It is worth noting that among the Disciples of Jesus, Matthew is mentioned in Matthew 9:9 and 10:3 as a publican who sat at the receipt of custom in Capernaum. Publicans were basically tax collectors for Rome. Not only were some of them dishonest and would extract more from the people than they owed, they were considered traitors by many and apostates by some.

There was a group of Jews who were part of the Jewish Freedom movement, who believed that paying taxes to Rome was paramount to idolatry. They were first known as Galileans as they were led by Judas of Galilee (Acts 5:37). They based their charge of idolatry on the First Commandment, as Rome had implemented the cult of emperors throughout the empire in the first century BCE. Taxation was viewed similarly to paying tithe to Caesar, an ancient form of paying tribute to a deity.

Nevertheless, the publicans were viciously hated by the Galileans. Several of the discipes were from Galilee. In fact, in Matthew 26:73 Peter was pinpointed by a group as a Galilean. After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, “Certainly you too are one of them, for your accent betrays you." (ESV) The Galileans were insurrectionists and the crowd knew that this charge against Peter could have gotten him crucified along with Jesus and the other insurrectionists. In other words, the Galileans may have hated the Romans and the people who supported them, but Rome had little tolerance for them either.

Enter the scene another figure, Simon the Zealot in Luke 6:14-16. This man was a Galilean on steroids (so to speak). The Zealots were exactly what their name implied. They received their name from the "zealous" actions of Phinehas in Numbers 25. Many of them were ruthless killers who carried little knives under their clothes to assassinate people with. In fact, they were quite possibly the worlds first terrorists. Their actions led to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.

Question: how do you suppose a man like Matthew the Publican could have gotten on with Simon the Zealot and all of these Galileans? These people fellowshipped together on a regular basis. They were still under the Old Covenant! These people would rather call fire down from heaven, but yet could get on with a traitorous publican in their midst. Talk about theological differences! They would have had almost nothing in common as to their philosophy of life. They were going in different directions when Christ met them. How could they get along? Daily? In fact, the love of God had not yet been poured out into their hearts by the Holy Spirit, a characteristic that the New Covenant regenerate are supposed to have received. How did they do it?

I'll tell you. Because the PRINCE OF PEACE was in their midst. If Christ was truly in our midst, we would not have the gall to fight one another. It is our unconsciousness to the presence of Christ that emboldens the disunity. Simon and Matthew? Old Covenant? What a sad commentary on what we proport to have under the New Covenant. If the love of God had truly been poured out into hearts, we would love one another with a pure heart, fervently.

_________________
Robert Wurtz II

Mary Jane: I am sure that you and I disagree about more than one thing. All we would need to do is talk long enough. Yet there is a bond in the Spirit of God that makes us brother and sister in Christ. I am sure if I met you, I would feel that bond and could fellowship in the Lord despite the differences in opinion. I have such brothers and sisters in Christ, and our differences do not effect our fellowship one bit.

(I am presuming that we are not talking about disagreement over the essentials such as original sin, salvation by grace, the virgin birth, etc..)

_________________
Travis

It has always been interesting to me the response of Peter to the public rebuke by Paul. Peter at this point was clearly a " pillar," yet he reacted humbly to Paul. A man of pride and caught up in the fact that he was a " leader," would not have reacted in such a fashion. Now I have no doubt that Peter, prior to Pentecost, would have reacted differently. Yet because of his denial of Jesus and his brokenness and his baptism of the Holy Spirit, he reacted in a way that was beautiful. It is clear that brokenness and baptism in the Holy Spirit is vital to fellowshipping with saints. Without the Baptism of the Spirit, without being endued with power from on high, there is no way we can get along. While Jesus walked with the saints they walked in His presence and made it possible, but once He left He told them He would not leave them as orphans and would send the helper. They obediently waited and were then endued with the power that they needed.

We also no that Paul and Barnabas had a falling out over his cousin Mark. Apollos refuses to go to Rome when Paul wants him to go. What is lacking in all of these disputes? A demand that one of them bows down to the other or that any of them elevated themselves over the other. Noe of them used their " position," to try and compel the other to do anything, at least not according to what we read in Scriptures.

Galatians 2:6 is a very interesting verse because it is in the context of Paul publicly rebuking Peter, he says "As for those who were held in high esteem--whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism--they added nothing to my message."

Now that, is a very bold statement and certainly worth studying...............bro Frank

_________________
Robert Wurtz II

In regard to Paul and Barnabas, the Scripture is silent and assigns no blame. Men always want to asign blame so that there is a good guy and a bad guy, then they use it ti justify their actions.

The fact is that this was not the end of the story. Paul uses Mark and perhaps should have listened to Barnabas in the first place, even although Paul would go on and write three quarters of the New Testament. And the public falling out with Peter and Paul also ended well because one did not try and Lord it over another, love was the order of the day, not pecking order.

What was highlighted as the essence of carnality was people splitting and saying " I am of this one," or " I am for that one." This is canality, this is of the flesh and this is not of God. ..............bro Frank

_________________
Robert Wurtz II

Dear brother,

If I have committed a sin or broken a rule then I do acknowledge that men have the right to remove me from that which they own. I have no problem with that. If you came to my house brother I would have no rules for you to comply with. I have known you for several years and I know your heart and I know that you know Jesus and that you love Him beyond all other things. I know that you would not speak inapropriately.

