Ecumenical leanings

Define ecumenical.

 

I too would like you to define what you mean. I would consider myself ecumenical if that means friendly cooperation between Christians and churches on projects where a compromise of principles is not involved. But I am not ecumenical if that means organic union of churches that are not compatible theologically. For example, I teach at a Methodist seminary, and encourage our Baptist students to be in dialogue with and cooperative with students of other denominations, without rancor. But nearby there is a Baptist church which is entering into a merger with a United Church of Christ congregation; leaving aside the issue of the political stances of that denomination, it remains that it is paedobaptist, and therefore I could not be a part of that merger.

 

I am ecumenical in the sense that I don't believe that "Baptists" are the only ones with the truth.

The Christians in other denominations are just as much saved as we are.
If you put that requirement on Salvation it then becomes a works based religion.

I also work with other denominations in our County on special projects...

I do steer clear of JWs, and Mormons, and such....

As long as the essentials are there, that is all that matters.... just look at BB! All different flavors even in here, even other denominations on other forums... so apparently we are all ecumenical in some sense, or you wouldn't be a member here.

Why am I ecumenical?

Because Jesus' church is....
If we get to spend eternity with those Methodists, might as well start now....

 

Am I Ecumenical ?

Let me see. Most everybody in this board knows that I believe that the wrong theology does not result in anyone's being eternally lost, neither can anyone say that he alone has the right theology and based on that is therefore eternally saved.

I believe salvation is OF the Lord. The Lord saved His people, and none whom He has chosen in Christ will ever be eternally lost, regardless of creed or theology.

Now, because of this belief I have no qualms about being friendly with JW's, SDA's, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, Freewill Baptists, Progressive Baptists, SeventhDay Baptists, Roman Catholics, and the whole gamut of denominations in "Christendom" so-called.

They are welcome to my house to dine with me, visit with me, sing with me, or open the Scriptures with me, as I hope I am welcome to theirs.

However.

I will not join their churches, nor participate in their ordinances, or sacraments, or whatever it is they call these, nor preach in their churches, nor they in mine.

Neither will I join them in "unity" meetings and such like declared to be for the purposes of "letting the walls come down", as Steve Green sings, since we all worship the same God, they say.

Nor will I affix my signatures in any "united undertakings and statements".

Am I ecumenical ?

 

Being friendly to all and familiar with none. This is not ecumenism. Ecumenism is when we totally ignore the truth of God's clear word, and compromise to join these in services.

Animosity is not an effective way to witness to the truth.

Cheers,

Jim

 

For me, my list of issues that would cause me NOT to have a general fellowship with others is relatively short. I have found that if I maintain an "open door" even to those with whom I disagree, I may gain the opportunity to challenge some thinking and belief that I believe to be in error in the spirit of fellowship and Kingdom integrity.

 

I think I've heard the terms "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" to describe the types of ecumenicalism. Where "fundamentalist" in this context needs every doctrine to be the exact same in order to fellowship ("We are a 6-day-young-earth-creation, wine-in-communion, sign-gifts-ceased, pre-tribulational-pre-millenial baptist church." If you aren't, we want nothing to do with you.)

Whereas evangelical would be something more where they focus on the essentials of the gospel. ("I know that you go out and drink, and I'm a tee-totaller, but you agree that we are saved by faith alone, in Christ alone, through grace alone, so let's work on this project together.")

 

You can call me ecumenical if you wish.

I join with the work of many evangelical paradenominational organizations. Many evangelical missions organizations that I support have evangelical members that are baptists, methodists, presbyterians, pentecostals, mennonites, anglicans, C&MA, United Church of Canada, SDA and many other smaller evangelical traditions doing amazing work for God.

In spirit, I also support reconciliation and working with groups that are more distant theologically from evangelicals but are also orthodox Christian groups like the Catholic church and the many branches of the Eastern Orthodox church.

I'm definitely comfortable worshiping God in the above denominations although some are quite different in the traditions they emphasize. I probably would not be able to fully participate or agree with all aspects of some groups on issues like the Real Presence, paedobaptism and glossia.

I also support dialogue with more heterodox Christian groups like the JW and the Latter Day Saints.

I encourage peaceful dialogue between Christians and those of other faiths, recognizing that while there may be some similarities, the differences between us are wide gulfs.

I also consider myself cooperative with those brothers and sisters of mine who wish to separate themselves from the rest of the body of Christ because of differences in theology by leaving them alone. If they wish to criticize me and other ecumenical Christians for trying to obey John 17 and Ephesians 4, they can go right ahead.

It is my utmost regard for the truth in scripture and the desire to see right orthodox biblical theology practiced by Christians that drives my obedience to these verses.

 

Since it's plain, share it with us.

I feel strongly that when we are discussing a word that isn't specifically in scripture, we must carefully define it so as not to add extra-biblical regulations to God's word.

And since the word "ecumenical" is not in the KJV (1611 or 1769), ESV, RSV, ASV, NASB, NIV, NLT, HCSB, NKJV, CEV, or pretty much any other version, how would you define it?

 

Soulman,

It is not a question of holding truth in high regard.

It is human nature to persecute those who are different than we are. In my mind many of the "separated" Christians are merely using the Bible as a license (God forbid) to justify that human nature. I find that horrible. Legalism does not please God nor does it save men.

 

Where do you fit 2 John 1:9,10,11 into the belief that showing hospitality to JW, LDS, and such is acceptable?

 

9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. 11 Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.

I think the context of the verse is established in v.9 that seems to communicate that the individuals in question began in the true faith but have at some point deviated and have become proactive in that deviation.

In no way does that passage give us freedom to not show hospitality to anyone who is lost (i.e. JW Mormons, etc.). This passsage should be harmonized with 1 Corinthians 5 which draws a distinction between believers and unbelievers. Our hospitality should never be withheld from any unbeliever.

Blessings

 

So, do you believe that only your particular kind of baptist church has the truth about salvation? If not, you're willing to reject partnering with other churches who teach and preach the true way to eternal life. You reject those whom God accepts. Why?

 

Hello,there.

I knew, somehow, somebody would come up with 2 John 1:9-11.

In 1 Corinthians 5:9-11, Paul wrote, and I quote:

"I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
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. "

The next verse tells us "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".

Now, you, or I, will not look to and refer to a JW, LDS, and such as a brother.

As far as I am concerned, my brothers (in Christ) with whom I am to be close to and familiar with are those who belong to the same church, and faith, as I do, not those in other churches who profess Christ but do not have his doctrine, and hold Him, and Him alone, in high worship as Savior, God, and LORD.

However, God has His elect among other peoples, creeds, and races, and I have no way of knowing who they are, though I cannot claim them to be my brothers in this plane called time. God only knows who His children are.

Suppose a JW, SDA, RC, or LDS neighbor of yours knocked on your door, and swallowing his/her pride, asks you for a cup of sugar because they have been hit by hard times, have been licking their wounds in private, and just badly needs that cup of sugar, are you going to say "no" to them and not even bid them a civil farewell because of 2 John 1:9-11 ?

 

That's funny.

 

Actually, I have a book with the history of the Church of God. It is their book, so no bias in it toward them. And according to them, they started from some Independent Missionary Baptists in North Carolina, and Tennessee.

Then of course the CoG, along with the Pentecostals, and other like minded people, formed the Charismatic Movement we know today...

Soooo.... It was not the Catholics that were the roots of this movement, but some misinformed Baptists.

So

 

You have a good grasp here Soulman.

God's Word from heaven is very plain. We have to know where we are standing. Otherwise we are into ecumenical belief, because we straddle.