# World Council of Churches[WCC]



## regenerated (Sep 14, 2008)

I do not believe in the concept of the WCC and their attempt to introduce an ecumenical movement worldwide.

I was therefore wondering whether there are were any supporters within PB.

[perish the thought]

Whilst the ecumenical movement may sound 'spiritual' to the uninitiated, I do not believe that it holds to any particular scriptural bias and therefore cannot be accepted as a genuine faith.

It draws its followers into accepting a 'tolerance religion' embracing all faiths giving scant regard to topics that divide,and majoring on topics that unite.

Ecumenicalism,with it's preaching of 'spiritual unity' under spiritual diversity is the road that the 'invisible church' should not be seduced into taking.

Tolerance of different faiths does not mean,accepting all faiths as truth.

what say you?

R


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 14, 2008)

NOT SO FAST!



We should all try to cooperate as broadly as possible. The WCC is an effort that derailed. The motivation was good, but because there was not a set standard to keep folks on the rail, it fell into a situation where the participating bodies could not even agree on what the church was or what missions was.

As we look at its bloated carcass, we should take notes on how NOT to do cooperation, but we should not be discouraged from trying to be "ecumenical" - we just have to make sure that the agreed upon basic standards are tight enough to guard against the same disease.



Some of the WCC documents are quite good (I will link some later) by the way. The majority are horrible (if I get time, these could be linked as well..WOW...some bad stuff)...




A more current effort is the Lausanne Committee on World Evngelization which has done a lot better job at broad cooperation for global evangelization, even while maintaining some basic standards of orthodoxy. Another "ecumenical" body is the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. 





HERE IS A QUESTION BACK AT YOU:


Perhaps in your church, your particular and local congregation might choose to become EP or follow the revised WCF or the original WCF. Your church might have a 3-office system or two-office system. Your church might even have female deaconesses. They might have different teachings on how to observe the Sabbath.




But --- in matters of broad evangelistic concern, such as sending missionaries to the Muslim world, churches are caught in the tension of defending their narrower doctrinal concerns or helping a more global and general Gospel work. 




If a tribe of 20,000 has never heard the Gospel, would and should an EP church partner with a non-EP church to see to it that this people group has churches sending missionaries to this needy people? Would a church that holds to only the original WCF send a missionary that likes the revised 1788 version of the confession? 


If your church is willing to "bend" a little for the sake of broader concerns, then your church too is "ecumenical" to some degree - it is not a bad word.


If you do not bend enough, then, you appear to be narrow (and you would, in fact, be petty..not giving the waters of life to a lost soul unless those waters were EP waters of life, etc). For instance, if 32 million Sundanese Muslims were not reached because churches could not agree on EP or non-EP (just an example) or even baptism, than this would appear that minor eclclesiastical concerns are interfering with needed Gospel efforts.

However, if you bend too much and sacrifice essentials, then you have no messsage to give, and this is the case of the WCC. The WCC had no moorings. Its demise does show us that a broad and liberal adherance to some basic articles (i.e. confessions) helps to keep variance within limits. Thatis why I am BR - broadly reformed. I like those confessions and see them as useful, but I am willing to work with others of minor variance for the sake of the broader Gospel.








NOTE: I have been called a "pragmatist" on this board at least 3 times. I am an advocate of being "broad" and "as ecumenical as possible."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## regenerated (Sep 16, 2008)

Pergamum,
I found your "question" a little ambiguous,but nevertheless I will try and give you an answer.

If it relates to the tribe of 20,000,then all I can say is, it is rather hypothetical and therefore difficult to answer.

Maybe that was your intention,[a hypothetical]I'm not sure.

You said "would and should an EP church partner with a non-EP church to see that this people group has churches sending missionaries to this needy people?

A purely hypothetical question.

My answer would be:

Do both the EP church and non-EP church preach the same gospel?
What constitutes the correct definition of 'Gospel preached'?

You said "in matters of broad evangelistic concern,such as sending missionaries to the Muslim world,churches are caught in the tension of defending their narrower doctrinal concerns or helping a more Global or general gospel work"

This raises further questions whether you believe in the concept of a 'social gospel' over and above the more acceptable 'doctrinal gospel' from which flows good works.

