What is your denominational background?

Here you can discuss differences in belief between different denominations, or other religions and Christianity. This is an informational forum. Always be courteous and polite, and respect other people's views and values.<P>Permanent Residents may only reply to posts here; Native Residents may initiate & reply to posts here.

Moderators: jochanaan, MatthewNeal, jimmy, natman, Senior Moderator, Moderators

Postby nytro » Thu Aug 09, 2007 12:27 pm

Josh wrote:Hey there sure are a lot of Baptist nudists... who grew up Fundamentalist Independent Baptist


That describes me! I still go to an Independent Baptist church, and I'm proud of it!!!
Rob
<n><
User avatar
nytro
Native Resident
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:12 am
Location: Broadview Heights, Ohio

Postby Josh » Thu Aug 09, 2007 3:06 pm

All of my more open minded friends are Baptist (of course in Tennesssee that's not hard, here like they say, everybody and their momma's Baptist!!!). Church of God and Assembly of God seem to be a LOT more closed minded and scandalized by these topics.
For one of my Baptist friends here I think the 7th Day Baptist would sure be an ideal fit and I wish he would discover them. He is a good SBC fellow who has started attending a 7th day adventist church on the side and has started adopting some of their beliefs like soul sleep and annihilation. I have a couple adventist friends but I'm really not comfortable with alot of their extra-Biblical stuff. Since my friend has become strongly sabbitarian I sure would prefer to see him as a 7th day Baptist. (Nothing personal if there happens to be SDA folk on here.)
JOSH
User avatar
Josh
Native Resident
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 8:11 am
Location: Tampa Bay, FL

Postby jochanaan » Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:13 pm

Josh wrote:...I haven't run into any Pentecostals or Charismatics...

We've got 'em. :D
User avatar
jochanaan
Councillor
 
Posts: 6342
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:58 pm
Location: Denver

Postby nudjohn » Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:45 pm

Pentacostal, charismatic, non-denominational, Full Gospell, are all about the same in general..... I am some where in that mix. ;-)
nudjohn
Native Resident
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:00 pm
Location: Louisiana/Mississippi

Postby dby » Fri Aug 10, 2007 12:43 am

jochanaan wrote:
dby wrote:...So, is Paul in Romans 11 actually referring to "Israel" as being the broken off branches? Or is he referring to "Judah" (the Jewish people) as being the broken off branches? Christians have generally interpreted the passage as referring to Jews, but perhaps this isn't the case.

II Chronicles 11:13,14,16 may shed some light on these matters: "And the priests and the Levites that were in all Israel resorted to him [King Rehoboam of Judah] out of all their coasts...for Jeroboam and his sons had cast them off from executing the priest's office unto the LORD...And after them out of all the tribes of Israel such as set their hearts to seek the LORD God of Israel came to Jerusalem, to sacrifice unto the LORD God of their fathers." So apparently from the very beginning of the divided kingdom, there were people of all the twelve tribes in Judah.


Obviously it was not my intention to suggest that those of the Northern Kingdom of Israel who moved south and strengthened the Southern Kingdom of Judah were "cut off". It was only those of the Northern Kingdom that turned to idolatry who would have have been broken off branches, that would have been the divorced bride of Jeremiah 3.
User avatar
dby
Native Resident
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:05 am
Location: Colorado

Postby dby » Fri Aug 10, 2007 1:35 am

natman wrote:The word or name "Israel" is used four different ways in scripture.

1. "Israel" is the new name God gave to Jacob. Genesis 32:28 "Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob ("Deceiver), but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome."


That is a terrible translation! What kind of parents would call their son "deciever"?!?! Yaakov יַעֲקֹב ("Jacob") got his name because he came out of the womb hanging onto the heel (עֲקֵב AKEIV) of Eisav ("Esau"). The same root is used in Deuteronomy 7:12 (the first verse of last Sabbath's Torah Parsha) as עֵקֶב Eikev, meaning "on the heels of", but generally translated as "because of".

The only implication towards "deciever" is the pun used by Eisav in Genesis 27:36 where he uses the word וַיַּעְקְבֵנִי to mean "defraud". But we don't get our word definitions by the mouth of Eisav.

2. "Israel", the natural descendants of Jacob.


