Ecumenical

Our tasks include avoiding unnecesary divisions in the body of Christ.

 

Mioque,
The Tower of Babel represented mans'attempt to reach God. Man wanted to do as Cain and present himself to God on his own terms.

We have to remember that we MUST accept God on His terms. He left us a bible that is truth from cover to cover. Start disregarding that truth for the sake of unity and you have a tower.

I am not amillenialist. I believe in the rapture of the church and the return of Christ to rule with a rod of iron for 1,000 years.

Current day ecumenicisim supports this view. If this is not the ecumenicisim that will result in the one world false religion it certainly is a good practice run.

Quoted by mioque: Our tasks include avoiding unnecesary divisions in the body of Christ.

Yes. But not at the expense of sound doctrinal truth. That is the only way the church has to protect itself from false religion.

 

Soulman
"The Tower of Babel represented mans'attempt to reach God."
"
No kidding.
There were 5 preachers preaching sermons at that gathering. they all told something along those lines to the audiance (usually taking upwards to an hour to do what you did in this short sentence). I however got the request to give a lecture about DIFFERENT perspectives to that event. So I did.

"I am not amillenialist."
"
Ofcourse you aren't, you however claimed that most theologians the world over agreed with you.

 

mioque,
Is this what you do when you can't defend your position? Pick the sentances apart and inacurately at that?

I will correct our errors: I never said" most theologians the world over". I meant to say "Most theologians I am aware of".

Now why don't you cut to the chase? Do you stand for todays ecumenicisim with all it's love and anything goes fluff? Or do you stand for truth and doctrine? This should be a no brainer. If you stand for truth then why are we arguing?

Quoted by mioque: On the other hand if that coming together of that oneworldfalseprophetreligion is only going to start happening a 1000 years from now, all those who blanketly condemn any attempt at greater unity are making fools of themselves and doing the real bride of Christ a disservice.

Doesn't sound like you learned anything about false religion from your little ecumenical conference if your taking that kind of a stand!

 

"Do you stand for todays ecumenicisim with all it's love and anything goes fluff?"
"
No.

Your turn.
Do you stand every single attempt to work toward a greater Christian?

 

Matthew 10
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

 

Ecumenism is definitely a pejorative term when it comes out of the mouth of a fundamentalist.

The ecumenicisim of today is not based on truth. In fact it is designed to do away with sound doctrine.

This is an example of what I just said. This statement EXEMPLIFIES what I don't like about the fundamentalist position. This statement is a falsehood. Modern ecumenism intends to bring Christians together. That itself is not a bad thing. To say that its intent is to do away with sound doctrine is a willful misrepresentation, a smear if you will. The liberals don't get it right - but that doesn't make it right to lie about their motives to make them look worse.

Calling one's self a Christian does not make one's self a Christian. But there are too many here who believe that if someone does not agree with all the fundamentalist doctrines then he/she is not a Christian.

Ecumenical dialogue is a positive thing, as long as:

1. We are fellowshipping with those with a true desire to serve Christ (a church that preaches that Christ was not divine is NOT a Christian church).

2. We are not willing to compromise doctrine. Dialogue with catholics is a good thing - we don't have to believe the Mary stuff to fellowship with them.

Paul said that the greatest virtue is love. We do wrong if we shun others because they are different.

There will be a lot of catholics who suffer loss - or worse - because of their bad doctrines. But there will be a lot of fundamentalists who suffer loss because of their Pharisaical judgmental ways.

 

Must repost understandable version.

"Do you stand for todays ecumenicisim with all it's love and anything goes fluff?"
"
No.

Your turn.
Do you stand against every single attempt to work towards greater Christian unity?

 

How can we fellowship with Catholics when their church does indeed teach, "another gospel." What fellowship does light have with darkness?

The Bible tells us over and over to "shun" those who walk in error. Love and Biblical separation are not at odds.

Will you also suffer loss for judging the fundamentalists for their judgmental ways?

 

Here is a web site that addresses the love over truth lie of ecumenicalism:

http://www.reachingforchrist.org/falsedoctrines/ecumenical.php

 

The Bible tells us over and over to "shun" those who walk in error.

And just who is walking in error? You're basically saying that whoever does not agree with your theology is in error. What about the Methodists? What about the Lutherans? What about the conservative Anglicans?

I was catholic for many years. I went to catholic school for grades 1-12. What did I learn? That Jesus isn't God? That Mary IS God?
That Jesus did die? That Jesus did not rise?

No I learned that Jesus was born of a virgin, died and rose again on the 3rd day to pay for our sins.

Do you call that a false gospel?

There are many doctrines held by the RCC which I cannot accept thus I am no longer catholic. But the basics are there.

Love and Biblical separation are not at odds.

Yeah I've heard that one before. How much did Jesus separate himself from sinners?

I'm not defending, nor am I advocating fellowship with those who would deny Christ or who wilfully attempt to pervert the truth.

I am defending those who DO trust that Jesus is God and did die for their sins but who have some bad theology. For me this would include Pentecostals, Methodists, Catholics, and strict fundamentalists.


Will you also suffer loss for judging the fundamentalists for their judgmental ways?

