Brotherhood

[Raven180]

Another interesting aspect in regards to the original question is from Hebrews 2:11,

...he is not ashamed to call them brethren

Just as we sometimes obsess about whether or not someone "knows the Lord" more than we consider whether or not the "Lord knows" that particular someone, (e.g. Matthew 7:21-23) maybe we are stressing more on whether or not someone is our brother, when perhaps we ought to be considering more whether or not both we and that "someone" are called "brother" by the Lord Jesus.

Personally, I care more about Jesus knowing me, and wanting to make sure that He is not ashamed to call me His brother. Likewise, in my opinion, it's more important to make sure Jesus knows someone and that He calls them brother as opposed to us insisting that so and so does or doesn't know Jesus and/or whether or not we consider so and so a "brother". Because, if Jesus knows them and calls them brother, we can (and should) do no less than He.

Hence we need the "mind of Christ" and not our own, to answer this question. My attempts in this post have been, by using Scripture, to help us determine the "mind of Christ".

1. So far we know that Jesus considers someone to be His brother if they do the will of God. He is not ashamed to call such a person His brother.

2. We know Jesus told Ananias that Saul would be His chosen vessel. From this we can infer that through God's foreknowledge, Ananias was being assured that Saul would be saved/born again. (Since Saul had not yet received the Holy Spirit, we can rightly affirm that as of that time, Saul didn't "belong to Christ" according to what he himself wrote years later in Romans 8:9. Therefore, it's by foreknowledge of God, and not because Saul was already saved/born again prior to Ananias' arrival.)

3. We can then safely assume that Jesus knew Saul would "do the will of God", i.e. fulfill his calling and mission to be Christ's chosen vessel.

4. So we can see that Ananias was completely comfortable calling Saul "Brother", in whatever context he used the word, whether ethnically/nationally, or spiritually, or simply as having faith in Saul's future salvation once Ananias arrived to pray for him to receive the Holy Spirit and baptize him in the name of the Lord Jesus.

[Raven180]

What conclusions, therefore, can we so far make about the question "Who is my brother?"

My brother is whoever Jesus is not ashamed to call brother to Himself, because He knows that such a person is a doer of the will of God, even if, prior to their salvation (like Saul) they will do the will of God by eventually becoming or getting saved and continuing in such thereafter, according to God's own foreknowledge about that person.

Since we do not have God's foreknowledge available to us aside from Him imparting it, I think it's safe to assume that all people everywhere are candidates for salvation and that it's possible that all people everywhere are capable, by God's grace, of doing God's will. Therefore, I believe it behooves us to never not being willing to call anyone "brother", because at any given time, they, like Saul, may get saved and become a doer of the will of God, even if, as of this time, they have not been saved, neither done the will of God.

It's a case of calling those things that are not as though they are. I call such and such a person "brother", not because he is, but because by faith, he may become my brother at anytime, which is my desire and hope for all people everywhere. Therefore, the title brother is not one merited by them or anyone, i.e. by their current standing regarding God's grace and salvation, but rather the title brother is used as a signifier of what can be and hopefully what will be. As Jesus Himself said, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me" thereby "bringing many sons unto glory" (John 12:32, Hebrews 2:10).

From Christ's point of view (i.e. the eternal) there are potentially millions or more people that He already calls or considers to be His "brother", even though they are not yet saved and doing God's willing at this point in time because for Jesus, He knows that they will be saved and will do the will of God. From His point of view, it's already accomplished according to God's foreknowledge. It has yet only to occur in real time in this world, i.e. the temporal realm of Earth. Therefore, everyone we meet is that potential brother that God knows will be saved and do His will. Therefore everyone is potentially our brother. By being unwilling to call everyone and treat everyone as our "brother", we run the risk of not only decreasing our faith in the possibility of that person ever becoming our brother through salvation and adoption, we also run the risk of defying God by refusing to call someone brother that Jesus Himself willingly, and rightfully, does, albeit in the heavenlies, beyond time, just like Saul of Tarsus was Christ's and Ananias' (and our) brother prior to being born again.

[Brother Dad]

What conclusions, therefore, can we so far make about the question "Who is my brother?"

My brother is whoever Jesus is not ashamed to call brother to Himself, because He knows that such a person is a doer of the will of God, even if, prior to their salvation (like Saul) they will do the will of God by eventually becoming or getting saved and continuing in such thereafter, according to God's own foreknowledge about that person.