Yes, generally Yisrael and more specifically B'nai Yisrael (the sons of or the children of Israel) refers to the descendants of all of the descendants of Jacob as well as those who were joined to them. These others would include non-relatives such as household servants, the mixed multitude that came out of Egypt with the children of Israel, etc.

3. "Israel", the nation or northern kingdom.


Yes, after the civil war and the division of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms the word Yisrael is less often used to refer to the Southern Kingdom. Although there are some places after that point where the term is still used in the more generic reference that is inclusive of the Southern Kingdom.

4. "Israel", God's remnant chosen people, mentioned over and over again by the OT prophets. This remnant included not only those that were born of the bloodline of Jacob, but also those that were grafted in, including the descendants of Ruth, Rahab and all of those that were brought into relationship with the God of Israel by Queen Ester. (Ester 8:17 "In every province and in every city, wherever the edict of the king went, there was joy and gladness among the Jews, with feasting and celebrating. And many people of other nationalities became Jews because fear of the Jews had seized them.")


And, as I mentioned above, this has always been the case. For example, consider Abraham's servant, Eliezer. When the covenent of circumcision was established with Abraham, it was still carried out upon Eliezer as part of the household and Eliezer is recorded as being a man of faith. Having the faith of Abraham, makes you of the seed of Abraham, and thus an inheritor of the promises given to Abraham. (Even before physical circumcision!) Seed reproduces after its kind. If you have the proper kind of faith, then you are of the seed of Abraham.

We must always look at the context in which it is used to determine it's particular meaning. In Romans 9 & 11 and Gal 3, Paul begins by referring to descendants of Abraham. So I would say there that the name "Israel" is initially referring to the natural descendants of Jacob. However, he goes on to make a distinction between the descendants of Abraham and "Israel" God's chosen people. When Paul says "all Isael will be saved", he has changed his focus to God's chosen people.


If the rabbis are correct about the End Times final redemption of the divorced bride (the Northern Kingdom of Israel), then Paul may well have been talking about the same group all the way through.

This (Dispensationalism) is an area I am extremely interested in right now because of events going on in my life, so I would love to expamd this conversation.


Since I don't fit into any of the neatly defined areas of belief, I am interested in the conversation, but for different reasons. I disagree with both the Dispensationalists and the Covenant Replacement Theologians. I'm somewhere in between I suppose. (Or perhaps off the spectrum at a 90 degree angle).
User avatar
dby
Native Resident
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:05 am
Location: Colorado

I'm still a Roman Catholic

Postby goldwings96 » Sat Sep 08, 2007 5:08 am

I'm just continuing from a different thread here since I saw some posts here that I wanted to comment on.

natman wrote:Southern Baptist

I was raised in a Roman Catholic household growing up. From the age of six until I was eighteen, I attended church EVERY Sunday and Catechism classes every Tuesday. The Mass was observed in Latin until I was around fifteen, then we began hearing portions in English and Latin. Finally when I was around seventeen or eighteen, we began having the entire Mass in English as well as a Saturday evening guitar mass held by one of the younger priests in out parish.

During Mass and Catechism, we rarely, if ever (I don't recall ever) read from anything other than the Epistles; not the Gospels and not the Old Testament.

At any rate, during my sophomore year in high school, I had a world history class that included discussions of the Salem witch hunts, the Spanish Inquisitions and the Catholic Church's actions of hiding valuable artifacts during the wars while hundreds of thousands of their members were starving to death. It soured my feeling about the Catholic Church and organized religion altogether.

This continued through college, and when I turned eighteen, I pretty much denounced my Catholic faith.


I, too, grew up in the Catholic faith, and I was never exposed to much Scripture in Catechism. However, as far as I can remember, Sunday Mass has always had three readings, the first reading usually from the Old Testament, the second reading more likely from the New Testament letters, and the Gospel reading. Other than that, I never got into Church doctrine and just basically went through the motions. I'm trying to rectify that now by reading more Scripture, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in which all Catholic teaching is delineated, and studying a little bit of Church history. As far as Catechism goes, it is definitely a process that needs to be reformed because many Catholics don't know where our doctrines come from and the scriptural basis of those doctrines, which is why I believe that there are so many misperceptions of the Catholic Church. And when I mention doctrines, I'm not talking about human traditions like the Inquisition, Crusades, glamorous church buildings, refraining from eating meat on Fridays, etc. Those need to be distinguished from doctrines based on both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition that was passed on by the Apostles as mentioned in 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, and 2 Thess 3:6 to the early Church Fathers, prior to the New Testament being compiled and ratified as a divinely inspired set of books. The early Church Fathers wrote down the earliest perceptions of Christian living based on their association/interaction with the Apostles, and I, as a Catholic, believe that those writings provide the fullness of interpreting Sacred Scripture, not my 21st century personal values and experiences. As a Catholic, I believe that because of my own personal values and experiences, I cannot objectively interpret Scripture, and I refer to the Church, founded by Jesus Christ himself, to which Living Free mentions, as the final authority. As a sidenote, the word Catholic is a Greek adjective, meaning "general" or "universal". When it was first used, it wasn't used as a "name" of a denomination. It was used to describe the global Christian faith. It wasn't officially applied until 380, when it was declared the official religion of the Roman Empire.

