This was the Great High Priestly Prayer of Jesus Christ. It was a prayer primarily for His disciples, which he had trained and discipled. He had no question about the doctrine which He Himself had given His own disciples. Thus with confidence He could pray "that they may be one." He then asks also for those in the future would also believe on Him that they also may be one. Of coures the inference is that they may be one, just as the disciples are one, that is, obedient in all areas of the Scripture. It is a prayer. It doesn't mean that it will turn out that way. Obviously it didn't, and it won't. Christ also prophesied of false teachers that will arise. Does he contradict himself? No, not at all. "That they may be one" has nothing to do with ecumenism, but with doctrine. Not one in spirit, but one in doctrine. If you are not following the doctrine of Christ, then the prayer doesn't apply to you. This was not an ecumenical prayer.
</font>[/QUOTE]This was written by Paul to the church at Ephesus. Every church must have unity. It was not written to some universal invisible church. There is no such thing. The word for church is "ekklesia," meaning "assembly." There is no such thing as an unassembled assembly. It refers to a local body, the Ephesian assembly. That is who Paul was addressing. He wanted the believers at Ephesus to preserve the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace, something that can only be accomplished in a local church setting. This is applicable to every Bible-believing local church today. We all need unity in our churches today.
Ecumenism is wrong. In every case in the Bible we are commanded to come out from those who hold wrong doctrine; separate from them. We are never commanded to cooperate with them.
"How can two walk together unless they be agreed?"
In the matter of evangelism, can I conscientiosly evangelize with someone who believes in baptismal regeneration?
At what wrong doctring do you draw the line? What wrong doctrines of other faiths are you going to endorse? Ecumenism is unity at the expense of doctrine. And that is wrong.
DHK
Emergent Church Movement
Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Joseph_Botwinick, Mar 28, 2005.
Page 3 of 10
-
Told ya, Gold.
-
Gold Dragon Well-Known Member
-
If you have a very close unsaved friend, you should and ought to help her, if she is in need.
However, if you marry her (assuming you are not married), then you would be going directly contrary to God's Word, for she is unsaved.
Helping and cooperating are two very different things. This discussion has nothing to do with helping others. Like I said you can help Marilyn Manson of the Church of Satan. God bless you if you can. But to cooperate in the matter of evangelism or any other spiritual matter is out of the question. Ecumenism has to do with cooperation, not helping.
DHK -
Where's the smiley of a woman running around screaming in frustration? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by 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.Click to expand...
I'd sincerely like to know what you think of this remark by McLaren:
"I must add, though, that I don't believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all?) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts. This will be hard, you say, and I agree. But frankly, it's not at all easy to be a follower of Jesus in many 'Christian' religious contexts, either."Click to expand... -
Gold Dragon Well-Known MemberOriginally posted by Marcia:
I'd sincerely like to know what you think of this remark by McLaren:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> "I must add, though, that I don't believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all?) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts. This will be hard, you say, and I agree. But frankly, it's not at all easy to be a follower of Jesus in many 'Christian' religious contexts, either."
Click to expand...
The "Christian religion" is a construct that has a lot of cultural baggage that is additional to the essence of the gospel. -
Gold Dragon Well-Known MemberOriginally posted by DHK:
Once you have cooperation between world's religions, then somebody's doctrine has to be given up.
...
It is unity at the expense of doctrine. It always is.Click to expand...
This is distinguishable from ecumenism within a faith-group.Click to expand...
As a minimum, ecumenism is the promotion of unity, cooperation, or improved understanding between distinct religious groups or denominations within the same religion more or less broadly defined.Click to expand... -
I have no problem with toleration. But, I do have a problem with accepting. There is a difference. I can say that all religions have the right to peacefully conduct their observances and beliefs. But, that does not mean I have to accept or even respect those beliefs.
Joseph Botwinick -
Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
I acknowledge that it can also mean increased unity with other religions which I don't agree with. I am not opposed to increased toleration and understanding of other religious groups which is something our Baptist forefathers fought and died for.Click to expand...
Fighting against ecumenism of any kind, Bunyan would never cooperate with the Church of England and be licenced by them. There would be no cooperation between this Baptist and that apostate church!! He could understand, respect, and even tolerate their beliefs, but they could not tolerate his. See the difference. Bunyan would fight for the rights of the Church of England to exist, but not cooperate with their doctrine. There is a big difference. He went to jail for non-cooperation, and at the same time beleived that the Church of England had the right to preach as they saw fit. He only wanted the same right. Respect, yes. Cooperation, no.
DHK -
Gold Dragon Well-Known MemberOriginally posted by DHK:
There would be no cooperation between this Baptist and that apostate church!!Click to expand... -
We'll cross that bridge when we get there. ;)
Joseph Botwinick -
Gold Dragon Well-Known MemberOriginally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
We'll cross that bridge when we get there. ;)
Joseph BotwinickClick to expand...
