IF Not A Baptist, Which Church Would You Be Attending?

From a doctrinal perspective, I would check a Christian Missionary Alliance church.

My limited experience with the CMA is the following.
They are somewhat neutral on the doctrinal of eternal security (the difference is only in definitions and terminology anyway); and they believe in a continuation of the gifts, but don't over emphasis them.

However, worship style and music would also make a big difference in considering another denomination. There are no CMA churches close enough to us.

 

How about the Evangelical free Church?

Attended one between my pentacostal to baptist time, and they seemed to be close to what would be considered 'free will/grace" baptist...

Only thing that would make one not persuaded would be if strongly Calvinist....

 

I have never been to one, and know nothing about them.

 

very close to baptists in theology and practices!

 

Cumberland Presbyterian

 

When in College, we were told about how many churches have taken the name Baptist off of their church signs, and it was greatly frowned upon, typically by the KJVO crowd. Doing so was likened to apostatizing. :love2:

There are many churches out there that hold to Baptist Doctrine without having the title in their name.

I 'grew up' (hit and miss) in a UMC, I seriously doubt we'd ever go that way. However, I recall much hell and brimstone preaching then, but, they have certainly changed in many ways over the years. If we were to go join a church at some point, it would be Baptist in name or have strong Baptist beliefs with a bend towards reformed truth. I seriously doubt we'd go Presby.

I also hear there are a few Reformed Methodist churches around, though I am not familiar with them.

 

I like the CP's -- not many on the Reformed side that I can say that about.

 

I don't know enough to comment on the dropping of the name Baptist and the KJVO crowd. That said.....

Why are so many churches becoming non demoninational? Whether Catholic, Baptist, Morman, etc. each holds a specific set of beliefs. Often, beliefs that are very contrary to each other. If I say I'm Catholic that tells the world where my beliefs lie, in general. The same if I say I'm Baptist.

If I'm non demoninational, I'm telling the world that I believe in something. Something that may fit well within the upcoming one world religion. Isn't dropping the "Baptist" taking another step in that direction?

Or is it a way to get more warm bodies dropping dollars into the collection plate? Holding a non specific set of beliefs can tickle more ears than does holding to the belief that "works" will not ensure salvation, for example.

I am a Baptist. I go to a Baptist church. (Not a KJVO, BTW.) That's a witness to the world where my core beliefs reside. If I'm a member of "The Garden Gate Community Worship Center" what does that tell the world? That I worship nature? That I my saviour is Christ or do I follow Mohammed?

 

Think that in some areas though the very name "baptist" has meanings to others that hinder the work of church in that community!

 

Around here, Cumberland Presbyterians are not Reformed. Well, let's say they are not Calvinist. That's why they're not just Presbyterians. The Cumberlands and Presbyterians parted company over Calvinism.

That said, the Cumberlands in this area are probably closest to the Baptist church I serve in doctrine and practice.

 

Don't they hold to eternal security, though?

 

Yes, they do, according to a Confession of Faith dated 1814

Also, there are many Baptist churches which are not Reformed which hold to eternal security.

 

I think the CB's are a solid, moderately conservative denomination. I could feel at home with them -- but for the OSAS thing.

 

Somebody said he would start a Baptist church in his area is there were none there. Well, nice. That puts you in company of Joseph Smith, Charles Russell, Victor Paul Weirwille, et al, saying "I'm going to start the right church, which, of course, does not exist until I start it." The thing most of us are incapable of doing, in consideration of this question, is to see our own churches objectively. It's too likely we don't even know if we think our church is on target with the esentials (if not perfect altogether); or if, since it's the church we've always been taught in and involved with, that we think it's on target because it's our church.

Go on and argue that point. I expect it and I want it.

 

Alcott writes:
"The thing most of us are incapable of doing, in consideration of this question, is to see our own churches objectively. It's too likely we don't even know if we think our church is on target with the esentials (if not perfect altogether); or if, since it's the church we've always been taught in and involved with, that we think it's on target because it's our church."

I agree with the above.

 

I'm not clear on what you're saying. Do you mean CP instead of CB?
And about OSAS. CPs are for it. Are you agin' it?

 

I've found that almost all I've ever visited apart from one has tended towards that and/or false doctrine.

Any congregation can have false doctrine so that isn't unique, but I am curious as to how on earth so many separate, non-related Messianic congregations, spread far and apart, are often downright pentecostal. I just don't get it. (or like it)

Do you know why?

 

Baptist is really about name these days.

 

I agree.

My second choice would be Presbyterian (PCA).

 

Then you would be compromising your beliefs as a baptist. And PCUSA is a text book apostate church.