There is, of course, the tendency (for me) to want to shy away from ecumenism due to its perceived flakiness/wishy-washiness, etc. After all, wasn't Jesus very specific about what he taught? Then again, all those parables...isn't some of that stuff open to interpretation? As a firmly-planted Protestant wife and mother whose husband converted to Catholicism in the past year I find myself challenged daily and on all levels by these questions. I don't believe this is a conversation that ever ends as long as believers walk the earth, but oh - the "all-of-one-mind" aspect of the early church sounds so easy sometimes. (The whole "being-fed-to-the-lions" thing...not so much.)

Perhaps some resist being 'all-of-one-mind' because they fear the loss of intellectualism, their identity, or they fear being labeled 'brainwashed.'

From my experience, outward persecution is the easy part. That helps solidify a feeling of oneness and unity. Being fed to the lions can be a great blessing. It's when people start thinking they have special insight into truth that the Body of Christ starts to break up in those specific instances--one part thinking itself above the others in its access to truth.

Jesus asked Peter this question, Who do You say that I am ? ( Jared's dad)

Umm, Bird, then you should say "Oneness Pentecostals," that being the particular category to which the UPC belongs; not only are they not the Pentecostal denomination, they aren't even a mainstream Pentecostal denomination. (The closest thing to anything you could call the Pentecostal denomination would be the Assemblies of God, or maybe the Church of God in Christ . . .)

While no denomination, church or whatever has a "monopoly" on (all) the truth, we also have to recognize that some are closer than others and some lay well outside the boundary of orthodoxy. Part of the reason for the mess we're in is that we have either lost those boundaries or, worse, declared boundaries to be wrong and un-ecumenical. Or, perhaps, we've drawn boundaries against having boundaries since boundaries are divisive. OK, right.

The fact remains that Paul warned of "another gospel" and a false gospel that cannot save (2 Cor. 11). Jesus was full of as many warnings as He was exhortations and comforts. Some of those warnings were terrifying. What the warnings of Jesus and the writings of Paul have in common is hopelessness of any other Gospel than salvation by faith alone in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the atonement for sins. Predestination or not; total depravity or not; those two stand: Sola Fide, Sola Christus (sp?). So when a church denies those, it's OK, even noble, to say with Mark Driscoll, "Hey! You're on the other team!" Preaching a Gospel that saves and guarding our doctrine, should be more important to us than whether or not we're "in communion" with the steepled buildings across the street. True, Jesus prayed for unity, but he warned and pleaded about heretical teachings and teachers. Disunity is not good, I'm not saying that. But heresy is Hell for all involved, and that, brothers ought concern us more than getting back into the good graces of Rome or fretting over what Protestantism looks like when it has "gone bad."

My personal reading of Eph. 2:9, Galatians 1 and 3, and others, is that relying on works (even "works + faith") will not bring salvation any more than any other human effort driven religion. So if the Baptists think a gospel of works (which is accurate when referring to Romanism) cannot save, I believe the Scriptures agree with them.

Look, I have some Christians who think I'm going to hell by getting remarried. I don't believe the whole of Scripture supports their conclusion, BUT even as one on the receiving end of their condemnation I at least respect their zeal for God (if indeed it's for God and not religion). However, what I can't stand, what I can't trust, what I can't count upon are spaghetti-spined Christians who are so enamored with appreciating the "diversity" that they forget to "hate what is evil" while trying to declare, "yo, it's all good." Blech. Unreliable servants.

Thanks, E. I'm on the run now, but I'll read your comments in depth later.

I have to say, Eloquorius, I think you've misunderstood Roman Catholicism there. I have no brief for the RC understanding of grace, but I think it's important to realize that they are no more preaching a gospel of works than the Arminian Baptists who denounce them. (In point of fact, their soteriology is really pretty similar at the core.)

Eloquorious, it's eminently possible to quote someone with complete accuracy and interpret them with complete inaccuracy. The problem isn't your citations or lack thereof; the problem is your lack of attention to definitions. You're assuming that when Catholics say something, they mean exactly what a Reformed Christian would mean by those words--and that isn't the case.

I would encourage you to consider the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, which was signed by representatives of the Lutheran World Federation and the Vatican on Reformation Day, 1999. It's not a perfect document--nor, obviously, does it mean that Catholic and Lutheran theology are now in complete agreement on justification, as Avery Cardinal Dulles noted--but at the very least, I think it does well to refute the extremity of your charge.

All these comments and the original post are from man's perspective, naturally. But the Bible makes it clear that we don't know the WHOLE mind of God. What bothers me most about the stand of this group or that group is that they are so full of themselves as if they know exactly what God thinks. The Bible gives us a good picture of God, but it is finite compared to God.

Are there not also warnings about judging?

Remember that the pharisees KNEW the scriptures but MISSED the Christ.