The Emerging Church

I agree PL,

Gold's point of view shows me the dangers of the emergent church.

 

I'm not sure where you got those ideas but they are in complete opposition to what I shared.

1) EC is not about more denominations or divisions.
2) Absolute authority most definitely can exist in the postmodern worldview.
3) Scriptural authority is most definitely relevant in the EC.
4) Christ is held in His rightful place as being the ultimate authority.
5) The bible is held in its rightful place as an authoritative and trustworthy scripture from God that points to the person of Christ.
6) Neither Christ nor the bible are held in contempt.

I don't know what you were reading but none of what you said was in my post.

Agreed. Christ is the head of our Church and we should be in intimate relationship with the church that points to the person of Christ.

 

No, you are just changing what you say as the wind changes.

Again, you have shown me (IMHO) that the EC is as dangerous as PL pointed out.

Until you stated that

 

I agree. The EC is dangerous. It is dangerous to Satan because people are coming to right relationship in Christ because of it. Christians looking past their petty squabbles and are beginning to respond to Christ's prayer for unity before his crucifixion and Paul's urges for unity because of it. This can happen without the EC, but it is also happening within EC.

I know unity and ecumenicalism are bad words to many Baptists and I also do not support unity at the expense of doctrine. But they are the words of Christ and Paul.

 

Again,

I had no opinion about the EC before this thread. But, based upon what I have read from this thread [and articles on the web], I agree with PL's assessment that the EC phenomena is dangerous.

 

I challenge you to find ecumenicalism in scripture ...

 

</font>[/QUOTE]I don't appreciate being quoted out of context and accused of saying things that I didn't say. You read a few words and extrapolated incorrect ideas about what those words meant without reading the context they were placed in or asking for clarification if you misunderstood.

 

I have known people that came to Christ because of visions they had during a bad drug experience. Your experiential illustration of people coming to Christ because of an EC experience is just an EXPERIENCE.

Good or Bad, God uses all things for the good of those called ACCORDING to His purpose ... (Romans)

 

I never said anything about experiences, but what is so wrong about experiences?

Agreed.

 

If that is the case, why does highlighting a few words allow the context to change so drastically?

I used your words. If highlighting your words makes you feel concern:

how do you expect others not to feel concern for those same words?

 

I apologize. You are correct. I initially wrote that sentence without the word ecumenicalism and then added it in later because I expected many to have that word pop up in their heads. Of course, it ruined the validity of that later sentence.

 

If that is the case, why does highlighting a few words allow the context to change so drastically?

I used your words. If highlighting your words makes you feel concern:

how do you expect others not to feel concern for those same words? </font>[/QUOTE]It isn't the highlight that caused me concern, but your complete misrepresentation of my words in post #53.

If you are concerned. Ask for clarification instead of assuming you know what I meant.

 

You mentioned experiences, when you utilized:

to support the EC being Godly. As I pointed out [from people I encountered - experiential learning] not all experiences are Godly, but God can still use them.

 

to support the EC being Godly. As I pointed out [from people I encountered - experiential learning] not all experiences are Godly, but God can still use them. </font>[/QUOTE]No experience mentioned there. Just that an observation. And it wasn't meant as a support for it being Godly, but as a support for it being dangerous to Satan.

 

What is scary about the EC is that people of God can so easily misunderstand the terms EC uses in describing itself ...

That should cause concern. In and of itself.

 

LOL. A movement is wrong because you don't take the time to understand what they are talking about? Bullocks!

Quantum physics must be wrong too.

 

again, it is scary that the English I know - no longer means or intends English meaning.

Since when do experience and observation belong to different semantic domains? I.e., they are not cognates, they are not synonyms, but they are related in meaning.

 

Quantum physics had nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Again, total redirection of meaning and intent.

 

I agree with Pastor Larry,

EC is dangerous. However, you would like to read that.
Maybe you would like to read that as, "You are closed minded". That is ok.
You have used Orwellian doublespeak repeatedly.
That is ok - I rejected Orwell, also.

 

Without right doctrine, there is no Christianity. YOu keep making false dichotomies.

This is typical of the liberal, mainline, Catholics, etc. It is not typical of the evangelical church.

But Scripture wasn't the problem. Their hearts were the problem.

Never, that I can remember. Without the Scripture, you know nothing of Christ. It is his inspired word.

And we should reject that. It is a false doctrine.

This is not descriptive of the largest part of the emerging church, at least from a outsider's point of view. I have read their own writings on this. They have major problems. Their solutions are not always biblical solutions. We need to be aware of the dangers.