Since we do not have God's foreknowledge available to us aside from Him imparting it, I think it's safe to assume that all people everywhere are candidates for salvation and that it's possible that all people everywhere are capable, by God's grace, of doing God's will. Therefore, I believe it behooves us to never not being willing to call anyone "brother", because at any given time, they, like Saul, may get saved and become a doer of the will of God, even if, as of this time, they have not been saved, neither done the will of God.

It's a case of calling those things that are not as though they are. I call such and such a person "brother", not because he is, but because by faith, he may become my brother at anytime, which is my desire and hope for all people everywhere. Therefore, the title brother is not one merited by them or anyone, i.e. by their current standing regarding God's grace and salvation, but rather the title brother is used as a signifier of what can be and hopefully what will be. As Jesus Himself said, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me" thereby "bringing many sons unto glory" (John 12:32, Hebrews 2:10).

From Christ's point of view (i.e. the eternal) there are potentially millions or more people that He already calls or considers to be His "brother", even though they are not yet saved and doing God's willing at this point in time because for Jesus, He knows that they will be saved and will do the will of God. From His point of view, it's already accomplished according to God's foreknowledge. It has yet only to occur in real time in this world, i.e. the temporal realm of Earth. Therefore, everyone we meet is that potential brother that God knows will be saved and do His will. Therefore everyone is potentially our brother. By being unwilling to call everyone and treat everyone as our "brother", we run the risk of not only decreasing our faith in the possibility of that person ever becoming our brother through salvation and adoption, we also run the risk of defying God by refusing to call someone brother that Jesus Himself willingly, and rightfully, does, albeit in the heavenlies, beyond time, just like Saul of Tarsus was Christ's and Ananias' (and our) brother prior to being born again.

If I call every man brother than what is the importance of it. Why bother if everyone is called Brother then why not just refer to them my their name.  Even with Saul, he had repented before Annas came to him and called him Brother.   Sorry but we don't come to same conclusion. 

[Brother Dad]

Another interesting aspect in regards to the original question is from Hebrews 2:11,

[

AV-sanctify 26, hallow 2, be holy 1; 29

To make holy, consecrate, sanctify
1) to dedicate, separate, set apart for God
1a) Of things {#Mt 23:17,9 2Ti 2:21}
1b) Of persons: Christ {#Joh 10:36 17:19}
2) To purify, make conformable in character to such dedication
2a) Forensically, to free from guilt {#1Co 6:11 Eph 5:26 Heb 2:11 10:10,14,29 13:12}
2b) Internally, by actual sanctification of life {#Joh 17:17,19 Ac 20:32 26:18 Ro 15:16 1Co 1:2 7:14 1Th 5:23 Re 22:11}
2c) Of a non-believer influenced by marriage with a Christian {#1Co 7:14}
3) In the intermediate sense of ceremonial or levitical purification
3a) Of things {#2Ti 2:21}
3b) Of persons {#Heb 9:13}
4) To treat as holy {#Mt 6:9 Lu 11:2 1Pe 3:15}

He calls those he has cleansed, Brethren 

[Raven180]

It's not so much that we have to, by some kind of command or demand, call everyone brother, so much as that we need to be willing to treat everyone as a brother since each person in the world has the potential to become our brother if and when they obey the will of God. From our perspective, so and so might not be a brother in the Lord if they have not, as of yet, obeyed Acts 2:38.

This is fine and acceptable, because as matter of literal fact, they haven't obeyed God's will for salvation. I readily confess this and believe it.

I was only trying to point out how the "mind of Christ" might operate differently from our own in terms of who we call brother, or consider to be brother. From His point of view, knowing by omniscient foreknowledge, who will and will not be saved, makes a lot more people our brothers than we currently are aware of (or want to admit), only because from our vantage point, their salvation has not yet occured.

Just as someone who got saved (whom we would call brother) can fall away, renounce Christ and die lost, and therefore no longer be our "brother", so too can lots of people (who we do not call brother) be lost right now, but get saved, and become our "brother".

In terms of Hebrews 2:11, I grant that only those that Christ sanctifies are truly His brethren, i.e. those that do the will of God. This is right and true.

In my previous post, I only speak of the possible reality, that, from the end to the beginning, God, knowing who would be saved and who would be lost, considers, from an eternal point of view, someone as already being sanctified, since God knows that it will surely occur at a certain point in time. For us, that point in time for someone may be 16 months, 3 days, 10 hours, 5 minutes and 33 seconds from right now. And until that time, from our point of view, we don't see them as sanctified/saved, nor as our brother. Rightly so, from our human, limited point of view.

