Do you believe in ecumenism?

I know Gold Dragon doesn't need me to defend him. However, I think it likely he simply misspoke; saying "would" instead of "could"; which seems to be the direction of his thinking. Is that right, Gold Dragon?

peace to youraying:

 

Thanks. Yes.

I'm not calling anyone in particular here a ravenous wolf who has departed from the faith.

But I consider those who use misrepresentation and a have a general lack of grace in their disagreements with other Christian groups are in direct disobedence to John 17 and Eph 4.

My history of posts on this board and attitude towards those who disagree with me in those posts are my response to your questions.

Why is that? Baptist Tradition is not my ultimate authority in doctrine but the Word of God. Of course there is a lot of Baptist Tradition that I agree with, or else I wouldn't be baptist.

 

I'm sorry you misunderstood me. My charge was not against you in particular.

My charge of misrepresentations and lack of grace was referring to those who in the name of "non-compromising" willfully misrepresent the beliefs of other Christian groups and don't show grace when disagreeing with them.

examples
1) Calvinists accusing non-Calvinists of universalism
2) Baptists accusing Pentecostals of adding to scripture
3) Baptists accusing Catholics of cannibalism

 

I am not in favor of ecumenism as far as I don't feel we should agree to put a way correct doctrine just so we can unify churches. But I do feel that most churches are more isolated that Christ would have us to be. I am sure you guys would agree that many churches have a "if you are not us, you are not right" mentality and I hate that attitude. What do you guys think?

 

There is one Christianity that anyone can accept and practice. If you're following this true Christianity it does not involve compromise.

 

I remember when I first came on this board, you were probably one of the first folks to throw accusations at me, insinuating that someone who espoused my views may not be a Christian. The discussion was about the emergent church which coincidentaly we have a thread about right now. Your position back then towards the emergent church was very different from your position about it in the current thread.

At the time you probably considered me a ravenous wolf. Maybe you still do considering my positions on evolution, Catholicism, ecumenism and a host of other issues that I have openly espoused and defended on this board. I tried to share my positions firmly but with grace, knowing that a majority of the members here and in the baptist world in general disagree with me about those positions and tend to label as false teachers those who hold my positions.

 

ecumenical-ism

I did not regard it as an attack, and I am not offended. I am, however very concerned about your position on this. You mention "non-compromising" and I would here shout a hearty, thunderous, AMEN!
Perhaps the way to look at this Gold Dragon is to get down to specifics.
Let's say that for the sake of unity doctrine is of little or no importance-What do we "compromise" on, so we can all get along?
The Bible clearly tells us that there is one God and ONE mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus. But, our Catholic brothers insist that Mary is co-mediatrix; making the Lord Jesus a co-mediator. The Lord Jesus is not co-anything, but do we say that this does not matter? "This truth is just as good as this truth"? Their position is down right blasphemous. Do we say that this is okay? We have been talking about the early church. We do not know when Mary went to be with the Lord, but she was certainly alive early on. Does she have any prominence at all in the early church? Did the apostles ask her for advice? How many times did they pray to her? Do we compromise on who the Lord Jesus is?
Paul in Galatians, and elsewhere clearly condemned attempting to gain salvation by works. This is clearly what the Lord Jesus meant by "climbing up another way"; "climbing up" speaks of human effort. But that is exactly what Catholicism is: works-based. Do we compromise on grace through faith in the finished work of the Lord Jesus on the cross?
Then there are denominations that outright condone the homosexual lifestyle, even ordaining them despite God calling it an abomination. Do we compromise on Biblical morality?
How about baptizing infants?
Look, I would have the type of fellowship and caring that the first century church had. They cared for each other, even selling possessions to meet the needs of others. But, they also continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine. Do you think any of those things I mentioned above was part of the apostles doctrine?
In Revelation chapters 2 and 3 the Lord Jesus speaks to seven churches in asia-minor. Those at Ephesus had sadly lost their first love. But look at some things that that the Lord considered commendable: "You cannot bear ("Canst not stand" KJV) those that are evil (2:2). "...hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate"(2:6). Now, let's not debate here just who these Nicolaitans were, or what they believed the fact is Jesus said that He hated it, so did the Ephesians and that was commendable. Reading on through these two chapters the Lord consistently condemns them for even tolerating false teachers.
No, Gold Dragon I will never advocate compromise with those that have departed from the faith,, that force God's Holy Scriptures to fit their doctrine, instead of conforming their doctrine to God's Word.
"Non-compromising?" I will gladly own that title.