LivingFree wrote:
mfsimbs wrote:When someone can show me in Scripture what denomination Christ was I'll become a member of that denomination in an instant.


Well, actually, in Matt. 16:18 Jesus said, "upon this rock I will build my church," and in so doing he founded THE denomination. All human organizations that spun off are human institutions, some of them very helpful, others dreadful. Notice that Jesus never wrote a church constitution or set up an organizational structure (although he did say that the greatest one was the one that served the others). He gave us principles to live by, like the Sermon on the Mount, and said in John 10 that there was one fold and one shepherd. I am a part of that worldwide fold, and Jesus is my shepherd, and during my lifetime I have participated in a variety of human organizations, for the purposes of working together with others to propagate the gospel. Which one really doesn't matter, because all are flawed by human errors. It's just amazing that God can use us, in spite of ourselves. :roll:


Jesus even describes the Church - a presiding entity, not a sole high ranking individual with personal values and experiences (which is where I think there is some confusion on "hierarchy") - as the final authority in Matt 18:15-18:

"If your brother sins [against you], go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

I don't see how the Church that Jesus founded can fulfill His command to decide issues authoritatively if the Church is infallible.

And in Heb 13:27:

"Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith."

natman wrote:Having been raised a Catholic and having denounced my faith over a few incidents that occurred to my mom when I was young and to me while in highschool, I had questioned the need for a human being, a sinful human being, to act as intercessor between me and God. In all my years of Cathechism, I had never been exposed to the verses that declare Jesus to be our one and only intercessor. We can pray directly to God, in the name of Jesus. That was the message that was presented that night and it went straight to my heart.


As far as confession goes, I think John 20:21-23 is pretty explicit:

"Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.'"

The Church teaches that by Jesus' own command, the Apostles and their successors, through Apostolic succession (laying on of hands), receive the authority to forgive sins. Even the Apostles themselves were sinners.

As a Roman Catholic, I always need to know by what authority Scripture is interpreted, and for me to have any faith in it, the answer to that needs to be the Church. Also, I haven't seen any scripture that states scripture shall be used alone.

Peace! :)
goldwings96
Permanent Resident
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:42 am
Location: United States of America

Re: I'm still a Roman Catholic

Postby goldwings96 » Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:54 am

goldwings96 wrote:
I don't see how the Church that Jesus founded can fulfill His command to decide issues authoritatively if the Church is infallible.



Sorry, I meant fallible... :oops:
goldwings96
Permanent Resident
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:42 am
Location: United States of America

Re: I'm still a Roman Catholic

Postby jochanaan » Sat Sep 08, 2007 1:41 pm

goldwings96 wrote:...As a Roman Catholic, I always need to know by what authority Scripture is interpreted, and for me to have any faith in it, the answer to that needs to be the Church. Also, I haven't seen any scripture that states scripture shall be used alone.

Some very valid points there, goldwings.

From the Protestant side, I think it's oversimplifying things to say that "only the Bible" guides our lives; otherwise, why would we have pastors at all, or so many commentaries and other Bible help books? And we have traditions of our own that may or may not be specifically authorized in Scripture. However, in disputable cases where tradition or new teachings seem to go against the Bible's plain sense, the Bible is our final authority; we tend to go with it, rather than later teachings. There's a saying among some Protestants, "The Bible sheds some interesting light on the commentaries." :wink:

And some "denominations," like my own Seventh Day Baptists, are more like associative networks, with no central authority except the people's consensus. It may seem like an unworkable system to an outsider, but in fact it forces our people to pray and study for themselves and discipline and inform themselves regarding the Bible and good behavior. If a large part of our people weren't fervent, disciplined believers, it wouldn't work at all. Fortunately, they are. 8)
User avatar
jochanaan
Councillor
 
Posts: 6342
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:58 pm
Location: Denver

Re: I'm still a Roman Catholic

Postby natman » Sat Sep 08, 2007 1:42 pm

goldwings96 wrote:As a sidenote, the word Catholic is a Greek adjective, meaning "general" or "universal". When it was first used, it wasn't used as a "name" of a denomination. It was used to describe the global Christian faith.


