Emergent Church Movement

[DHK]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
Is it? The idea that we many should be one in Christ is spiritual adultery?Wow, someone should tell St. Paul about that.

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

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Correct DHK.

We are to be one in Christ with fellow Christians. We should not attempt to unite ourselves theologically with non-Christians, however. Whether it feels good or not to think that many of our friends will probably go to Hell is not a good enough reason to compromise sound doctrine and teaching, or to accept false doctrine. And we certainly don't change the teachings of the Bible to make them feel better about their sins. That is not love for the lost. That is abuse of the Word of God and much less compassionate than telling them the truth. The truth is what sets us free, not feeling good or better about a lie.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[cherylz]

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!

 

[violet]

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...

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
Is it? The idea that we many should be one in Christ is spiritual adultery?Wow, someone should tell St. Paul about that.

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

Liberals?

Yes.

Heretics? perhaps those of other religions, such as Muslims? They believe in Christ too, don't they?

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

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"?

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.

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.

Yes.

I don't believe so.

I know.

The Bible says: "How can two walk together unless they be agreed?"
DHK

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.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by cherylz:
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!

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.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Carson argues that many thinkers in the movement shy away from asserting that Christianity is true and authoritative.
He also argues that the Emerging Church Movement frequently fails to use Scripture as the normative standard of truth and instead appeals to tradition.

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

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:

Deconstructing Hell
“If Christianity is true, then all the people I love except for a few will burn in hell forever. But if Christianity is not true, then life doesn't seem to have much meaning or hope. I wish I could find a better option”

McLaren recognizes the truth of Christianity being that many will burn in hell. Isn't that something none of us wishes were true?

 

[tragic_pizza]

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

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:

Just who are we to be "one in Christ" with?

Other Christians.

"Other Christians" is a vague term that can mean almost anything in this world. There are plenty of "Christians" who are such but only in name. They are not born again. With those I have no fellowship at all. And the Bible condemns such fellowship as well.

Liberals?

Yes.

No, it is the majority of liberals that are not saved. The majority of liberals deny the very fundamentals of the faith, especially the infallibility of the Scripture. Without the Bible, we know not where they stand on other doctrines. A liberal cannot rightly be defined as a Christian, because of the denial of the fundamentals of the faith.

Heretics? perhaps those of other religions, such as Muslims? They believe in Christ too, don't they?

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

Don't know what your answer means, but at least we can agree here.

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"?

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.

So what is the difference. The Oneness, by default in the denial of the trinity, and their view of the manifistation of the three persons of God, do not believe in the deity of Christ either. They do not believe in the same Jesus of the Bible, just as the J.W.'s and the Mormons' do not believe in the same Jesus as the Bible. So what is the difference? Why call one Christian and not the other? It is hypocritical.

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.

Yes.

Those who deny the fundamentals of the faith are not Christians. You can call yourself a Christian, but that doesn't make you one. When you deny the fundamentals of the faith, you cannot be a Christian. When Jesus said (concerning false teachers) "By their fruits ye shall know them," he was not speaking of good works, he was speaking of doctrine. By their doctrine you shall know them.

The Bible says: "How can two walk together unless they be agreed?"
DHK

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

There are certain essentials of the faith that we must agree on. Liberals do not agree on those essentials. The Bible commands us to depart from such.

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

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

arising from orthodoxy) which is the means by which God sheds His grace and allows me fellowship in His Kingdom. [/b]

The Antichrist himself will be the most ecumenical creature that ever will have lived. You may follow in his footsteps if you will. But as for me and my house, we will follow the Lord.
Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness.

2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

2 Corinthians 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
DHK

 

[tragic_pizza]

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...

 

[DHK]

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by DHK:
Regarding ecumenism I stand against any form of ecumenism and that is my perogative to do so. Read the Old Testament.

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

NASB - John 17:18-21

As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.

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.

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.

 

[tragic_pizza]

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.

 

[tragic_pizza]

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.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
Regarding ecumenism I stand against any form of ecumenism and that is my perogative to do so. Read the Old Testament.

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

NASB - John 17:18-21

As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.

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.

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.

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

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
Been there, done that, Gold.

Could you send me a link?

 

[tragic_pizza]

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.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
DHK, among others, will tell you that if they don't consider a person a Christian, the verses don't apply.

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.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
DHK, among others, will tell you that if they don't consider a person a Christian, the verses don't apply.

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.