Who can be a believer?

[Soloist]

I don’t judge others but it’s pretty clear what Jesus says.

Is killing good fruit? Or bad fruit?

Well, Jesus said a lot of other things (particularly about wealth) that we don't make binding to decide if someone is a sincere Christian believer.

Is hoarding wealth good fruit or bad fruit?

[JohnH]

Is hoarding wealth good fruit or bad fruit?

Obviously bad. But I would hesitate to say someone who does can't be a Christian believer.

[Ernie]

Is hoarding wealth good fruit or bad fruit?

Obviously bad. But I would hesitate to say someone who does can't be a Christian believer.

So obviously bad, whether glorifying war, or glorifying wealth, correct?

That is why I don't think we should get into whether people can or cannot be Christian believers who are involved in these things. Who are we to affirm or condemn? Who are we to say who are Christian believers and who are not? I think the Old Woodcutter would say we should not make such judgments. We don't have enough information to make such judgments.

[Soloist]

All I can say is

Mat 7:15  Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16  Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mat 7:17  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mat 7:19  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20  Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

So, either Jesus was speaking literally which I believe, or figuratively.

[JohnH]

So obviously bad, whether glorifying war, or glorifying wealth, correct?

I was thinking more of actually engaging in war (or being willing to do so), and likewise actually accumulating wealth (or desiring to do so).

That is why I don't think we should get into whether people can or cannot be Christian believers who are involved in these things. Who are we to affirm or condemn? Who are we to say who are Christian believers and who are not? I think the Old Woodcutter would say we should not make such judgments. We don't have enough information to make such judgments.

I'm not sure who the Old Woodcutter is, but I would hesitate to say we "can't make such judgments". To be put it this way, I'd rather not find myself at a communion service with Pete Hegseth.

[Ernie]

That is why I don't think we should get into whether people can or cannot be Christian believers who are involved in these things. Who are we to affirm or condemn? Who are we to say who are Christian believers and who are not? I think the Old Woodcutter would say we should not make such judgments. We don't have enough information to make such judgments.

I'm not sure who the Old Woodcutter is, but I would hesitate to say we "can't make such judgments". To be put it this way, I'd rather not find myself at a communion service with Pete Hegseth.

https://maxlucado.com/woodcutters-wisdo ... e-stories/

I think there is reason to not commune with Hegseth for a whole host of reasons, without even looking at his beliefs about God & country/church & state/military & nonresistance.

I was thinking that we cannot judge people who are generally living devout and blameless lives, yet have lots of money they have not given away yet, (people who are known to be quite generous) or people who hate war and violence but reluctantly go to war only when they believe there is a moral imperative that they as Christians must participate in. (stopping Hitler for example)
I would not commune with such folks, but I would not say that they can or cannot be a Christian believer.

[JohnH]

I think there is reason to not commune with Hegseth for a whole host of reasons, without even looking at his beliefs about God & country/church & state/military & nonresistance.

That's odd. So you'd be OK with communing with a nice (for example) Baptist family that mostly had the "right" beliefs about God, but just happens to not be entirely nonresistant? (For example, they're opposed to this current war, they just don't have a strict stance against fighting in a war at all.)

I was thinking that we cannot judge people who are generally living devout and blameless lives, yet have lots of money they have not given away yet, (people who are known to be quite generous) or people who hate war and violence but reluctantly go to war only when they believe there is a moral imperative that they as Christians must participate in. (stopping Hitler for example)
I would not commune with such folks, but I would not say that they can or cannot be a Christian believer.

"Stopping Hitler for example" seems like a rather slippery slope - basically, as if it's OK for Christians to fight in war and engage in violence provided the cause is just enough. I have a hard time understanding the rubric by which such decisions are made. (Is it OK to fight to stop Stalin? Pol Pot? Is it OK to stop Trump, if you think he's going to a really bad thing to Iran? What level of violence is acceptable and still be living a "devout and blameless life"?)

[Ernie]

I think there is reason to not commune with Hegseth for a whole host of reasons, without even looking at his beliefs about God & country/church & state/military & nonresistance.

That's odd. So you'd be OK with communing with a nice (for example) Baptist family that mostly had the "right" beliefs about God, but just happens to not be entirely nonresistant? (For example, they're opposed to this current war, they just don't have a strict stance against fighting in a war at all.)

I would not commune with such folks, but I would not say that they can or cannot be a Christian believer.

I was thinking that we cannot judge people who are generally living devout and blameless lives, yet have lots of money they have not given away yet, (people who are known to be quite generous) or people who hate war and violence but reluctantly go to war only when they believe there is a moral imperative that they as Christians must participate in. (stopping Hitler for example)
I would not commune with such folks, but I would not say that they can or cannot be a Christian believer.

"Stopping Hitler for example" seems like a rather slippery slope - basically, as if it's OK for Christians to fight in war and engage in violence provided the cause is just enough. I have a hard time understanding the rubric by which such decisions are made. (Is it OK to fight to stop Stalin? Pol Pot? Is it OK to stop Trump, if you think he's going to a really bad thing to Iran? What level of violence is acceptable and still be living a "devout and blameless life"?)

I agree. That is why I would not commune with these folks.

[JohnH]

I suppose I am wondering what the basis for a sectarian view of communion is if one thinks someone else is a sincere Christian believer, but is unwilling to commune with them. (I have my own basis for that, but I have a different view of church than the rest of you here do.)

Specifically, I find it odd to try to create a "big tent" of what Christianity is and simultaneously have some kind of higher standard. Either the Bible and Jesus calls us to a higher standard, or he doesn't; it doesn't seem that there's some lower tier that is acceptable.

[Valerie]

I suppose I am wondering what the basis for a sectarian view of communion is if one thinks someone else is a sincere Christian believer, but is unwilling to commune with them. (I have my own basis for that, but I have a different view of church than the rest of you here do.)

Specifically, I find it odd to try to create a "big tent" of what Christianity is and simultaneously have some kind of higher standard. Either the Bible and Jesus calls us to a higher standard, or he doesn't; it doesn't seem that there's some lower tier that is acceptable.

An Amish man I know (he’s Mennonite now) always said “Jesus had communion with Judas and washed His feet”. Was he wrong for his view?