I am just calling a spade a spade. The one thing I do NOT like about being a baptist (coming from an ex-catholic) is the judgmental attitude. Like I said I will NOT defend the one who denies Christ. But I regard catholics and other less than optimal denominations as weaker brothers.

The RCC has appropriate Christology, advocating a virgin birth, death on a cross for sins, and bodily resurrection.

How do some of you guys label this as a false Gospel? That seems to imply that belief in Christ is insufficient, that faith is not enough. I find this destructive to the body of Christ as a whole.

 

All of the groups you have listed are indeed in error because they have some other authority besides Scripture.

Yes, the Catholic church teaches virgin birth, death, burial, resurrection, etc. That does not make them true Christians "The devils also believe and tremble." The Catholic church teaches that the grace that comes through Christ's sacrifice is obtained by works. That is a false gospel. Nothing could be more obvious.

Jesus did not separate form sinners, but neither did he condone their sin. He did, however, separate from false teaching, as He has commanded us to do in His word.

I, of course, am again being judgmental, while you are simply calling a spade a spade.

 

"You're basically saying that whoever does not agree with your theology is in error."
"
Have you ever seen Greg do anything else on this board?
Pointing out that Greg is a little overeager when it comes to measuring others is like pointing out that my posts are a little quirky.

 

I'm not sure how the above post was beneficial to anyone. I thought personal attacks were against the rules.

However, to state the obvious: If you believe your theology is accurate, it logically follows that you believe that those who disagree with it are in error. How can you say, A and B are opposite. I believe A, you believe B. We are both right?

By your disagreement with, me you obviously indicate that you think I am in error. Which is fine.

 

"If you believe your theology is accurate, it logically follows that you believe that those who disagree with it are in error."
"
You forget one important point. The realisation that you might actually be wrong about something you're certain you are right about.
Or even more complex the paradox, you are both right about something, despite the fact that you disagreeing about it.
To give an example of the latter, Jim believes the Apocalypse of John is about the End Times, John believes the Apocalypse of John is about the 1st century A.D.
What if they are both right?

"By your disagreement with, me you obviously indicate that you think I am in error. Which is fine."
"
What gave you that silly idea? That it is fine I mean, that we disagree is obvious.
If you are right anything positive I utter about ecumenism is a potential threat to the tiny remnant of true Christians left. If I am right you are needlessly obstructing friendly relations between Christians who disagree on side issues.

 

"'If you believe your theology is accurate, it logically follows that you believe that those who disagree with it are in error.'
You forget one important point. The realisation that you might actually be wrong about something you're certain you are right about."
That possibility does not change the fact that one would believe himself correct, and therefore, opposing views incorrect.

"Or even more complex the paradox, you are both right about something, despite the fact that you disagreeing about it.
To give an example of the latter, Jim believes the Apocalypse of John is about the End Times, John believes the Apocalypse of John is about the 1st century A.D.
What if they are both right?"

They could be. I thought of that type of situation, which was why I started by saying A and B are opposites. This was probably not clear enough. But on matters of Biblical doctrine (I don't consider the Apocalypse illustration to be a matter of doctrine, but simply of interpretation) opposing views cannot both be correct. e.g. Christ either will come before, during, or after the tribulation - no two of those three can be correct, although theoretically they could all be incorrect.

"'By your disagreement with, me you obviously indicate that you think I am in error. Which is fine.'
What gave you that silly idea? That it is fine I mean, that we disagree is obvious."

That silly idea is called the doctrine of soul liberty. Although as a Baptist I firmly believe our historic understanding of Scripture to be correct, I would fight for the right of a Catholic, Jew, Mormon, etc. to believe according to his conscience.

"If you are right anything positive I utter about ecumenism is a potential threat to the tiny remnant of true Christians left. If I am right you are needlessly obstructing friendly relations between Christians who disagree on side issues."
Maybe we need to define specific issues of separation in this thread. What are side issues? Salvation by faith without works is not a side issue. It is the very heart of the gospel. Thus, as I stated earlier, I cannot fellowship with Catholicism.

We also need to not make leaps. Separating from a brother who walks disorderly or who is in error does not equate with obstructing friendly relations. I have friends who are Pentecostal, Catholic, etc. We disagree on some issues, but we can still have friendly relations, even though I cannot involve my church in ecumenical endeavors with theirs.

 

Greg,

I, of course, am again being judgmental, while you are simply calling a spade a spade.

That's about right!

Yes we believe differently. Based on discussions here I think you have some significant misunderstandings - but I do not claim that you are going to hell because of them.

 

I don't claim that anyone is going to hell based on misunderstandings, either, unless the misunderstanding regards salvation. Do you believe that people who believe that salvation is obtained by works are going to heaven?

 

What point would that be? I'm just trying to help us be more obedient to scripture, whether it supports our supposed "points" or not.

Amen

What exactly am I wrong about and being vague about? All I'm doing is looking into scripture and asking questions.

According to the verses I just quoted, unity among Christians is something Jesus prayed for and Paul urged.

I wouldn't be surprised if some drives towards unity are related to the false bride of Christ. That doesn't deny that other drives towards unity are part of the will of Christ.

 

Matthew 10
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for emphasizing my point.