But from Genesis 1:1, from the very foundation of the earth, according to God's foreknowledge, that person that we are waiting 16 months, etc for to be saved, is already fait accompli from heaven's point of view. To God, it's just as much of a reality as Jesus being the Word made flesh and the Lamb slain since the foundation of the world, even though it only literally occured in our temporal realm at a specific point in an certain epoch of human history. This is the mystery of the kingdom that Paul often wrote about. The formation of the church as a living reality in the mind of God since the beginning of creation.

Since we don't have God's omniscience to know aforehand who will be and who won't be saved, I suggest only that we be willing to consider all people everywhere brothers, in the chance that they just might be the next in the long line of people that God saves. We won't know until we see it. But God knew it before we ourselves were saved, even before we ourselves were created in our mother's womb. So that person was and is just as much a brother of Christ as we are, in the "mind of Christ", because the "mind of Christ" knew that person would be saved just as much as the "mind of Christ" knew we would be saved, too. It's just that, in this example, we were saved, as we see it, first, i.e. before they were. But from God's mind, all was concluded, including everyone who would and wouldn't be saved, all at the same time, making that person we know who we refuse to call brother our brother from God's point of view, if and when that same person eventually does get saved.

PS. Please understand I am not, nor ever will advocate predestination as taught by Calvinists or others of that sort. I speak only of foreknowledge, not of God forcing the issue of someone's salvation or damnation according to some idea of irrestible grace, or election not involving the individual human's desire to be saved.

[OGIA]

My main problem is with how broadly you are applying Paul's scenario and the principle behind it, Raven.  Ananias had full knowledge (ie: faith) that Saul would become a "saved" Paul.  When I have that same word from God I will have no problem calling another person my brother before they have obeyed the Gospel.  I haven't gotten that word about anyone yet.

Yes, it is the will of God that ALL should come to repentance, and He did die for the sin of the whole world.  But, that does not give me liberty to call someone brother before He has been born of God.  I can only call him brother based solely on the fact that we both have the same Creator.

In slight opposition to what you said, it is in knowing truth that one is made free, not in Truth knowing that one.  I do believe it is vital that we seek to be pleasing to Him so He is not be ashamed to call us his brother.  But, I feel the process of Him coming to know us starts (or, at best, accelerates) after one has known the truth to the saving of their souls.  We cannot make Jesus know someone.  We can only help someone know Jesus.  Once we do our part, the Lord takes over and that person is responsible for how much they come to know Him and He comes to know them.

But, as you said, in reality, who cares about what WE call someone.  I call some people Christians not truly knowing how God views them.  I am learning that titles are of little significance when I apply them.  My goal is to lead others to the truth of Who God is and the knowledge of how they can seek Him for His gift of salvation.  What I call them in the process is likely not very significant.   

[Brother Dad]

Dear Brother Raven, I can see what you are trying to say, however there are too many hypothetical things there.  We should not try to read more into the Word of God with a lot of what ifs.  I do agree we should treat everyone with the kindness of a brother or sister.  As the Bible teaches us to entertain strangers for they may be angels.  However in a Church setting it could certainly send the wrong message when we start referring to everyone as Brother or Sister.  The weaker or newer Child of God may take it mean that less is just as good.

Many years ago I was attending a Church.  Just about half the people there were suppose to be preachers.  We all got our turn preaching.  I found out there the true meaning of Paul's question.  1 Cor 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
It was there I ask myself the question, if everyone is a preacher then what's the sense in been a preacher?  There was no purpose in it.  Also when I was young I remember going to Church with my Grandpa in WV.  He went to a Church where just about all 10 of them where preachers.  One would get up and have their say followed by someone to go against what the one before had said and then they would have there say.  This went on until everyone had had their say.  Needless to say there was not much purpose in that Church.  Just a bunch of old men who couldn't get along with anyone coming and having their say.  They call that freedom in the Church. 

If we are going to refer to someone as Brother or Sister I feel it should denote something of importance.  I feel it should be something we use to disguise our family of God.

Also on the part of a backslider still been called Brother.  Once you are born of God you are always God Child.  Even when you backslid.  Example the story of the prodigal son.  He was still his Father's son even when in the pig pen.  He could have died in the pig pen never to enjoy the presence of his father again, had he not come back home, but he was still his son.   