I just read your post above. If you have any view about evolution other than what it is-nonsense, than you have lost me.

 

You completely missed my point.

I also gladly own to the title non-compromising.

It is what people do with that title that concerns me. To misrepresent and show no grace in the name of "non-compromising", that is my concern.

You brought up a lot of theological issues that I could address and you would probably call me a compromiser at best or ravenous wolf at worst for presenting arguments that give clarity and even biblical support for some of the positions held by Catholics, infant baptizers and homosexual ordaining denominations. We could take those issues to another thread.

I'll give you one example.

While I disagree with the need to add new titles for Mary that Catholics never seem to get enough of, the co-redemptrix label is very different from what you suggest it means. The following is from Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici, an organization dedicated to the promotion of the title Co-redeptrix for Mary which is currently not official Catholic doctrine.

 

I didn't. I said others, like yourself, would. I just saved you the hassle and said it for you, since I really don't care if you think that about me.

I consider it more important to hold to positions of biblical truth than follow views that are popular and percieved as politically correct in Baptist Tradition.

Of course I don't believe my views are heterodox, or else I wouldn't hold them.

 

Read this again.

Reading comprehension is an underrated ability.

 

I guess we see what we want to see.

Anyway, this deja vu of one of my first threads in BB has been a trip down memory lane. Thanks for starting it up for us El_Guero. :thumbs:

 

Quote by Gold Dragon:My understanding of ecumenicalism is being obedient to Jesus' prayer for Christians in John 17 and Paul's imploring of Christians in Ephesians 4.

Quote:
NASB - John 17:20-23

I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.

The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.

In John 17, Christ prays twice for our unity so that the world will know that Jesus was sent by God. Christian unity is about affirming the Christology of Jesus as God's son. End quote

Look at what the scriptures say Gold Dragon. If you are to be one with God and Jesus we need to do it as they tell us to. If we are to be as one as they are, we must be in agreement doctrinally.


Quote:
NASB - Ephesians 4:1-6

Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called,
with all humility
and gentleness,
with patience,
showing tolerance for one another in love,
being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

There is one body and
one Spirit,
just as also you were called in one hope of your calling;
one Lord,
one faith,
one baptism,
one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

Quoteaul implores the Ephesian church to have humility gentleness, patience and tolerance for each other. It wouldn't be because they had no differences and agreed on everything. But it would because the early church had disagreements and needed this reminder from Paul about how to approach each other as brothers and sisters in the midst of disagreement. End quote

The early church may have had differences and hulility, gentleness, patience and tolerance was to be natural attributes to the christian. Being tolerant was to be tolerant of the differences we as people share. It could have also been for procedural (polity) differences. Never do the scriptures allude to compromising doctrine.



Quote: Faith and baptism have been historically defined to the most minute detail so that there are currently a million things about both that two Christians today could potential disagree about. But in Paul's day, they were simple and Paul wanted to remind the early church that there were things they had in common despite their disagreements and to focus on those things.End quote

Is God so unclear that we could disagree on a million things concerning faith and baptisim?? I don't think there is. We are saved by faith through grace Period! We follow Christ in the waters of baptisim as an act of obedience, profession of our faith and it is symbolic of the death, burial and ressurrection. Sounds pretty cut and dry to me.

You need to stop twisting the scriptures to say what you want them to. Ecumenicalisim in todays world is not the unity Christ taught. God is truth. 100% truth. He and His Father are agreed. He wants us united as they are. In truth! We can have differences on how we conduct our services, the order of the music, the color of the drapes. But when it comes to Gods truth we must take it very seriously and prayerfully do everything in our power to get it right!

Ecumenicalisim in todays world is a bunch of touchy feely "Can't we all just get along?" christianity. It's purpose is to unite the worlds religions together in preparation for the lordship of the anti christ. It will continue to form especially after the rapture of the true church. You will see then that not everyone that calls upon the Lord will be saved.

Just remember: Amos 3:3
Can two walk together, except they be agreed?:thumbsup: Again! Cut and dry! Thats why they call us Fundamentalists!

God MUST be worshipped in spirit and in truth!!:jesus: ​

 

Soulman gave a better response that I could have.

Gold Dragon Said:
"I also gladly own to the title non-compromising."
What I have seen-you are the most compromising poster in quite a while here.

"It is what people do with that title that concerns me."
I believe that I have already expressed my concern for you. I will leave it at that.