What denomination would you be?

[xdisciplex]

What exactly do those different denominations believe?
It would have been good to include a short summary of what defines every denomination.

 

[Dustin]

Yes I am, you?

No, I'm not, I lurk over there though. It's a long story, but me not being on there has something to do with church membership. Technically, I'm still a member of my old Southern Baptist church, but I haven't been there in months. I haven't officially joined the PCA church I attend now, because a new pastor just got ordained and is moving over here and I wanted him to be in the position when I do join. There's other issues, but that's the gist of it.

The rest is just me being picky.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

[JFox1]

If I couldn't go to a Lutheran church, I would probably attend an Episcopal church. I love liturgical style worship services. There is a Roman Catholic church a few blocks from where I live, but they're traditional Catholics with worship services in Latin! :godisgood:

 

[webdog]

If this poll were still open, I would vote "other". I used to attend an Evangelical Friends church on Saturday nights for their contemporary service. While they are very arminian, the Gospel is definately shared there, and the people have a real love for the Lord. I would attend that church if I couldn't attend my baptist church.

 

[Dustin]

I already answered Primative Baptist I think. But I would consider Lutheran and even Anglican (only with sound teaching) if I wasn't able to attend any Reformed/Presbyterian churches.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Wish I could attend a Congregation of Election believing Seventh Day Sabbath keepers, but ag, where shall I find more freaks like me? Loneliness isn't nice.

 

[JGrubbs]

Really?? You would stay at home rather than worship with another body of believers? How is that Biblical?

"Every Christian family ought to be, as if it were, a little church."

—Jonathan Edwards​

New Testament documents were written to Christian communities that possessed a certain spiritual environment. For them, "church" was not filing into a building and sitting like a pillar of salt during a worship service officiated by a clergyman (pastor or priest). The modern "audience church" historically evolved (or devolved) from cultural elements that, in my view, replaced the organic expression of church life that the early Christians knew.

That said, I believe that understanding the grand narrative is only a piece of the puzzle toward rightly grasping Scripture (as well as the incredible Lord that Scripture presents). Another important piece is to live in the same spiritual context in which the early Christians lived. This includes face-to-face community as well as Christ-centered, open participatory gatherings.

For instance, try applying Paul's teachings in 1 Corinthians 14 to a typical church service. It can't be done. What congregant, for instance, sitting frozen in a pew is going to interrupt the pastor or priest during his sermon? And what pastor or priest will yield the floor to the person who interrupts? Hence, 1 Corinthians 14:30 has no relevance at all in such a setting.

However, if a group of Christians are living in a face-to-face community that practices, as the early Christians did, open-participatory church meetings, then that passages makes perfect sense and all of the instruction applies.

I believe there is a great need to freshly examine how we have been "doing church" since the Reformation. I also believe that a new look at the New Testament narrative along with the historical origins of our church practices can teach us a great deal about ecclesiology . . . if we are willing to be instructed by it.

Taken from the Present Testimony Ministry February 2007 newsletter: http://www.ptmin.org/february2007.htm

Great Link: http://www.unleashingthechurch.com/

 

[BobRyan]

No, I'm not, I lurk over there though. It's a long story, but me not being on there has something to do with church membership. Technically, I'm still a member of my old Southern Baptist church, but I haven't been there in months. I haven't officially joined the PCA church I attend now, because a new pastor just got ordained and is moving over here and I wanted him to be in the position when I do join. There's other issues, but that's the gist of it.

The rest is just me being picky.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

How does a Baptist surrender his belief in believer's baptism?

In Christ,

bob

 

[Dustin]

How does a Baptist surrender his belief in believer's baptism?

In Christ,

bob

He reads the Bible the way it's supposed to be read.

I really don't know what you mean, is that a trick question or something?

I'm not saying believer's baptism is wrong. I'm going along the lines that since there has been one eternal decree by God to save men (grace through faith) and that in the Old Covenant the sign was circumcision, given to all males 8 days after birth, then why can it not be the same for God's people now (with water baptism of males AND females of course)? In Acts and in Paul's letters we read of him baptizing whole households. Now Scripture doesn't explicitly indicate that there were infants in those households, but it'd be pretty far reaching to assume and declare concretly that there weren't. It's also pretty silly to assume that every single New Testament baptism was full immersion of believer's only.

My issue is this, all throughout my early church life, all I knew was full immersion of believers only. People who were baptized in other denomonation had to be rebaptized to join the church. In fact, they would dunk you even if had already been fully immersed in another denomonation. Looking back, all those extra dunkings seem kind of like overkill. Once is enough, the second, 3rd, or 4th time is just unnecessary.

Could you imagine if you were a Jew having to get MORE circumsized every time they joined a new synagouge? OUCH.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

P.S. I guess I'm saying that we as believer's shouldn't exclude babies and toddlers from the covenant community just because we assume things. Search the Scriptures, read up on the issue, you don't have to change your mind, just make sure you aren't ignoring this important issue. One baptism is enough, and I don't think the mode matters. That's where I stand, I'm sticking to it.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

"Every Christian family ought to be, as if it were, a little church."

—Jonathan Edwards​

New Testament documents were written to Christian communities that possessed a certain spiritual environment. For them, "church" was not filing into a building and sitting like a pillar of salt during a worship service officiated by a clergyman (pastor or priest). The modern "audience church" historically evolved (or devolved) from cultural elements that, in my view, replaced the organic expression of church life that the early Christians knew.

