Well meaning men look to the Bible for patterns to prove their religious views. And while it is true that anything can be proved by the Bible, the proofs of men do not necessarily constitute truth. The Bible says that Herod was a fox, so I have proved that Herod was a fox. An inane illustration, yes, but no sillier than some of the conclusions that legal patternists have drawn from the New Testament writings. For example, to insist that all "corporate worship services" must be conducted in an upper room is ludicrous. To insist that cups, used in the Lord's supper observance, must have handles is carrying patternism to the extreme. To insist that all praying in "the corporate worship service" must be on bended knee is majoring in minors. To argue that the bread must be broken before blessing it is really stretching. To insist on snake handling is outrageous. But far worse is to build parties around these practices and enforce them as tests of fellowship. To believe and practice them is one thing, but to exclude sincere brethren because of them is heresy. It is the divisiveness which God hates. Proverbs 6:l6-l7 and Galatians 5:20.

These ridiculous examples were used merely to bring us to the question at hand: What makes us think that our creedal stances are any better? What makes us think that we can make void the commandment of God and count our brother at nought because he disagrees with us? What makes us think that we have any more right than anyone else to force our creedal positions upon others as tests of fellowship? What makes us think that our creedal positions are better than theirs? In short, what makes us think that we are better than them? We should never count a brother for nought. We should never put ourselves in a position to judge another man's servant, and we should never consider ourselves better than any other brother. See Romans l4:4, 1'st Corinthians 4:7, and 1'st Corinthians l2:2l.

So far, these remarks would probably garner a few amens, so long as I don't start listing specifics from our own creedal warehouse. So, without listing them, I will beat around the bush with a few questions.

What is God's position on whether or not brethren should associate with one another? In other words, are there legitimate tests of fellowship? As I have already indicated, I would like to approach these questions from a round- about way. God's position, as relates to brotherly association, is LOVE. This theme is maintained throughout Scripture. Any theme which does not agree with it should be viewed with extreme suspicion. The New Testament writings give a clarion call to "love one another", to "accept one another", to "carry one another's burdens", to "put up with one another", and to "endure one another in love". See 1'st John 5:l, Romans l5:7, Galatians 6:2, Colossians 3:l3, and Ephesians 4:2. Whatever course of action we may choose to take toward any brother it must be tempered with this theme. Love is the overshadowing messsage.On it rests the law and the prophets. It is the first and second in importance. Our attitude of heart toward our brethren is of primary importance, for how can we love our fellowman in general if we cannot love our own brethren, for whom Christ died, in the specific.

And yet, God has a negative admonition concerning brotherly association, and His position on it is also very clear. Any position which does not agree with this theme should also be viewed with extreme suspicion. We are not to associate with a brother who is evil, a brother who is divisive, and/or a brother who denies the Deity of Jesus. Now we have both God's positive and negative positions on brethren associating with one another. One observation is tremendously important at this point and that observation is this: All three of these negative categories involve SIN. They involve CLEAR-CUT, UNDILUTED, UNMISTAKABLE, CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE, SIN.

Now in closing, as I continue to beat around the bush, before we attempt to enforce any conclusion, outside the realm of salvation by grace through faith, as a test of fellowship, we are under obligation to point out the clearly identifiable sin our brother is guilty of and show by the Scriptures that God demands our withdrawal from him. We are under obligation to show that to disagree with us on this conclusion is to sin against God. We need to be very careful in this, because elevating the importance of our own conclusions could very well result in our "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men". We need to be very careful to not let our disdain for brethren who disagree with us outweigh the Scriptural admonition to love one another. Let us sincerely try to accept one another, as Christ accepted us, to the glory of God. Let us not reject one another to the shame of God.

Please consider these thoughts in light of God's Word. I believe them to be true.

Write The Author

Back To Living Stones

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page