Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Which denomination?

Yup. Continue to split, and split some more, until you have the proverbial 'and they'll tell two friends' commercial playing out live in your congregations. (Google it, lol).

The largest 'denomination' being, oh, up to 50 people max, I suppose. And each group having it's own leader, who is himself under the leader of a number of small groups. Jethro had excellent counsel in Exodus 18:21 NASB and that would be the guide for structuring the groups of leaders and their respective groups. (With a name like Jethro who can argue with him?)



A system of leadership as noted above would make sure heresy in any one group stays in check. Any non-heretical differences would be reviewed by the system of leadership over the whole thing.


I believe many Christians would get on board with a grass roots movement away from the tradition of the church today and into a more Biblical way of meeting together. It has to be grass roots, then when the churches realize they're losing members to the new movement they'll adapt accordingly. I'm convinced it will be impossible to get the church leadership to change first and take the body of Christ in this direction. For a lot of reasons....some understandable, some not so.
Thanks for answering. Honestly, I think it's a fantastic idea! The intention, at least initially, is admirable but I can also see where it could all go wrong, after all this is how the original church started out, although there was a assembly in each city. Anyway, this is similar to how it started and eventually became what it is today with all the denominations. I see the same thing happening with a new movement, don't you?
 
:) Well, Jason, you're not the only one. We're not universally loved.
lol. I had a route that started after it was changed at the largest F.U.M.C parking lot. I may post the picture of it since it is an old church in the county and is nearly as old as the roman catholic parish to its west. its also Spanish architecture.
 
Pentecostals...I'm thinking Assembly of God. I think they make an effort to take the whole Bible as literally and seriously as possible, without complicated theology. Also, they have lots of good outreach programs/missions that change peoples' lives (I successfully completed a Teen Challenge program, myself...good experience).
yes the AOG is good peeps i know several there is good and bad in all some try to live it right some are slack some are way overboard . what it amounts to is the denominational name will either fall off going up or burn off going down when we die . its the Body of Christ the blood bought child of the king is what counts.
 
Thanks for answering. Honestly, I think it's a fantastic idea! The intention, at least initially, is admirable but I can also see where it could all go wrong, after all this is how the original church started out, although there was a assembly in each city. Anyway, this is similar to how it started and eventually became what it is today with all the denominations. I see the same thing happening with a new movement, don't you?
Not as long as fellowship with God is the primary focus.

I have had the privilege of attending a church that was run very closely to the type described. We all had various differing (non essential) doctrines, but what held us together was our common relationship and experience with God. The rest was secondary.
 
Not as long as fellowship with God is the primary focus.

I have had the privilege of attending a church that was run very closely to the type described. We all had various differing (non essential) doctrines, but what held us together was our common relationship and experience with God. The rest was secondary.
I don't fellowship with futurists.:biggrin2 j/k. yes that is the way I work as you described.
 
Not as long as fellowship with God is the primary focus.

I have had the privilege of attending a church that was run very closely to the type described. We all had various differing (non essential) doctrines, but what held us together was our common relationship and experience with God. The rest was secondary.
I believe you, I have also, it's the splitting and splitting that has me skeptical.

We need some strong Christian folk zealous to start it all. ;)
 
I believe you, I have also, it's the splitting and splitting that has me skeptical.
That is a problem.

The problem is finding good leadership to lead the split off groups.

We need some strong Christian folk zealous to start it all. ;)
This is true.

Even though this will probably have to be a grass roots movement, it will need degree'd pastors and leaders from the church to take the plunge and lead some of these groups.
 
That is a problem.

The problem is finding good leadership to lead the split off groups.


This is true.

Even though this will probably have to be a grass roots movement, it will need degree'd pastors and leaders from the church to take the plunge and lead some of these groups.
Why do they need degrees? I would think people who have been mentored and discipled would be adequate, just as the early apostles. I don't think a degree is required or necessary although there is nothing wrong with them.

Just tossing this out but perhaps the Lord is calling you to start a group. I can tell you would make a great teacher and leader. You seem to be quit knowledgeable with scripture. Maybe this desire is from the Lord?

Just a thought.
 
Well, you know the biblical story about Abigail, don't you? That woman moved powerfully in humility to the saving of her household. My eldest offspring is named after her.
Yes I do and what a thoughtful way to name your daughter! I chose the name Abigail because of her story. It's not my real name.
 
I identify most with typical Baptist doctrines, but am not particularly loyal to any one denomination. If I am shown to be wrong on a doctrine, I'll change my views. I find views that fall outside the loop of accepted doctrine to be interesting, unless it interferes with core beliefs. Some individuals, including class teachers, at my church have different views on some (more or less inconsequential) doctrines than what is taught from the pulpit, and I like that.
 
Many denominations strive to teach doctrines that are biblically sound. I have spent time attending churches that belong to different denominations and have landed with the OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) as I feel I have been led here to be more adequately fed in the word. Sure, some may consider this denomination to be dry, but then we come to Sunday morning worship services to Worship God, not be entertained.
 
Many denominations strive to teach doctrines that are biblically sound. I have spent time attending churches that belong to different denominations and have landed with the OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) as I feel I have been led here to be more adequately fed in the word. Sure, some may consider this denomination to be dry, but then we come to Sunday morning worship services to Worship God, not be entertained.
I'm old enough to know that It is entirely possible to worship God in an exuberant, 'alive' way (meaning 'not dry') and it not be entertainment. It seems the non-charismatic churches got a hold of charismatic worship somewhere in the early nineties and turned it into entertainment instead of worship where the Holy Spirit LITERALLY falls on the congregation. It seems that the charismatics themselves followed suit and turned it largely into entertainment, too. I'm not aware of any charismatic groups conducting praise and worship in the manner it used to be done such that it was true Spirit-filled worship and not just fleshly 'feel good' entertainment mistaken for spiritual worship.
 
That is one thing I dislike about Baptist churches, the worship can be pretty dry. But I don't go there for lively worship since that is not my priority.
 
Even though this will probably have to be a grass roots movement, it will need degree'd pastors and leaders from the church to take the plunge and lead some of these groups.
Grass roots, yes, as it should be a bottom-up (via the Holy Bible), and not a top-down, hierarchy. The young*P*astor in New York holds no import over the elderly widow in Sweden.

But “degree’d pastors"? The word tells us that the scholars have corrupted the covenant and led many astray (Malachi). They are afraid of losing both their place and their nation i.e. their status and their stuff (John 11).

Why do they need degrees? I would think people who have been mentored and discipled would be adequate, just as the early apostles. I don't think a degree is required or necessary although there is nothing wrong with them.
Indeed. That which is esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God (Luke 16).
 
Some individuals, including class teachers, at my church have different views on some (more or less inconsequential) doctrines than what is taught from the pulpit, and I like that.
That's what "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment" is all about (1 Corinthians 14:29 NASB). They're doing something right in your church.

I visited a church recently and sat in on one of the groups that met after the service to discuss the sermon. Basically, I was told 'this is what we believe and we're not changing'.
 
Why do they need degrees? I would think people who have been mentored and discipled would be adequate, just as the early apostles. I don't think a degree is required or necessary although there is nothing wrong with them.

Just tossing this out but perhaps the Lord is calling you to start a group. I can tell you would make a great teacher and leader. You seem to be quit knowledgeable with scripture. Maybe this desire is from the Lord?

Just a thought.
I'll chime in on this later. :)

Brains surgeries are backing up........
 
Back
Top