[titushome]

I do not however refer to people of different doctrines as Brother or Sister in the sense as in the Church.  Because they have a different father and mother.  But would feel comfortable referring to a true repented believer as Brother even before the new birth is complete.  The true Word of God must be conceived in their heart in order to bring about true salvation.   

I have a friend who has turned from his sin, been baptized in Jesus' name, and is living for God full of the Spirit.  This man also has studied the Scriptures and concluded that trinitarian doctrine is correct.

Is he my brother?

By standards set forth earlier in this thread, this man has been born again; thus, he is my brother.  But here you say that you do not refer to people of different doctrines as brother or sister.

So, I have another question: does doctrine have anything to do with brotherhood?  Or is brotherhood only a matter of being born again?

[titushome]

My brother is whoever Jesus is not ashamed to call brother to Himself....

This is a very important point.

So, who does Jesus call brother?

[titushome]

Many years ago I was attending a Church.  Just about half the people there were suppose to be preachers.  We all got our turn preaching.  I found out there the true meaning of Paul's question.  1 Cor 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
It was there I ask myself the question, if everyone is a preacher then what's the sense in been a preacher?  There was no purpose in it.  Also when I was young I remember going to Church with my Grandpa in WV.  He went to a Church where just about all 10 of them where preachers.  One would get up and have their say followed by someone to go against what the one before had said and then they would have there say.  This went on until everyone had had their say.  Needless to say there was not much purpose in that Church.  Just a bunch of old men who couldn't get along with anyone coming and having their say.  They call that freedom in the Church.

This is off our main topic, but is an important issue I want to address.

I don't think the problem with churches such as these is that there are too many preachers, but that there are too many not listening to the voice of the Spirit.  I have read reports of some churches in which there are many preachers, but because they are sensitive to the Spirit the words of the various preachers build upon and confirm one another - rather than contradict, muddle and confuse, as in the example you described.

[Brother Dad]

I do not however refer to people of different doctrines as Brother or Sister in the sense as in the Church.  Because they have a different father and mother.  But would feel comfortable referring to a true repented believer as Brother even before the new birth is complete.  The true Word of God must be conceived in their heart in order to bring about true salvation.   

I have a friend who has turned from his sin, been baptized in Jesus' name, and is living for God full of the Spirit.  This man also has studied the Scriptures and concluded that trinitarian doctrine is correct.

Is he my brother?

By standards set forth earlier in this thread, this man has been born again; thus, he is my brother.  But here you say that you do not refer to people of different doctrines as brother or sister.

So, I have another question: does doctrine have anything to do with brotherhood?  Or is brotherhood only a matter of being born again?

If he was born of again, I would say he is brother.  Maybe a misguided Brother, but a Brother.  Just because I call a person brother or not does not mean I am judging their salvation.   The prodigal son had a brother and was a brother to his brother.  However he was misguided.  He had to come back to the true Father's house to make things right. 

I do not have to agree 100% with someone in order for them to be my Brother or Sister.  If that were the case I would live a very lonely life.

[Brother Dad]

Many years ago I was attending a Church.  Just about half the people there were suppose to be preachers.  We all got our turn preaching.  I found out there the true meaning of Paul's question.  1 Cor 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
It was there I ask myself the question, if everyone is a preacher then what's the sense in been a preacher?  There was no purpose in it.  Also when I was young I remember going to Church with my Grandpa in WV.  He went to a Church where just about all 10 of them where preachers.  One would get up and have their say followed by someone to go against what the one before had said and then they would have there say.  This went on until everyone had had their say.  Needless to say there was not much purpose in that Church.  Just a bunch of old men who couldn't get along with anyone coming and having their say.  They call that freedom in the Church.

This is off our main topic, but is an important issue I want to address.

I don't think the problem with churches such as these is that there are too many preachers, but that there are too many not listening to the voice of the Spirit.  I have read reports of some churches in which there are many preachers, but because they are sensitive to the Spirit the words of the various preachers build upon and confirm one another - rather than contradict, muddle and confuse, as in the example you described.

The point I was making is their must be some kind of lines to where we separate what we refer or look to people as. 

I also think if a Church has Ministers working in harmony it can be a good thing.  As there are many different types of ministry types and many different needs in a congregation.  But, we can not all have the same type of Ministry.

[titushome]

If he was born of again, I would say he is brother.  Maybe a misguided Brother, but a Brother.  Just because I call a person brother or not does not mean I am judging their salvation.   The prodigal son had a brother and was a brother to his brother.  However he was misguided.  He had to come back to the true Father's house to make things right. 