Yes. I have attended services at several other denominations that retain the phrase "Holy Catholic Church" in their versions of the Apostles Creed, understanding that the word "Catholic" means "universal".
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7257
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Postby Josh » Sat Sep 08, 2007 5:10 pm

I attended one church for a while that when they recited the creed they would say "the Holy Christian Church" to go back to the original intent of the word and away from denominationalism.
JOSH
User avatar
Josh
Native Resident
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 8:11 am
Location: Tampa Bay, FL

Postby jochanaan » Sat Sep 08, 2007 5:48 pm

Josh wrote:I attended one church for a while that when they recited the creed they would say "the Holy Christian Church" to go back to the original intent of the word and away from denominationalism.

I've been in churches that do that, too. And sometimes even in Anglican/Episcopal churches I'll say it like that, just to get away from the "Catholic" associations.

However, I've noticed that many prayer books print the Nicean Creed with the word "catholic" uncapitalized, thus indicating a more universal understanding of the Church. This I can say without reservation, just as I address a priest as "father" out of respect, without accepting him as my own spiritual father.
User avatar
jochanaan
Councillor
 
Posts: 6342
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:58 pm
Location: Denver

Postby Strandloper » Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:27 pm

Yes, Jochanaan, spelling catholic without the capital C does defuse it somewhat.
While I regard the Roman Catholic Church as being merely another denomination (as of the First Vatican Council), I accept the word catholic as meaning universal, and pray for the reunification of all the churches.
Whether this is a practical aim is another question altogether. Perhaps it will only happen when the Lord returns.

Your point about Scripture being the final authority is well made. In cases of dispute, it is worth going back to the written word, where possible in the original language.
There are far too many man-made traditions (as you say, in both the Roman Catholic and the Protestant churches), many of which have no substance beyond the fact that somebody in the distant past said such and such.
If it cannot be found in Scripture, or in some reliable other source, it cannot stand. (And generally speaking such other sources do not have canonical authority.) If it contradicts Scripture, it must be condemned as heresy.

It took Christians a long time to convince those in power in South Africa that apartheid is a heresy. It will take us even longer before we are able to persuade the authorities that the Church’s traditional teaching on nudity is heretical, but we must press on.
Shalom,
Strandloper

PS: Incidentally, the Anglican church in Japan uses the name Holy Catholic Church.
User avatar
Strandloper
Native Resident
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:01 pm
Location: Eastern Cape, South Africa

Postby natman » Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:50 pm

Strandloper wrote:It will take us even longer before we are able to persuade the authorities that the Church’s traditional teaching on nudity is heretical, but we must press on.


Interestingly enough, I have pressed people from just about every denomination I have come across to provide documented statements on their denomination's (supposed) stance against nudity. So far, I have had no takers. Pope John Paul II wrote positively about the naked human body, and several key theologians have mentioned the lack of sinfulness of the naked human body in passing, but I have not seen documented stance against it, apart from the commands to dress modestly, which can have several different connotations.

So, I think that many of the church "traditions" are not only non-scriptural, but non-orthodoxed as well, at a minimum, simply verbal.

That does not in and of itself diminish true "Sacred Traditions", as they were also verbally handed down prior to Moses committing to write them down. However, I feel that, whether verbal or written, they should all at least be able to point to a particular command in the Bible.
Last edited by natman on Fri Sep 21, 2007 7:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7257
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Postby Soapbox Preacher » Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:28 pm

I was raised in the Christian Reformed Church, and I still attend one. We are the sit on the hands type of worshippers at my church! We sing the good ol' hymns, such as my favorite, "Abide with Me". Maybe, Greg.
Live life in love, for to love is to live!
User avatar
Soapbox Preacher
Native Resident
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Grand Rapids, MI

Previous

Return to Christianity and other religions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron