The Church of God Movement

[Sudsy]

Question - regarding who to fellowship with in a local church

In Matthew 13:24-30 we have the parable of the weeds. Verse 30 NKJV ends with -

Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.” ’ ”

But then in 1 Cor 5:13 AMP Paul writes -

God alone sits in judgment on those who are outside [the faith]. REMOVE THE WICKED ONE FROM AMONG YOU [expel him from your church].

Now it would seem that those churches often regarded here as 'liberal' apply the Matthew text to the local church (MBs for instance) whereas those regarded 'conservative' here apply the 1 Cor text.

So what do you believe the Matthew text is referring to when it says 'Let both grow together until the harvest' ? If this is not with regard to the local church, then what is it with regard to ?

Open to everyone to respond.

The Matthew passage addresses Christendom, i.e. everyone claiming to be Christian/ have Christian values and such, but not necessarily to be born again.

So, how do we 'let them grow together' ? Does this mean to not go and try to eliminate them from the earth as some did, for instance, during the Inquisition which began in the 12th century ?

1. Cor. 5.13 first half speaks of the unbelievers, second half you capslocked speaks of the Church (i.e. only believers).

By thw way, I didn't capslock this. This is directly from the Amplified version of scripture.

We are not to judge unbelievers or to find out who is truly a believer and who is only claiming to be one. But if sin happens in the Church, the Church must use disciplinary measures including the ban.

So, are you saying that we don't have any right to pass judgment on anyone outside our local church i.e. Trump, others here on this forum, etc. ?

[ohio jones]

1. Cor. 5.13 first half speaks of the unbelievers, second half you capslocked speaks of the Church (i.e. only believers).

By thw way, I didn't capslock this. This is directly from the Amplified version of scripture.

HAVE YOU LOOKED INTO GETTING HEARING AIDS INSTEAD OF USING THE AMPLIFIED VERSION?

[Judas Maccabeus]

That sounded familiar. Our church has its origins at the same time, mixing anabaptist and holiness elements (among others), claiming to reflect early church practice (it‘s even called Apostolic Christian Church in the US), and the founder (Bro. S. H. Fröhlich) initially also stated he never wanted to start a sect. It became just that and also split multiple times.

Incredible how many sects spawned out of these early 19 century awakenings movements, be it in the US, the UK or continental Europe. Undeniably the Spirit was working powerfully at that time. Darby dispies affirm it was the time of Philadelphia, one of the good churches of the seven churches of Rev. 2/3, whereas now we are seeing many Laodicean churches, that have become lukewarm.

Same thing was happening on this side of the Atlantic. The mixture of Anabaptist and holiness elements here is most clearly displayed by churches that relate to the revivals of Martin Boehm and Philip William Otterbein. Both were holiness revival preachers, Boehm a Mennonite and Otterbien reformed. The hybrid of this are the United Brethren, and, less directly, the Brethren in Christ. The conservative offshoot of the Brethren in Christ is the Old Order River Brethren and the United Zion church. Martin Boehm and Philip William Otterbein never founded any of these, Boehm eventually became a Methodist, and Otterbien seems to have remained in the reformed church. Same thing happened later with what we call the Bible Fellowship, formerly Mennonite Brethren in Christ, Pennsylvania Conference. It was a result of Holiness revival. Interestingly enough, the Bible Fellowship is now largely reformed. Who would have thought that?

[Judas Maccabeus]

Of all things that were relevant to this article, Eastern Orthodoxy is not one of them.

But the St Thomas sects in India aren’t even Eastern Orthodox; they were Church of the East, and there have been myriad schisms in the last century in that particular group.

The Saint Thomas Christians had been historically a part of the hierarchy of the Church of the East but are now divided into several different Eastern Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, Protestant, and independent bodies, each with their own liturgies and traditions.

Valerie,

What spoke to us while there- they were just like other Eastern Orthodox Churches we visited & with Thomas starting their Church in India so far from other EO areas, it really affirms their worship beliefs & practices- the man on the radio was surprised that American Christians were ,"surprised" about 2000 yr church in this part of India.

This is akin to visiting a Beachy church in Poland and then celebrating how the Amish are a 2,000 year old church in that part of Europe.

https://www.stgregorioscleveland.com/

There ya go Josh. They do call themselves Orthodox, that's why we stopped in. And they are just like Eastern Orthodox in all ways we could see. I realize the Chalcedony Council was to address the difference that came about, nonetheless they consider themselves Eastern Orthodox. If you attended a service in both you would not pick up on a difference. And no denomination resembles Orthodox, maybe Byzantine Catholics somewhat

We were to take some things away from the article & what I took away from it among other things is you cannot keep starting "the Church," over & over. The Church was established guided and protected by the Holy Spirit & schisms happen. Especially in certain denominations- something you can conclude from the article

Mar Thoma? A schism factory, here is their family tree:

[ohio jones]

That sounded familiar. Our church has its origins at the same time, mixing anabaptist and holiness elements (among others), claiming to reflect early church practice (it‘s even called Apostolic Christian Church in the US), and the founder (Bro. S. H. Fröhlich) initially also stated he never wanted to start a sect. It became just that and also split multiple times.

