Dis-Association From Other Believers?

sermonindex Dec 26, 2009

Should the teachings of our varied views of the end times cause us to separate ourselves from one another?

Should we say, "Because you don't believe the same as I do concerning the End Times, according to the bible, I am to part company with you".

Let say that we basically agree about everything else but this one subject, is there enough scripture to support dis-fellowship concerning the end time teachings?

I have friends that mostly hold to a Post Tribulation teaching. Though they know I disagree with them, I simply go along with what they are saying and we move unto other important issues, like seeking God and knowing Him. I don't stop fellow shipping with my friends because of a teaching that really no one person has it all together on hence the various ideas that are out there.

What are your thoughts? Just because I don't agree with your Post Trib teaching and you don't agree with my stance, should we oust one another out of our fellowship?

sermonindex Dec 26, 2009

Hi deepthinker, one should definately not dis-associate from other believers based on non-essential doctrine. I think you should seperate from preterists and so on, but definately not from people who err in their belief's of a post trib rapture :) (just joking about the preterist thing :)...........brother Frank

S

sojourner7 Dec 26, 2009

Jesus was willing to associate with
lepers, prostitutes, tax-collecters,
thieves. He went to the misfits,
the outcasts, the forgotten, the
neglected, the oppressed.
Don't let difference of doctrine
keep you apart from fellowship in
the Spirit.

sermonindex Dec 26, 2009

It depends on the attitude you convey when you take your endtime stands.
The pretirest view is a minority view. Now just cuz it's a minority view dosen't mean it's wrong. However when one has a minority view he should be VERY KIND and gracious and longggggggsuffering when presenting it.
Then more may be attracted to the minority view of preterism.
But when the pret view is rejected well thats it just move on and focus on the more important essentials of Christianity.

sermonindex Dec 27, 2009

I need to clarify something. This is a general question, I wanted to see if anyone has that sentiment. I want to make it very clear, I do not.

I am sure there are people that don't share my sentiment.

However when one has a minority view he should be VERY KIND and gracious and longggggggsuffering when presenting it.

I agree.

L

Lysa Dec 27, 2009

Personally, I think there are very few things that a person should be disassociated for.

So here is a different take on your question.... Maybe we ~~[i]~~should[/i] separate ourselves from those who disagree with us; but not for our benefit ~~[b]~~but for theirs[/b]!! WHAT??? Yes, to save them from the bombardment of the same old sermon they hear from us every time the subject is brought up!

Those of us with forceful personalities should be honest with ourselves and admit that we don’t take the time to listen to other peoples beliefs – especially when we disagree. Oh but no, this is what we do, every time the subject is brought up we have to shut them down by reinforcing what “WE” believe and our belief is the right one... when they already know b/c we’ve told them, how many times before!?!? In the past, I have been guilty of this.

A few weeks ago, my friend brought up “once saved always saved,” and thank the Lord I listened to Him and determined within myself that I would not say anything and praise God I didn’t! After she gave her reasons, she apologized to me b/c she knew I felt differently but didn’t want to offend me. I told her that I was not in the least bit offended at her. My point is that our friends shouldn’t have to apologize to us for not agreeing with us. How sad is that?

And if I were a betting person, I’d say that when all those friends leave us they probably say to each other, “~~[i]~~I can’t believe you brought up that topic.... AGAIN! Why do you do that? You know how “so and so” thinks; they can’t miss an opportunity to straighten us out. It wouldn’t be so bad if they listened to our side but no, they never listen because we’re WRONG! Just so you know, I’m going to quit coming to these if you don’t stop bringing that subject up.[/i]”

So I’m thinking that if we are going to subject our friends to this bombardment on a regular basis, then for “their sakes” perhaps we should separate ourselves from them and find others who will agree with us 100%!?!?

sermonindex Dec 27, 2009

I can’t believe you brought up that topic.... AGAIN! Why do you do that?

Force of habit. LOL LOL

There are thoughts to consider in your post Lysa. Thanks for your take.

G

Giggles Dec 27, 2009

John Piper on the subject:

"There are biblically attractive things about each of these views (pre-mil, post-mil, and a-mil), and none of them, in their best representation, bears such marks as to suggest the advocates are undermining the precious gospel of Christ. On the contrary, each of them has strengths that specifically honor parts of the Bible that the others seem to honor less.

Postmillennialism seems to honor the power of the gospel and the promises for the Old Testament for the triumph of God’s people over all the nations. Amillennialism seems to honor the warnings of bleak end times as well as the seamlessness between Christ’s coming and the immediate destruction of death, the removal of the enemies of the cross, and the beginning of the new heavens and new earth. Premillennialism seems to honor the plainest meaning of Revelation 20 and the seemingly literal meaning of many Old Testament promises."

And specifically:

"Let me stress that the disagreement over pre- and post-tribulationism is not one that I think should threaten our fellowship. It should not be divisive. The things on which we agree are so stupendous as to overwhelm our hearts in common love for the Lord and his appearing. Let us not make the second coming a center of controversy, but a cause for worship and earnest hope and liberating confidence for the ministry before us!"

T

twayneb Dec 27, 2009

1Co 5:9-11
(9) I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
(10) Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
(11) But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

Hmmm...Don't see eschatological philosophy here. DeepThinker, I can't see how our interpretation of end time prophecy should even cause us to get hot under the collar toward each other, let alone disfellowship. I guess it is possible that someone could be a heretic and his teaching of end time prophecy could be the focus of what is going on, but then we would disfellowship not because of eschatology, but because the person is a heretic.

And now I am rambling. I believe we shall all soon know who was right, and at that time I don't think we will much care to carry on with the argument.

Travis