I do not have to agree 100% with someone in order for them to be my Brother or Sister.  If that were the case I would live a very lonely life.

I agree, in principle, with what you are saying.

But I think it's mistaken to compare a brother whose doctrine is wrong to the prodigal son.  Incorrect doctrine is not necessarily tantamount to outright rejection of the Father, or to the leaving of His house.

[Raven180]

Ananias had full knowledge (ie: faith) that Saul would become a "saved" Paul.

I realize that Paul's situation is not a typical one and cannot perhaps be applied in all directions at once. But something about it is telling, and I find it to be one the best examples in Scripture to help ascertain an answer to Titus' question.

I would say this, however. You mention that "Ananias had full knowledge (ie faith) that Saul would become saved". Hebrews 11:1 tell us, as I know you know, that faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. There are many people that we hope will be saved. Our hope in their salvation is the substance of our faith. But it is more than that. It is the evidence that they will be saved, by faith, even though we have yet to see it.

I am not saying everyone will be saved in the end. I know that's not truth. But having a level of faith, a kind of "Ananias know-so kind of faith" that can't be deterred, is the greatest level of faith one can have in believing God for the salvation of someone's soul.

For example, Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day. Why? When he went to sacrifice Isaac by faith, He knew God had the power to resurrect him from the dead, since it was by the resurrection from the dead of Abraham and Sarah's own old, barren bodies that Isaac was conceived. Therefore, Abraham could rejoice to see Christ's day, in which salvation would come into the world and resurrection from the dead be made possible, without ever having seen Christ actually come into the world and save anyone. That's the kind of faith I'm talking about when believing God for someone's salvation. This kind of faith is very much like Ananias' know-so Word from the Lord.

My wife and I are teaching a Bible study now to someone that we hope and pray will believe and get saved. We have not seen salvation occur in this person's life, and in reality, it has not yet occured, since this person has not obeyed the Gospel. But we interact with, teach, and fellowship with this person no differently than any other person in the faith that we might call "brother" or "sister". Why? God is the Father of all spirits, and from one blood, God has made all people. My faith in this person getting saved must be the evidence of something I've not yet seen, and the substance of that for which I hope, namely that this person will get saved.

God's foreknowledge on the matter is settled. This person either will or won't. God knows. I don't. I have no "word from the Lord" about it. But there's no reason I should exclude this person and act as though I am not this person's brother. Have we not all one Father? Has not only one God created us? Certainly this person has not yet been re-created through the new birth, but I still count myself this person's brother, if for no other reason than that, that we both were created in the image of God. Whom God foreknew, the Bible reads, them He did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son. God foreknows all people, both unregenerated and regenerated. All are predestined to be conformed into the image of His Son, whether simply as having the image of being a human, or whether, as being someone being reborn and resurrected by the Spirit of God.

When I have that same word from God I will have no problem calling another person my brother before they have obeyed the Gospel.  I haven't gotten that word about anyone yet.

It may never occur, perhaps it may. My mom claims to have received two words from the Lord about someone being saved. The first, about my brothers. The second about my grandmother. Both brothers and my grandma (her mom) got saved. Until they did, however, I didn't personally consider my own blood brothers my "brothers", because they were not doing the will of God, as Christ said. But I needed to believe God for their salvation as though they already had been saved, else how could I ever believe they'd ever get saved? It's a case of seeing or believing those things that are not as though they are. So, God, in His foreknowledge knew my biological brothers would be born again. From His point of view, having already been settled, Jesus considered them to be His brothers, and yet I did not. So, who was in the right? Me or Jesus? I didn't even believe my mom when she told me how God told her that they would be saved. I simply hoped, prayed, fasted, and held high faith that with God all things are possible.

Again, because they, up to the point of their regeneration, had not obyed the will of God, I could therefore rightly say they were not my brothers. Yet God in His foreknowledge foresaw the day of their salvation, knowing that they would be saved. It's kind of a hard thing to wrap one's head around.

Yes, it is the will of God that ALL should come to repentance, and He did die for the sin of the whole world.  But, that does not give me liberty to call someone brother before He has been born of God.  I can only call him brother based solely on the fact that we both have the same Creator.

