Posted on 12/30/2012 12:01:24 PM PST by narses
Religion Forum threads labeled “Ecumenical”
Ecumenical threads are closed to antagonism.
To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenical” thread may discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical information and a legitimate subject for an ecumenical discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenical” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenical” tag.
Religion Forum threads labeled “Ecumenical”
Ecumenical threads are closed to antagonism.
To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenical” thread may discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical information and a legitimate subject for an ecumenical discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenical” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenical” tag.
Religion Forum threads labeled “Ecumenical”
Ecumenical threads are closed to antagonism.
To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenical” thread may discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical information and a legitimate subject for an ecumenical discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenical” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenical” tag.
>> “Ecumenical threads are closed to antagonism.” <<
.
The very subject of the thread in antagonistic to Christians.
I disagree. Since the Catholic and Orthodox represent the vast majority of Christendom, your comments seem rather odd.
Here we go.
I completely agree - very antagonistic towards Protestant Christians. But will respect the rules, so that I, too, won’t be called “odd”.
This explains why Catholics never go in for deathbed conversions and last rites for the condemned
I am pinging you to the Dutch Schultz deathbed story.
I find this an interesting topic as I have been called out on other threads in which I offered a catholic viewpoint and received the faith not works chastisement ( these were not ecumenical threads)
I did not take this as antagonistic but as an opportunity for catholics to respond to the faith not works argument.
honestly I have trouble when both catholics and protestants get so caught up in semantic differences that we lose sight of our christian mission. to me this is odd
I believe that faith nudges (sometimes subtly sometimes not) people into action. I also have trouble understanding how salvation can be granted without faith taking action..is faith all that is needed to love one’s neighbor... perhaps I am too simplistic in my understanding.
Finally, I find it bothersome when anyone of any denomination perseverates over who will be saved and who will not... we should strive to find God’s will in our lives and follow the commandments.... judging the soul of another is certainly way beyond my pay grade
If the stated goal here is for Roman Catholics to discuss ways to explain to Protestants why they are incorrect, then why not just make it a closed caucus thread?
It seems like this as an “eccumenical” is a false flag, designed to appear to be an open discussion, but actually severely curtailing the ability of Protestants to frankly discuss things.
BTW,,why is “gratuitous quote mining” bad, when the article itself has quotes of this nature? That also seems like it is designed to prevent anyone from rolling in with era-appropriate quotes that undermine the clear premise and agenda of the post.
In short, it seems like these rules make it very difficult for someone to answer the post point for point, evidence for evidence, quote for quote, without getting the antagonist label. So this seems like it would be more apporpriate as a closed Roman Catholic thread. After all, the stated reason is on how to advise a Catholic to communicate their belief to a protestant.
You have free will, use it.
One of the many, many failures of the Catholic religion is to fail to understand or acknowledge the meaning of 'repent'...
μετανοέω
metanoeō
met-an-o-eh'-o
From G3326 and G3539; to think differently or afterwards, that is, reconsider (morally to feel compunction): - repent.
Repentance is NOT a change of works...Repentance is a change of heart...THEREFORE: a one time repentance is all that is required for salvation...
Protestants believe we can be sure of our salvation before death because it is not based on our good deeds which the Bible says are like filthy rags (Is. 64:6) Instead it is based by faith on the good deeds of Jesus Christ, who lived without sin and gave himself for us. Our salvation is complete as long as we trust in Him, for he said as he died, ‘It is finished.’”
And that is exactly right...
Most of this 'book' was written with almost no reference to the scriptures that were written and given to the 'church'...The church epistles were for the most part left out...And without those scriptures, one can not get a complete and clear understanding of what God tells us...
You do not need to love your neighbor for salvation...In fact, you can not love your neighbor...
You can reject to do the Lord's will but you can not do the Lord's will on your own...
Php 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
“You do not need to love your neighbor for salvation...In fact, you can not love your neighbor...”
Really? How odd. And yet we are commanded to do just that.
What denomination teaches such views?
Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
The means by which we are saved is an unwavering faith in Jesus.
John 6:38-40 Jesus said, “I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day”
Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."
Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"
Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"
Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."
Paul rebukes Peter for applying rules for salvation.
Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."
Gal. 2:21, I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.
Phil. 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."
Acts 13:39 and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.
1 JOHN 2:12 I write to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for His name's sake.
Hebrew 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Relying on some legal earthly act is law not grace and faith.
Preach it, brother.
Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.
David sinned terribly and yet was called by God *A man after God's own heart*.
Salvation can be assured because the whole issue is God not counting our sin against us.
It's not a matter of being sinless, or becoming sinless, or anyone denying the reality of the fact that we sin.
It's got to do with God's record keeping so to speak. Christ's death and resurrection paid the penalty for our sin and conquered sin and death. That can be counted in our favor, credited to our account for the debt we owe for the sin we committed, when we trust Him to do it for us.
It's really almost a business transaction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.