Replies

Can one define "church" too broadly?

Sure. One can easily define it too narrowly.

Any church that names the name of Christ, proclaims His deity, and teaches the death and resurrection of Christ is "the Chruch." I may have varying grades of disagreements with individual churches regarding doctrine or practice, but I still must respect them as true churches which proclaim the gospel of Christ. Christ is preached by them all, and for that I must still rejoice (Phil. 1:15-18).

My own personal yardstick is adherence to the Creeds. If a church either adheres to the Creeds or at least to the substance of them, then they are part of the "the Church."

The term which better describes me is "ecumenical," not "universalist." I couldn't give two hoots about denominations. Most of my generation couldn't either.

Only once have I been so mad I could spit - that was when a guy, teaching impressionable high schoolers, said "Only in [his particular type of church] is there liberty to worship in Spirit and in Truth" - as though the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Pentacostals, or the Orthodox don't worship in Spirit and in Truth.

Any church that names the name of Christ, proclaims His deity, and teaches the death and resurrection of Christ is "the Chruch."

I cannot help but notice your tagline.

Just how broad do you think Augustine would have defined "the Church." I don't think he would have been so liberal.

I couldn't give two hoots about denominations. Most of my generation couldn't either.

Thankfully, I don't find that true at all.

From Topcat's homepage...

"The Reformation is dying daily in our day when the Ecumenical Movement, and other forces like unto it, wish to soften the antithesis with Rome, today. I want to assure you that it's not my pugnacious debating nature that makes me say we must exalt that antithesis and guard it. It's my love for the Lord Jesus Christ and the purity of His word.
"Rome has not essentially changed. Rome declared that what it said at the time of the Reformation was infallible and could not change. Declared it to be irreformible truth. Rome has not changed and precious truths of God's word are still worth upholding even at the cost of unity even at the cost of being considered "troublemakers" in the religious world. We need to guard the antithesis against the destructive error of Rome." -- Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen, From a tape, THE REFORMATION, October 28, 1990.

The term which better describes me is "ecumenical," not "universalist." I couldn't give two hoots about denominations. Most of my generation couldn't either.

While he was speaking of racial reconciliation, this applies here. Wellington Boone put it this way, "If God is your father, then I am your brother. We are already one in Christ."

There's a lot of wisdom in that.