If I invited you, a pentecostal brother for lack of a better term, and a Baptist, for that is what they call themselves to my home, I would know that there would be certain matters that you would not agree on. Would I pre-warn you not to speak of such matters? No. For how would I know what God was doing or wanting to do through you? I have a house and my name is on the title but it is Gods house not my own. And if God wants to say something to the man who is a Baptist, who am I am to interrupt that? And if the Baptist had something good to say to you about certain aspects of your walk, again, even if it makes for a somewhat uncomfortable setting, I would simply agree with whoever was speaking the truth in love.

And so brother. We each much act as we are led and in this I have no problem. If I were to be removed from this forum I would simply thank God for the times in which I was able to share and I was able learn and move on. We all answer to God and we can both agree that it is a fearsome thing to fall into the hands of God. God knows the motivations of the heart. He sees the hidden things that no one else sees. He alone judges matters of the heart. Motivations and intents have been judged recently and that is a very dangerous territory for men, for who knows the things of the heart? We can judge actions and words but not men's hearts.

Men should be judged for their actions and for their words, if that is what you are saying then we are in complete agreement. If these words are unacceptable then action should be taken, yes indeed. I love you brother as I hope you know, but I am accountable to God and God alone in matters of the heart and in this I have great peace. For although I have many failings, guile is not one of them. What you see is what you get. Transparency to me is everything............bro Frank

_________________
Robert Wurtz II

Hi brother Robert,

The greatest breakthroughs often come in the uncomfortable moments in our lives. We know the old saying that " nothing happens in our comfort zones." If a person was deliberately just trying to make you uncomfortable, I would intervene. Comfort can often go along with compromise as almost everyone I have ever met detests any kind of confrontation.

The Bible College I attended brother Robert was very close to your home, it was Calvary Baptist in Belton. I probably would have attended AOG in Springfield, but I knew that they have made the pre-trib rapture an essential doctrine and I was not of that persuasion. One may think that going to a four point Calvinist, Dispensationalist college where most of the Profs were allumni of Dallas Theological would be akin to running from the frying pan and ending up in the fire and in some ways it was :) Yet, I believe the Lord led me there so there I went.

Many of the classes that I took were " accelerated," meaning that you could take the three hour class over a period of days, eight hours a day, and get your hours. Every now and again, some one of the pentecostal persuasion would take one of those classes and it was clear they had come to argue about tongues, that was there sole intent on being there, proving that they were right and that everyone else in the class and the college was wrong. Even although I agreed with the legitimacy of tongues and indeed had been given that gift, I could see that their spirit was wrong and that they were simply being disruptive.

Now, within a few months I had to take one of the required courses, it was " A survey of Theology." A major part of that course was to take the colleges statement of faith and go through it point by point, say yes or no to it and then explain why. Now, most of it I agreed with, fundamentals of the faith, essential doctrines of the Trinity and person of Jesus and so on. Yet one of the major points of their statement of faith was that they "strongly disagreed with those of the tongue speaking persuasion," and that this facility would not look kindly upon those who propagated it. Now, this created a dilemma for a couple of brothers that I knew who were " pentecostal," in nature. I answered the question truthfully giving my reasons and the Scriptures supporting my answer. A few days passed and I received word that the Dean of Students needed to see my at a certain time the following day. I prayed about it and asked that the Holy Spirit would go before me.

The following day came and I sat down for the meeting and I could see the man was uncomfortable and was angry and he pushes my test paper over and I could see the red pen mark ( not good for grades when you see the red pen:) He told me that I could not stay at this college as they would have to recommend students for roles as pastors and the churches needed to know what they were getting therefore they could not vouch for me. As I began to reply, I could feel the Holy Spirit come and He took over my speech. I began to thank him for the time that I had been there and that if felt the need to ask me to leave and separate from me because of our disagreement then that would be fine. I told him I would leave and praise God for what I had learned and for the people that I had met and simply move on in the Lord. I stood up, blessed him and left. He had looked uncomfortable when I left but in a different way. The love of God had entered the room. And so I awaited my dismissal, it never came. Every time I saw the Dean of the whole College after that, he would always stop and tell me that he was praying for me :) I never knew how to take that:) Yet he was a warm and loving old man.

I continued to write all my papers truthfully of course. I left the college with a 3.6 GPA. Amazing when you think that I disagreed with some of their most fundamental premises of Dispensation, Pre-trib rapture, cessasion of sign gifts, Calvanism. The whole time I went to college I attended a Southern Baptist church and the pastor became one of my best friends.

Brother, we must always be true to ourselves and to who we are under God. We must follow His lead as directed by the Holy Spirit. I believe that I do this with everything that is in me without fear or favor of men. If certain men do not like it and they have the power to remove me then remove me they must. Mu conscience is clear before God and that is a wonderful freedom. I love you brother Robert and always will no matter what............bro Frank

And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God for that which was done.
(Act 4:18-21)

Greetings

Thank you for the responses. I will be honest and say that I need to continue to pray over this subject. Have no settled heart on the matter. I still wonder if I am being honest with myself when I say "oh yeah I can fellowship daily as they did in ACTS even if I don't agree with another brother or sister." I know of course with CHRIST all things are possible and that kind of dying to self daily, moment by moment of each day, would require dying to self for sure...



Thanks again
God bless
mj