Incredible how many sects spawned out of these early 19 century awakenings movements, be it in the US, the UK or continental Europe. Undeniably the Spirit was working powerfully at that time. Darby dispies affirm it was the time of Philadelphia, one of the good churches of the seven churches of Rev. 2/3, whereas now we are seeing many Laodicean churches, that have become lukewarm.

Same thing was happening on this side of the Atlantic. The mixture of Anabaptist and holiness elements here is most clearly displayed by churches that relate to the revivals of Martin Boehm and Philip William Otterbein. Both were holiness revival preachers, Boehm a Mennonite and Otterbien reformed. The hybrid of this are the United Brethren, and, less directly, the Brethren in Christ. The conservative offshoot of the Brethren in Christ is the Old Order River Brethren and the United Zion church. Martin Boehm and Philip William Otterbein never founded any of these, Boehm eventually became a Methodist, and Otterbien seems to have remained in the reformed church. Same thing happened later with what we call the Bible Fellowship, formerly Mennonite Brethren in Christ, Pennsylvania Conference. It was a result of Holiness revival. Interestingly enough, the Bible Fellowship is now largely reformed. Who would have thought that?

The United Brethren, meanwhile, split into New Constitution and Old Constitution groups. The Old Constitution group was led by Milton Wright (father of Orville and Wilbur) and continues today as the United Brethren in Christ. The New Constitution group eventually merged with the Evangelical Church (itself a merger of the Evangelical Association and the United Evangelical Church) to form the Evangelical United Brethren Church. This group then merged with the Methodist Church to form the United Methodist Church. The one we are discussing the disunity of in other threads.

That's today's lesson on church history and taxonomy.

[Valerie]

Of all things that were relevant to this article, Eastern Orthodoxy is not one of them.

But the St Thomas sects in India aren’t even Eastern Orthodox; they were Church of the East, and there have been myriad schisms in the last century in that particular group.



Valerie,



This is akin to visiting a Beachy church in Poland and then celebrating how the Amish are a 2,000 year old church in that part of Europe.

https://www.stgregorioscleveland.com/

There ya go Josh. They do call themselves Orthodox, that's why we stopped in. And they are just like Eastern Orthodox in all ways we could see. I realize the Chalcedony Council was to address the difference that came about, nonetheless they consider themselves Eastern Orthodox. If you attended a service in both you would not pick up on a difference. And no denomination resembles Orthodox, maybe Byzantine Catholics somewhat

We were to take some things away from the article & what I took away from it among other things is you cannot keep starting "the Church," over & over. The Church was established guided and protected by the Holy Spirit & schisms happen. Especially in certain denominations- something you can conclude from the article

Mar Thoma? A schism factory, here is their family tree:

You confirmed 2 points I made,
1. St. Thomas started the Church in India so it's roots are there in Orrhodoxy-
2. Schisms happen.

If Schisms happen, do we dismiss entire denominations because they are noted for having schisms?
Would we dismiss the Anabaptist movement that today has massive scisms since it's beginning? Obviously not, right?

[Soloist]

You confirmed 2 points I made,
1. St. Thomas started the Church in India so it's roots are there in Orrhodoxy-
2. Schisms happen.

If Schisms happen, do we dismiss entire denominations because they are noted for having schisms?
Would we dismiss the Anabaptist movement that today has massive scisms since it's beginning? Obviously not, right?

Schisms have existed in every group since the beginning. Read the reasons they had these councils to begin with. To brand one idea as heresy or another. To argue that these groups don’t have splits is just as silly as JW arguing the same thing.

[Judas Maccabeus]

https://www.stgregorioscleveland.com/

There ya go Josh. They do call themselves Orthodox, that's why we stopped in. And they are just like Eastern Orthodox in all ways we could see. I realize the Chalcedony Council was to address the difference that came about, nonetheless they consider themselves Eastern Orthodox. If you attended a service in both you would not pick up on a difference. And no denomination resembles Orthodox, maybe Byzantine Catholics somewhat

We were to take some things away from the article & what I took away from it among other things is you cannot keep starting "the Church," over & over. The Church was established guided and protected by the Holy Spirit & schisms happen. Especially in certain denominations- something you can conclude from the article

Mar Thoma? A schism factory, here is their family tree:

You confirmed 2 points I made,
1. St. Thomas started the Church in India so it's roots are there in Orrhodoxy-
2. Schisms happen.

If Schisms happen, do we dismiss entire denominations because they are noted for having schisms?
Would we dismiss the Anabaptist movement that today has massive scisms since it's beginning? Obviously not, right?

Would you stop in if you found an Orthodox Mennonite Church?

[Josh]

I claim St Thomas as being one of the progenitors of my own church as well, so it is just as sensible to view everyone else as in schism from my own denomination. (See how that works?) And there is indeed an Orthodox Mennonite Church - from what I understand, it has never had any schisms and has so far had exactly one person leave it since its founding (the notable Peter Hoover, actually).

[Soloist]

I claim St Thomas as being one of the progenitors of my own church as well, so it is just as sensible to view everyone else as in schism from my own denomination. (See how that works?) And there is indeed an Orthodox Mennonite Church - from what I understand, it has never had any schisms and has so far had exactly one person leave it since its founding (the notable Peter Hoover, actually).

I have it on good authority that he is a heretic so he doesn’t count.