Emergent Church Movement

Just who are we to be "one in Christ" with?
Liberals? Heretics? perhaps those of other religions, such as Muslims? They believe in Christ too, don't they? Where do you draw the line Tragic? The J.W.'s also say they believe in Christ, just like the Oneness Pentecostal do. What is the difference? They both deny the trinity. Why fellowship with one and not the other. Or, are they both part of the "body of Christ"?

Are we "one in Christ" with liberals who deny the very fundamentals of the faith, those that deny the literalness of eternal punishment such as Hell, etc.
I don't believe so. The Bible says: "How can two walk together unless they be agreed?"
DHK

 

tragic, I'd be careful with the all inclusive one body theology of the new agers ie, no personal relationship with Jesus Christ just this vast cosmos that you plug into spiritually to become one body. I think the body Jesus Christ is talking about is tur born again Christians, with Jesus Christ as the Head.
Ask a Catholic who the head of his church is.
Ask a Mormon who the head of his church is,
and so on. Id be careful, the Body of Christ and the One World Religion are 2 different things!

 

I'm pretty sure that any educated Catholic would say that the head of the church is Christ. The church is his body and he is the head...

 

Just who are we to be "one in Christ" with?</font>[/QUOTE]Other Christians.

Yes.

No, they don't. They believe that Jesus was a prophet, but that's it. So no cookie for you.

If that were the singular departure from orthodoxy that the Jehovah's Witnesses ascrine to, there'd be a discussion here, but it is obvious that JW don't believe in Jesus as Christ, but rather as a really good person especially blessed by God for his goodness (little "h" intended, as that is how they'd view Him) in a way attainable by all. same kind of things the Mormons would say about Him. Again, no cookie.

Yes.

I know.

So we must agree on every point of theology in order to walk together? Impossible.

There are disputable things, DHK. There are also things that are indisputable, but which cannot be argued away. It is in those cases better to concentrate on those things wherein we do agree, and hope that, by our exemplary life in Christ we can convince the unconvinced.

I'm convinced of the reality of eternal punishment, and am thankful for the mercy of God that can keep me from it. I am unconvinced, however, that this belief is absolutely vital for salvation. Rather, it is faith in Jesus as God, and risen from the dead, which is the most vital belief, and the practices which arise from that belief (orthopraxy[/b] arising from orthodoxy) which is the means by which God sheds His grace and allows me fellowship in His Kingdom.

 

Well, I almost agree. The Roman Catholic would argue vehemently that Christ is the Head.

I think it is possible to befriend people without ascribing to their belief system, and thereby to share Chriwst with them.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]I would recommend reading what EC folks have to say instead of what critics think they are saying.

 

Gold, that's the problem. We Christians are content to let others do our thinking for us.

 

Well, at least you can justify your hatred, disdain, and open mocking of others under a cover of religious righteousness, DHK.

But we've discussed this before, haven't we? Liberals aren't "saved" because you say they aren't saved. You can hide from ecumenicalism by speaking of the Antichrist. Thus you're guarded from having to love your brother by having a specific definition of who your brother is.

I think Jesus said something about that... “And who is my neighbor?”

In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins[e] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Matthew 10:26b-37, if you're interested...

 

This is a personal attack, untrue, and a slandererous accusation. If I said the same thing, you would hit the moderator alert button immediately and complain to every authority on the board. Give surch evidence where I have displayed any hatred toward anyone, disdain toward anyone, or mocked anyone. Either "put up or shut up," as the saying goes. It is hyporcritical for you to continuously complain about how others mistreat you, lay accusations and personal attacks against you, when you do the same, and without evidence.

More false accusations. I carefully said, that one cannot be saved if he denies the fundamentals of the faith, which the Liberals do. It is not a matter of my opinion. In that regard my opinion doesn't count. But the Word of God does. I gave you Scripture. Do you not believe the Scriptures? "A heretic after the first and second admonition reject."
They are not my brother if they are not saved.
Regarding ecumenism I stand against any form of ecumenism and that is my perogative to do so. Read the Old Testament. A good example is Jehoshaphat, one of the best kings that the nation of Judah ever had. The Bible says that he walked not in the ways of his fathers, but wholly followed the Lord his God. He was richly blessed by God, because he followed God. But that is not how Jehoshaphat is remembered in history. Jehoshaphat ended his life cooperating with Ahab, the king of Israel, in fighting against the king of Syria. You might say he was ecumenical--an ecumenical compromiser, and God judged him for it. Jehoshaphat is not remembered for his good deeds; he is remembered for his evil deed of compromise with an evil king (a liberal), which brought the downfall of Jehoshophat's kingdom.

No one is saying not to help your neighbor. What has that got to do with the price of tea in China. Like the price of tea in China, it is a red herring. We are speaking of Ecclesiastical separation, ecumenism, unity with other Christians, etc. That has nothing to do with helping your neighbor--saved or unsaved. You can stretch out your hand and help Marilyn Manson when he is in trouble if you wish. He belongs to the Church of Satan I believe. Help your neighbor. So what! That has nothing to do with subject. Why the red herring?
DHK

 

I'm curious what your response is to Jesus' prayer for us and Paul's words for us in the New Testament.

 

Not a red herring, DHK, but the point.

You don't get to choose who you show love to, who you accept, who you are brothers with in Christ.

As to substantiating my claims, I point you toward the now-closed "Glossolalia" thread, among others. I will certainly provide links if needed.

Finally, please explain to me the purpose of reporting a post you make to a moderator? You, after all, are the one who gets the reports.

 

By the way, if I had the opportunity to have a cup of coffee and conversation with Marilyn Manson, i would jump at the opportunity. Perhaps I could be blessed by helping him.

 

I'm curious what your response is to Jesus' prayer for us and Paul's words for us in the New Testament.

</font>[/QUOTE]Been there, done that, Gold.

 

Could you send me a link?

 

It's all buried in the aforementioned "Glossolalia" thread.

DHK, among others, will tell you that if they don't consider a person a Christian, the verses don't apply. Then they'll tell you all about Elijah calling fire down from heaven. They'll tell you it's germaine to the conversation.

But perhaps I am wrong. Hopefully, your message will get through where mine cannot.

 

I would agree that those verses do not apply to a person you do not consider a Christian.

However, if your definition of Christian is so small that there is no need for ecumenicalism of any type, your definition needs some fixing.

And I should include that ecumenicalism at the expense of doctrine or truth is not desired by myself.

 

I would agree that those verses do not apply to a person you do not consider a Christian.

However, if your definition of Christian is so small that there is no need for ecumenicalism of any type, your definition needs some fixing.

And I should include that ecumenicalism at the expense of doctrine or truth is not desired by myself. </font>[/QUOTE]Nor me, providing the doctrine is strictly orthodox, and not something tacked on at the whim of some denomination or another. I consider the Apostles Creed, or better the Nicene Creed, a fine starting place.