Everyone has the same Creator, no? It's just that in Adam all die, but in Christ all shall be quickened, or made alive. Those who are still in Adam, and are dead in trepasses are still my brothers according to the flesh, just as Paul considered the Jews his brothers and kinsmen according to the flesh. Granted not all are, as we might say, brothers according to the Spirit because not everyone is in Christ, but nonetheless, everyone is our brother, just as much as everyone is our neighbor. Lord, who is my neighbor? said one man trying to justify himself before God. Well, let us ask a similar question. Lord, who is my brother? I hope we are not asking so that we can justify ourselves before God, that we may freely treat only certain people as brothers and not others, just as the man in the Gospels was hoping to only have to consider certain people his neighbor and not others.

In slight opposition to what you said, it is in knowing truth that one is made free, not in Truth knowing that one.

I think it's mutual. If we can say that Christ doesn't "know" those that work iniquity, i.e. the unsaved, we can also say that He knows those who work righteousness, i.e. the saved. Us knowing Christ as Truth, and Christ, as Truth, "knowing" us, seems to occur at the same time.

I do believe it is vital that we seek to be pleasing to Him so He is not be ashamed to call us his brother.  But, I feel the process of Him coming to know us starts (or, at best, accelerates) after one has known the truth to the saving of their souls.  We cannot make Jesus know someone.  We can only help someone know Jesus.  Once we do our part, the Lord takes over and that person is responsible for how much they come to know Him and He comes to know them.

Agreed.

But, as you said, in reality, who cares about what WE call someone.  I call some people Christians not truly knowing how God views them.  I am learning that titles are of little significance when I apply them.  My goal is to lead others to the truth of Who God is and the knowledge of how they can seek Him for His gift of salvation.  What I call them in the process is likely not very significant.

That is the point that I'm trying to get at. We (usually) want to use the word "brother" as a line of demarcation, with an "us v. them" mentality, by applying the word as a special title that denotes this from that. I am trying to show that all people everywhere can be considered our brother, whether through God's foreknowledge in their salvation (i.e. like how the mind of Christ showed Ananias that Paul would be saved) or whether, as brothers in the sense of all of us having One Creator and One Father, Who is God, responsible for the totality of human existence.

With all due respect to anyone that wants, likes, or feels it necessary to use the title "brother" or "sister" to draw a line in the sand, I simply don't agree with such usage. I know and am assured of course that there is only one Church, one Bride of Christ, i.e only one family of God named after Christ Jesus, and that there are saved and unsaved in the world. That line is not blurred in my mind. But I will call an unsaved friend "brother" as much as I will call my saved best friend in the Lord that won me to Truth "brother". For me, the term in and of itself has no special powers of application. It's just a word like any other. For me, I don't need to use it to create an ethnocentric Pentecostalist structure of who's in and who's out. God determines the in and the out, even if the person next to us on the pew, whom we call brother, is really nothing more than a tare awaiting the fire. Even if it's we ourselves who are the tares, and others call us "brother".

The usage just seems so unnecessary to me. Even Peter's brother in the Lord, James just called him Simeon, and not Brother Simeon (Acts 15).

So, to conclude, I say that even as we may have dead brothers (kin, countrymen, or biological family) according to the flesh who have literally died, I say we also have dead brothers according to the Spirit, who are also literally dead to God, still being in their sins and not regenerated.

Afterall, why does someone need to be reborn? It's simple. Because the first time around, sin took ocassion and killed them, i.e. they suffered the first death which, without Christ, ultimately leads to the second death (Romans 7:5-11 with Revelation 20:6).

[Raven180]

Dear Brother Raven, I can see what you are trying to say

Thanks, Bro for letting me know you are understanding me. It's appreciated.

...however there are too many hypothetical things there.  We should not try to read more into the Word of God with a lot of what ifs.  I do agree we should treat everyone with the kindness of a brother or sister.  As the Bible teaches us to entertain strangers for they may be angels.  However in a Church setting it could certainly send the wrong message when we start referring to everyone as Brother or Sister.  The weaker or newer Child of God may take it mean that less is just as good.

Some of the hypoetheticals are admittedly just that, hypothetical. I realize I speak more of the theory of brotherhood at this point, than the actual application. However, I would cautiously suggest that the number of "what ifs" are merely on our side of the eternal, not of God's side. And it's from God's side that I am trying (perhaps failing) to see things.

Regarding the backslider, undoubtedly they are our brother, and yet, they are undoubtedly not doing the will of God, so Jesus might say that such a backslider is not in fact, His brother. See how loosely then we use the word? We apply it in many situations where even Scripture might not.

So, because of that reason, I reiterate the Biblical defintions of the word adelphos as used by Ananias in addressing Paul.