That said, I believe that understanding the grand narrative is only a piece of the puzzle toward rightly grasping Scripture (as well as the incredible Lord that Scripture presents). Another important piece is to live in the same spiritual context in which the early Christians lived. This includes face-to-face community as well as Christ-centered, open participatory gatherings.

For instance, try applying Paul's teachings in 1 Corinthians 14 to a typical church service. It can't be done. What congregant, for instance, sitting frozen in a pew is going to interrupt the pastor or priest during his sermon? And what pastor or priest will yield the floor to the person who interrupts? Hence, 1 Corinthians 14:30 has no relevance at all in such a setting.

However, if a group of Christians are living in a face-to-face community that practices, as the early Christians did, open-participatory church meetings, then that passages makes perfect sense and all of the instruction applies.

I believe there is a great need to freshly examine how we have been "doing church" since the Reformation. I also believe that a new look at the New Testament narrative along with the historical origins of our church practices can teach us a great deal about ecclesiology . . . if we are willing to be instructed by it.

Taken from the Present Testimony Ministry February 2007 newsletter: http://www.ptmin.org/february2007.htm

Great Link: http://www.unleashingthechurch.com/

GE:

Going to Church, having Church, making Church, is not - to its credit - not ONLY the sermon. The sermon though, is said to be, "worship" - in Afrikaans, "EREDIENS" - hour and occasion of special, exclusive honour to God through the preaching and proclamation of the WORD. The 'Worship-hour' should be the heart of Congregation, of the Communion of the saints, every Sabbath Day. If not, such a church won't interest me for one, thanks.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

This Bob Ryan leaves some impression of Seventh day Adventism!

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks! I would like to think so!

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not saying believer's baptism is wrong. I'm going along the lines that since there has been one eternal decree by God to save men (grace through faith) and that in the Old Covenant the sign was circumcision, given to all males 8 days after birth, then why can it not be the same for God's people now (with water baptism of males AND females of course)? In Acts and in Paul's letters we read of him baptizing whole households.

My point is that as a Baptist you MUST have seen clearly that all examples in the Bible are of believers baptism EVEN in cases of "households" (which we don't have many examples of in scripture) the "Household HEARS the Word of God accepts it and is baptized". (Acts 11 comes to mind).

In Romans 2 it is the 'NEW BIRTH" that is compared to circumcision stating that this is the REAL spiritual event to which circumcision-of-males was simply a physical type pointing to something very different as the promised event.

In 1Pet 3 we are told "Corresponding to that Baptism NOW saves you NOT the magic touch of sacramental waters but the APPEAL to God for a clean conscience" that is done by the believer.

You would already have known accepted and believed all of this as a Baptist. What I am trying to get to is -- what was the strength of Bible "sola-scriptura" argument that could possibly have turned you away from it??

Now Scripture doesn't explicitly indicate that there were infants in those households, but it'd be pretty far reaching to assume and declare concretly that there weren't.

The assumption is not that there were no infants - the assumption is that the text qualifies those who were baptized as being those who heard and accepted the Word of God preached.

It's also pretty silly to assume that every single New Testament baptism was full immersion of believer's only.

Even the historians of the RCC who are very married to the teaching of infant baptism freely admit that baptism was very much full water immersion and baptism of believers only in the NT.

If THEY are going to admit to that glaring historic fact - who am I to try to refute both those who lead the practice of that tradition and the Bible that makes no mention at all either of infant baptism OR of sprinkling of believers??

Why would I even start down that path if I was already a baptist??

. Looking back, all those extra dunkings seem kind of like overkill. Once is enough, the second, 3rd, or 4th time is just unnecessary.

I agree that when the believer "Appeals to God for a clean conscience" and is burried with Christ in baptism once - they do not need to do it again just because they have accepted a better doctrinal position.

I agree with the original statement that infants BEFORE baptism are covered under the gospel just as they are after the ceremony of sprinkling. BUt it is NOT because of any re-invention of the Bible doctrine of baptism that they are covered.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[EdSutton]

This Bob Ryan leaves some impression of Seventh day Adventism!

And all this time, I thought I was the only one who noticed. :laugh: :wavey:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I thought the SBC was a denomination, or am I missing something.

Any and all Baptist churches are independant, by definition. The merely 'associate' in various ways, with churches of 'like faith and order', whatever that may mean.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

If I could not attend SBC in the states,

A non-denominational assembly which is

not word-faith,
does not endorse tongue-talking,
is trinitarian,
normal or classic dispensational,
is grace thru faith,
water baptism not essential,
does observe Lord's Supper periodically,
no business meetings,
has very simple services (no robes, no candles, no incense, no readings or rituals, no rehearsals),
great congregational singing,
only one pastor,
several elders or deacons,
weekly Bible study for all ages,
community outreach program.

Glad to see you don't have too many 'restrictions', on worship.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

You know what PB stands for dont you? PARTLY BAPTIST :laugh:

Hack humor?? :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I thought it stood for peanut butter.

Boring! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Were the poll still open, I would vote "Lutheran", even though I have never been in a Lutheran church in 58 years. I like to see all the options in a meaningless poll get at least one vote. :applause: :laugh:

As to the church, I would otherwise attend, Should I not atend my own, I think I would seek out a 'Spirit Filled', Christ centered, Episcobapterian Orthodox Catholic Church of God. That should satisfy everyone! :thumbsup:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Or, maybe, no one!

Ed

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

What does that text somewhere in Revelation mean where it says those 144000 did not pollute themselves with women? Can one defile himself with a church, taken for 'woman'?