Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by El_Guero, Oct 30, 2006.
Do you believe in ecumenism?
For all "Christians"?
Pr for all people?
Let me explain very simply: NO
Then simple it is.
We got through the reformation once; lets not create a need to do it again!
Would you define ecumenism? What do you mean by "believe in"?
peace to youraying:
Loosely, it is a belief that there is 'one' Christianity that 'all' can believe and practice if we all compromise a little.
Or, all people in the world have a little bit of Jesus in what they believe and will get to Heaven.
Both are loose and down and dirty.
The reason I asked is because ecumenism means different things to different people. Most who support ecumenism, it seems to me, see it as setting aside non-essential doctrines to cooperate in good works. Most who oppose see it as compromise of essential doctrines for the sake of an unattainable "unity".
To answer you question:
No, ecumenism cannot be obtained without crushing the true church into non-existence; which is impossible. There will always remain a "remnant" to strive for "the Faith" once for all delivered, until our Lord returns.
peace to youraying:
I've voluntarily accepted the label ecumenical in the past and I would not agree with any of those two statements.
OK . . . what I posted seemed to be close to what I had googled when I posted the thread and what I remember of previous discussions.
So, how would you modify the definition(s)?
My understanding of ecumenicalism is being obedient to Jesus' prayer for Christians in John 17 and Paul's imploring of Christians in Ephesians 4.
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.
Paul 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.
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.
Wow! What a question that was asked---DO YOU BELIEVE?
I do think I am safe in seeing the word in the dictionary and what it says that folks in general realize what it the word means. But again that Word ecumenism belief? I have read a lot of what the world says it is as well as other denominations trying to ascertain that force it speaks of called "Uinty". Then ask a question about is unity with Islam and Jewish or Yagoism, Atheism called unity beliefs?
What we all need to do is see what God says in the bible about this word. Personnally I know that Paul taught young Timothy in Ephises church that Jesus believers are to suffer as good soldier just like a framer in his fields--is that unity? in 2 Tim. 2:3 thru 7--I think others in the world would rather run from this Jesus point of view that Paul is teaching! What about old testament of Moses leading folks out of Egypt as spoken in Exodus 15: 1 thru 13. That was called fleeing and not unity! How about today with Iraq issue--is that unity? So, I do not believe in ecumenism, only the true God and his son Jesus Christ as our saviour. Amen.
I feel that you have some good intentions here Gold Dragon, but you must not be confused with the idealism of the first century Church, with the reality of the present-day situation. All through the New Testament, from the Lord Jesus Himself and many of the inspired writers of the books have consistently warned of the times to come and how there would be a departing from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and things taught by demons, ravenous wolves, not sparing the flock; well. you get the idea.
Well, all of this happened. The doctrinal statement, and what is preached and taught in all to many churches today reflects a departing from the faith.
What is ecumeniclism? It is the notion that we should all get together at any cost; and if there are doctrinal differences, that is secondary in importance, or no importance at all.
The problem with that? "In vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men". "Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach onto any other gospel...let him be accursed". Doctrines of devils, commandments of men and "other" gospels. These are the things that are all too prevalent in too many of these churches that are a part of this movement. IMHO: the Christ honoring, Bible believing Christian should have absolutely nothing to do with the ecumenical movement.
And if you hear some of the things I believe and espouse, you would probably call me a ravenous wolf that has departed from the faith. And when I hear the misrepresentations and lack of grace shown by anti-ecumenical Christians when they talk about other Christian groups, I would consider them to be ravenous wolves that have departed from the faith.
Do you understand the problem we have?
Believe as in trust? NO.
Believe as in its existence? Yes.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
Those words from Lewis Carroll's book, "Alice Through the Looking Glass" may be appropriate here. To answer the question, we need to know what El Guero means by "ecumenism" and "Christian", and not just the dictionary definitions. If "Christian" means everyone who says they are a Christian, then the question would have a different meaning to what it would have if we were to apply a more biblical definition. Here in the UK, in the 2001 Census, about 41 million people, out of a total of almost 59 million, said they were Christians. Yet only 3½ million (about 7%) meet to worship God on an average Sunday! And that 3½ million would include far more than bible-believing evangelicals.
The same with the word "ecumenism". I don't know how it is used in other English-speaking countries, but here it generally refers to the ideology that aims to unite all who call themselves Christians, and all bodies that call themselves churches, regardless of what those individuals and bodies actually believe. Here, we have a body called "Churches Together in Britain and Ireland", but a cursory glance at the list of member-churches is enough to show diverse beliefs such as Roman Catholics, Quakers, Coptic Orthodox, and Moravians. Ask those four groups for their definition of a Christian, and how a person becomes one, and I would guess you would get several different and opposing answers. The Catholic Encyclopaedia says that a person becomes a Christian by the act of baptism:
"This sacrament is the door of the Church of Christ and the entrance into a new life. We are reborn from the state of slaves of sin into the freedom of the Sons of God."
The Quakers, on their own UK website at www.quaker.org.uk in the FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) section, say in answer to the question, "Are Quakers Christian?":
Quakerism started in England in the 1650s so there's no doubt that Quakerism is rooted in Christianity and many Quakers centre their faith on Jesus. On the other hand, some Quakers find that traditional religious language doesn't describe their inner experiences, and they look both within Christianity and within other faiths and philosophies. The Society appears very different from any other Christian group, without the usual priests or creeds and with a distinctive worship based on silence.
Neither of those examples agrees with the "Believe of the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved" of Acts 16.31. How can there be any meaningful unity if there is not at the very least agreement on what it means to be a Christian?
So to get back to the question, if you meant "Do we believe that all people who say they are Christians, and all religious bodies which claim to be Christian should be united," I for one must answer, "No." But if you meant, "Should genuine believers in the Lord Jesus Christ consider other genuine believers in Him as their brothers and sisters, even though they may not agree on things which aren't "the root of the matter", that's different.
Amo 3:3Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
No, I regard you as a brother in Christ that I disagree with. What hurts in your responce was "...misrepresentations and lack of grace..." Now that would seem to me to be a charge that I (and others) lack grace because we see the ecumenical movement as compromising sound Biblical doctrine. Clearly a compromising of Biblical truths is called for here if you hope to have this unity that is so desirable. (?) Standing for sound Biblical doctrine and principles never shows a lack of grace. Telling the world that whatever you do, whatever you believe, that's okay-THAT show a lack of grace.
Was this a personal reference to watchman or a general reference to all (or most) Baptists?
If you would expect the general population of baptists to disagree with your theology . . . I would expect you might have some issues that you should deal with.
Question Gold Dragon:
Do you consider everyone who disagrees with you a ravenous wolf that has departed from the faith?
If so, my friend and brother in Christ, you may need to rethink your position.
"My way or the highway" should not be so...
YOU are acting the opposite of the way you are proposing that WE act.