It can mean kin or countryman. It can mean biological brother. It can mean close friendship that takes on a form of brotherhood. It can also mean a spiritual brother born again of the water and of the Spirit. But it can also mean any fellow or person. Since the Greek word can be used and applied in so many areas and situations, and all are faithful to the idea of what a brother is, why can we not use the English word brother in just as many areas, situation, and even applications, and still be faithful to what the word means? Can't I call everyone and anyone "brother", even if they are not born again, and still be faithful to the meaning of the word? Why must I distinguish? They are all my brothers even if they are not all born again.

[titushome]

My wife and I are teaching a Bible study now to someone that we hope and pray will believe and get saved. We have not seen salvation occur in this person's life, and in reality, it has not yet occured, since this person has not obeyed the Gospel. But we interact with, teach, and fellowship with this person no differently than any other person in the faith that we might call "brother" or "sister". Why? God is the Father of all spirits, and from one blood, God has made all people. My faith in this person getting saved must be the evidence of something I've not yet seen, and the substance of that for which I hope, namely that this person will get saved.

Amen!

That is the point that I'm trying to get at. We (usually) want to use the word "brother" as a line of demarcation, with an "us v. them" mentality, by applying the word as a special title that denotes this from that....

With all due respect to anyone that wants, likes, or feels it necessary to use the title "brother" or "sister" to draw a line in the sand, I simply don't agree with such usage.... For me, I don't need to use it to create an ethnocentric Pentecostalist structure of who's in and who's out....

Ouch.  And amen.

[Scott]

Have you ever wondered what agenda people have?

[Melody]

when it comes to titles, I'm not ever impressed.  However there are times that I say sister and brother to folks because it's endearing to me.  They're not just my friend, they're my family in Christ.   There is one person I also refer to as Elder ___.  Because he has allowed God to use him in such a way that has blessed and changed my life so deeply.  I'd call him Dad if I could honestly, but it doesn't quite work.  So Elder it is... and I say it when he's not present and in his presence sometimes to also indirectly say that I acknowledge and value the anointing that God has given him.  I have great respect for him.  I do also call him by first name too sometimes.

More times than not I'd say that titles are just that.  But there are times when addressing someone on a first name basis does not convey the endearment so desired to express.  Honestly, especially as a married woman, I don't go around hugging guys that I'm friends with and tell them I believe in who God has called them to be.  They might not know it, I'm pretty sure they don't cause I'm not so mushy to explain it...lol; but I roll all that love for my church family in a sister/brother ___, to me, I'm saying they are a part of something deeper and close to my heart than the average Joe on the street.  We are in this together, it's not a line persay but a team. 

I believe that Ananias said "brother" in that respect.  Paul had been doing what he thought was right, zealously.  He was passionate about right and wrong and was about to recieve revelation and more or less, become a part of a team/family/kingdom. 

[Scott]

I had a man come up to me last week and called me Brother (my last name) - I told him that he was a grown up now and could call me by my first name.

[Raven180]

That is the point that I'm trying to get at. We (usually) want to use the word "brother" as a line of demarcation, with an "us v. them" mentality, by applying the word as a special title that denotes this from that....

With all due respect to anyone that wants, likes, or feels it necessary to use the title "brother" or "sister" to draw a line in the sand, I simply don't agree with such usage.... For me, I don't need to use it to create an ethnocentric Pentecostalist structure of who's in and who's out....

Ouch...

Please allow me to soften that and apologize if anyone took offense at my comments. I want to assure everyone that what I wrote was not personally or collectively directed to anyone here. First, I don't know anyone here well enough to dare make such an assertion, and two, from what I have seen in my time here leads me to believe that the likelihood of the sentiments I expressed being held by godplace members seems slim to none.

However, I do want to further explain what I wrote and why I wrote it.

I think that if we are all honest, we can admit that within Pentecostalism, whatever the shade, including Oneness/Apostolic, there is a tendency, in certain circles and groups, to have an elitist mentality that causes some to feel superior to others when compared with their walk with God? knowledge of the Scripture? revelation of the Truth? etc.

I'm not sure what to call it. But sometimes, it has been my experience that some can't even seem to make (or want to make) a friend outside of the Church because they are not a "brother in the Lord". Some people do suffer from the "us four and no more" mentality that doesn't welcome or accept sinners, professing but unsaved believers, or people of entirely different faiths, such as Muslim of Jewish. Maybe there is a fear of tainting doctrinal purity, or something. I don't know.

