I reject it. This is the first time, however, I've heard it proclaimed by a professing Baptist.

Edited - I just realized this was the "Other Denomination" section. I took for granted that you considered yourself "Baptist" and my concern here had been that you've presented doctrine contrary to Baptist doctrine (your view here was rejected over a century ago, at least by the SBC).

 

[JonC]

I agree Jon. We partner with churches with the same core beliefs as us. They may have some differences on music, Bible version they use, time of their service, etc. - non essentials - but we agree on the essentials of the faith. The non-negotiables. There is no reason to say that we cannot partner with Grace Church when we have pretty much the same exact statement of belief and even our practices are much the same. They are just in a different town than us. But they are a wonderful church and if I were looking for a church, I would feel fully comfortable becoming a member there. So we partner together on things along with pray for each other, minister to each other and the like.

I agree, Ann. Even then (among differing churches with the same core beliefs - "essentials of the faith"), I wouldn't advocate having pastors across denominational lines fill the pulpit or teach. There is a difference between fellowship among churches across denominational lines and compromising doctrine within these churches.

 

[TCassidy]

It is now time for the emotionally and spiritually mature response. Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?

Okay, I'll give it a try. First off let's define what we mean. I am a "Baptist." But what does that mean? I view "Baptist" as not being a denominational name but a doctrinal identity so I can fellowship with people from "Bible Churches" "Christian Churches" "Community Churches" etc., if they have the same general beliefs that I hold.

But we must also define what we are talking about when we say "fellowship."

Fellowship is two fold. Personal fellowship (who I fellowship and cooperate with) and Ecclesiastical fellowship (other churches that our church fellowships and cooperates with).

For instance, I just returned from the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. I sat in meetings, sat and talked with, and had lunch with, many different brands of Christians. Some of those Christians held to doctrines very similar to where I stand. Some did not.

Some believed in believer's baptism and some believed in sprinkling babies.

Some believed in Covenant Theology and some believed in Dispensationalism.

Some believed in Particular Atonement and some believed in General Atonement.

Some were Baptists. Some were Methodists. Some were Presbyterians. Some were Lutherans. Some were Seventh Day Adventists.

I could, and did, enjoy personal fellowship with all of the above.

But because of doctrinal differences, I would not advise my church to yoke up with many of them because our doctrines were too divisive.

And be assured doctrine divides! It divides truth from error. Orthodoxy from Heterodoxy. Harmony from Heresy.

So, on a church level I would choose to remain separate from many of the above.

But on a personal level I can enjoy a talk, a lunch, or other personal fellowship with anyone who claims the Name of Christ.

My most enjoyable time at ETS was spent with those I am in virtually total agreement with.

But I also had a great time talking and fellowshipping with a man who was baby sprinking, amillennial Lutheran!

 

[utilyan]

In the Bible the apostles put up with church with differences. Notice evil's style: "unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church."

They themselves are accused of evil. Doesn't want contact and forbids other, and kicks them out of church.


The response isn't well Diotrephes's church is a false religion, to hell with those people lets kickem out like he does us.

The advice is not to be like them:
Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God.

You don't disfellowship, you set a proper example.


3 john

1The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth.
2Beloved, I pray that in all respects you may prosper and be in good health, just as your soul prospers. 3For I was very glad when brethren came and testified to your truth, that is, how you are walking in truth. 4I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth.
5Beloved, you are acting faithfully in whatever you accomplish for the brethren, and especially when they are strangers; 6and they have testified to your love before the church. You will do well to send them on their way in a manner worthy of God. 7For they went out for the sake of the Name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles. 8Therefore we ought to support such men, so that we may be fellow workers with the truth.
9I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. 10For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.
11Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God. 12Demetrius has received a good testimony from everyone, and from the truth itself; and we add our testimony, and you know that our testimony is true.
13I had many things to write to you, but I am not willing to write them to you with pen and ink;
14but I hope to see you shortly, and we will speak face to face.
15 Peace be to you. The friends greet you. Greet the friends by name.


continued:

 

[utilyan]

To a Christian another denomination is nothing, You ought to be able to even handle Muslims and Pagans.

Acts 17
22So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. 23“For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. 24“The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ 29“Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. 30“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”


Christians even deal with people of differ opinions.


Romans 14
1Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.

Romans 14
13Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way. 14I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. 16Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; 17for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. 20Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. 21It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. 22The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

One group of folks might say no alcohol I'm not going to drink a beer in front of them, or eat meat, pray on wrong day, or wear something to offend them.

Finger-pointing, Blaming and Fault-finding has always been a Christian past time, even in the bible.

I Know I have a blast doing it here everyday.

They don't call devil ACCUSER for no reason. The tattle tale.

All splits and divisions among churches will be centered here with a finger-pointing, blaming faultfinding, and accusation of the other faith.


Colossians 3
12So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; 13bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. 14Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity.


Love is the perfect glue. Someone who follows a Christ like example. Puts on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience, There is no greater indicator to another they are doing something wrong then a perfect example someone doing right.