But I know most baptists would disagree with that assessment. -
Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 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.
Click to expand...
If you have a very close unsaved friend, you should and ought to help her, if she is in need.
However, if you marry her (assuming you are not married), then you would be going directly contrary to God's Word, for she is unsaved.
Helping and cooperating are two very different things. This discussion has nothing to do with helping others. Like I said you can help Marilyn Manson of the Church of Satan. God bless you if you can. But to cooperate in the matter of evangelism or any other spiritual matter is out of the question. Ecumenism has to do with cooperation, not helping.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I guess you are defining words in your own new and different way, then. This is not surprising, of course.
I define "Ecumenicalism" as an effort to join together the disparate members of the Body of Christ." You seem to give it some vaster meaning. Am I correct in this understanding?
By the way, please cease speaking down to me by telling me I do not understand the issue. If I do not understand you, that is your fault. Be clearer if there's a misunderstanding. I cannot, nor do I want to, read your mind. -
Originally posted by Marcia:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 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.Click to expand...
I'd sincerely like to know what you think of this remark by McLaren:
"I must add, though, that I don't believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all?) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts. This will be hard, you say, and I agree. But frankly, it's not at all easy to be a follower of Jesus in many 'Christian' religious contexts, either."Click to expand...
I'm of the opinion that we are too in love with our particular brand of Christianity: I mean that "our" brand of Christianity is very unlike the early Church, having been homogenized, Westernized, and caucasianized. McLaren makes the excellent point in "A Generous Orthodoxy" that much of missionary work in the last century or so has really been an effort to not so much bring Jesus to the world, but our brand of westernized religion to the world.
Let's say a person who has been raised Buddhist, whose culture and surroundings are Buddhist, becomes a believer in Christ. Must he or she completely divorce themselves from their culture, from their surroundings, and from everything they've ever known to be a Christian? This is certainly not the way the early Church did it. In fact, our celebration of Christmas is an adaptation of a pagan holiday - as is All Saint's Day and some aspects of Easter. This is because the early Church wanted to help these new pagan converts to retain something familiar to them, and Christianizing some existing pagan holy days was their way of doing this.
I'm not saying, and niether, I think, is McLaren, that one can simultaneously worship Christ and Buddha. Rather, as people come to Christ from disparate backgrounds and experiences, we should not arbitrarily decide that the only way to follow Jesus is our way: our churches, our traditions, our ancillary theologies. -
Tragic,
Go back to the link provided by Gold Dragon. Do a search on ecumenism for yourself. Ecumenism has nothing to do with "helping" one another. We are all commanded to do that, and even the unsaved do that. People having been doing that ever since Adam and Eve, and are still doing so. That is nothing new.
Ecumenism is the unbiblical cooperation of different religions. It is cooperation, not simply giving help to. It is the uniting together of different relgions. Thus your red herring of "helping and loving one another," of "loving one's neighbor," etc. are totally irrelevant. These commands we all have had from the beginning of time, and no one disagrees with them.
I am a missionary, and have been to a number of Asian countries. As an example in Hindu and Muslim cultures, which you mention above, if the culture goes against the Word of God, then the culture must be abondoned (at least that aspect of it). A missionary doesn't go to westernize people, but to bring the gospel to them. The gospel in many cases brings civility to an otherwise barbarous nation. If you call that westernization, then so be it. I call it the fruit of Christianity. In most nations much of the culture is retained--that which does not go against the Bible (many marriage traditions for example).
In either case a missionary does not join hands with a Hindu or a Muslim, or any other religion. The goal is to carry out the Great Commission. Those relgions are the enemies of God, the work of Satan. Love the sinner and hate the sin. We preach Christ and Him crucified and have nothing to do with the unfruitful works of darkness. We completely disassociate ourselves from them as far as any cooperation is concerned.
How can you cooperate with Islam, when the threat of Islam in many Islamic nations is death to the Islamic convert??
DHK -
Gold Dragon Well-Known MemberOriginally posted by DHK:
Ecumenism is the unbiblical cooperation of different religions.Click to expand... -
Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
Are you denying that ecumenism is also used to describe the cooperation of Christian groups within the same religion? That was also in the wikipedia link I referenced and I would not consider that to be unbibilical.Click to expand...
Two IFB churches cooperating together is not ecumenism. -
Gold Dragon Well-Known MemberOriginally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
Are you denying that ecumenism is also used to describe the cooperation of Christian groups within the same religion? That was also in the wikipedia link I referenced and I would not consider that to be unbibilical.Click to expand...
If you wish to redefine Christianity to say that only those follow DHK's 35 (making up a number) fundamental doctrines is a Christian, I would say you are adding to Scripture.
Page 3 of 10