I am of the opinion that all unsaved are exactly that: unsaved. No one should be turned away, nor judged. Even Pharisees believed on the Lord, and some, like Paul, even got saved. Not to mention the hookers, the whoremongers, the homosexuals, the profane and all the other so-called rejects and detritus of society.

Personally, I can look at any of the above, and have an open-arm policy toward them. The love of God is truly shed abroad in my heart for them, and I want all of them to be saved. But if I have a keep-them-at-arm's-distance attitude because they are not, specifically speaking, a born again "brother in the Lord" the chances of me being used of God to lead them to Jesus is scant at best.

That's why I have no problem calling my "reformed Jewish, drinks like a fish, curses like a sailor and blasphemes God's name" friend "brother" or "bro". This guy needs Jesus. As John wrote in 1 John 4:17, as Christ is, so are we in the world. I've got to treat him like Jesus treated people, people who were poor in spirit and not afraid to admit it, people who weren't too proud to deny what they really were: sinners in darkness needing God's help.

So, just as Jesus reached out and called sinners to repentance, so too, do we. We must do the same. Christianity is a universal, inclusive faith. The bread and cup of the Lord are free for all to eat and drink from, if they so will and choose.

I'm not haranguing anyone if they want to use the word "brother" to enuniciate who they believe to be their spiritual brethren. That's not an issue at all for me. On occasion, I call someone at church "Brother _______" or "Sister _______", too.

So, I've only made my posts in order to address the idea of shunning or turning someone away as an unwanted outsider not deserving of our highest love and affection because they don't believe exactly like us. As Paul might say, we have to become all things to all men (even their "brother") that by all means we may save/rescue some.

Hope that helps clarify my points from which Titus quoted. Again, if I gave offense, I humbly apologize and ask for forgiveness.

May peace and mercy be upon you all, the Israel of God.

The Lord bless and keep you,

Aaron

[Melody]

I think that is a valid perspective Raven and I'm glad that you clarified. 

It occurred to me while reading your last post that there are many uses for brother and sister.  It's not exclusive to the church.  In the black community it's something that connects that culture.  Hippies used it for general mankind.  In athletics or guys in general, I've heard them say "bro" which I can only suspect means a difinitive friend. 

Having said that, I think that it's well within reason to be able to address others outside the church as a sis or bro by itself rather than a prefix.  Honestly, unless you're clarifying in what context you mean then it's not compromising truth who is the church.  And it's not devaluing the title in the church... for anyone that may have a problem refering to the unsaved as bro.s and sis', that is.  While they may not be brethren in the Lord, they are still blood related folks (Adam and Noah are everyone's G.grandDaddy) that we work/live alongside every day of our life. 

[Brother Dad]

I can concur we may use the term Bro or brother outside of the Church.  The specific question ask at the start of this thread was dealing with children of God.  Not just nice to the world. 

Some call me Brother, Bishop, Big Bishop, Pastor, and some Sr. Pastor.  As long as my wife calls me for supper I will be fine.lol  I find using titles to introduce myself to be meaningless.  When I am addressing others out of respect I like to use titles.  Of course I am Brother Dad and those that have been around awhile know why I have that name.

[titushome]

That is the point that I'm trying to get at. We (usually) want to use the word "brother" as a line of demarcation, with an "us v. them" mentality, by applying the word as a special title that denotes this from that....

With all due respect to anyone that wants, likes, or feels it necessary to use the title "brother" or "sister" to draw a line in the sand, I simply don't agree with such usage.... For me, I don't need to use it to create an ethnocentric Pentecostalist structure of who's in and who's out....

Ouch...

I think that if we are all honest, we can admit that within Pentecostalism, whatever the shade, including Oneness/Apostolic, there is a tendency, in certain circles and groups, to have an elitist mentality that causes some to feel superior to others when compared with their walk with God? knowledge of the Scripture? revelation of the Truth? etc.

I'm not sure what to call it. But sometimes, it has been my experience that some can't even seem to make (or want to make) a friend outside of the Church because they are not a "brother in the Lord". Some people do suffer from the "us four and no more" mentality that doesn't welcome or accept sinners, professing but unsaved believers, or people of entirely different faiths, such as Muslim of Jewish. Maybe there is a fear of tainting doctrinal purity, or something. I don't know.

I see the same thing all too often - and I see it firstly in myself, giving your words the sting of truth, hence the "ouch." 

Thanks for the expansion of your comments.