I think it is imperative when preaching the "GOSPEL" that we should always put the horse before the cart as it were.

One of the most telling slogans that the WCC has used in the past is the slogan "doctrine divides,service unites'

This slogan speaks for itself,and if anything,it says that churches should put aside their doctrines and focus upon service.

This is a recipe for 'humanistic' infiltration of the true church,which I believe should be avoided at all costs.

How better to combat such infiltration,than by assuring that the correct 'gospel' is preached at all times.

The WCC does not,in my opinion,measure up to a biblical understanding of what constitutes the New Testament explanation of 'church'

The WCC cannot say that churches should put aside their doctrinal beliefs and take up a 'gospel' of service for the sake of uniting all faiths under one banner and one creed.

This is just another form of 'secular humanism' in a religious disguise.



cheers

R

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 16, 2008)

regenerated said:


> Pergamum,
> I found your "question" a little ambiguous,but nevertheless I will try and give you an answer.
> 
> If it relates to the tribe of 20,000,then all I can say is, it is rather hypothetical and therefore difficult to answer.
> ...





Yes, you are absolutely right, the WCC is broke beyond fixing.

But, I still defend "ecumenism" in general in that we ought to try to cooperate as broadly as possible, when possible.

With the WCC this is not possible.


But I suppport the efforts of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and the Lausanne Committe for World Evangelization and I think that the borders are tight enough to keep out the heretics but the tent is big enough to enable broad evangelistic efforts where the Gospel is absolutely not yet planted.



And yes, there are real (and not hypothetical) cases of slightly differing denominations not cooperating in reaching unreached people groups due to minor issues.


----------



## TimV (Sep 16, 2008)

The church will eventually be unified, we all agree on that. The question is one of context. Here on earth? After a rapture? At the end of a thousand year rule by God? I personally think that the church will be victorious and unified here on earth, and that influences my opinions concerning working outside my denomination.


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Sep 16, 2008)

I believe the criteria for any such movement is the Word of God. If bible believing churches who believe the gospel want to combine in evangelistic efforts etc then thats fine. The problem is thats not what is meant with that movement now. It is usually refering to a combining with liberal or Roman Catholic "churches" which should never be done. Neither believe the gospel and as far as I'm concerned the RC church is "apostasia" and the Papacy is the Antichrist.


----------



## regenerated (Sep 18, 2008)

So what is your definition of the word 'gospel'


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Sep 18, 2008)

regenerated said:


> So what is your definition of the word 'gospel'



This is a strange question for the PuritanBoard. I think we all agree on the gospel here. The substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ for sinners on the cross. His glorious ressurection from the dead. His eternal reign as Lord of all creation. Our salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. The truth is declared in the scripture and neither liberals or Roman Catholics uphold it. There is no common ground with any false gospel. 

If you uphold another gospel then by all means let us all know.


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Sep 18, 2008)

regenerated said:


> So what is your definition of the word 'gospel'



From reading your profile you definitely seem to believe the gospel. I guess I misunderstood you. Apologies.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 18, 2008)

I do not think asking what the Gospel is is a strange question at all. 

Is it the five points, or something more simple?

What elements MUST be in there? 

How much can others get wrong before you cannot cooperate with them?


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Sep 18, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> I do not think asking what the Gospel is is a strange question at all.
> 
> Is it the five points, or something more simple?
> 
> ...



I misunderstood him at first. I'm used to dealing with "emergent" type people who ask the same question for a very different purpose. I again apologize for my assumptions. It was a very valid question.


----------



## regenerated (Sep 20, 2008)

ManleyBeasley said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > I do not think asking what the Gospel is is a strange question at all.
> ...




I agree with your definition of the word 'gospel'
I was just a little concerned that there are those who sympathise with a WCC definition of 'gospel' eg: [social gospel] over and above the biblical understanding of the "GOSPEL" of Jesus Christ.

The apostle Paul in the book of Corinthians was adamant when it came to peaching the gospel that it was nothing other than 'Christ Crucified'

Compare this with the WCC 'tolerance gospel' and 'social gospel' and you can see why it is of the utmost importance to draw a distinction between the two.

cheers

R


----------

