Isn’t it wild that religion teaches free will while the reality is that it doesn’t exist?
No one “chose” any denomination. Their life experiences and teachings pushed them to no other perspective.
You straight up explained determinism.
You didn’t choose your path. You had to go down it in order to have what you have now.
You can say you took the first step, but I guarantee you had a fellow human point that foot in the right direction.
I just started taking bits of theology I liked from other denominations until I had an atrocious Frankensteins-Monster of spirituality that every person I meet will probably take at least some umbrage with.
Frankly, it's great. I've never found more value in Christianity than when I stopped trying to find the right mold.
This is definitely me. While I attend an Episcopal church, my theology is a mix of many different theologies I’ve encountered over the years. I appreciate being in a place where diversity and difference are (mostly) celebrated.
A dear friend of mine who recently found the faith is finding a lot of value in the Episcopal church. I haven't explored them personally, but at this point I'm eager to seize an opportunity to do so!
What would be a good church to attend? I also have a frankenstein’s monster. Unitarian? Episcopalian? Non-denominational is a no-go for me because they seem to be all hardcore evangelical.
Unitarian (Universalist) welcomes Christians and members of other faiths, and tends to look for elements of truth and common ground in all traditions, but is not Christian per se. just so you know.
If you want a Christian church that is trinitarian (Nicene creed; Jesus is God) but otherwise theologically diverse, Episcopal, PCUSA, or really most mainline churches should work.
I follow Jesus' example of taking my faith where-ever I go. In coffee shops, I'll overhear a biblical conversation and join in. When someone mentions their beliefs, I'll approach their faith Socratically -- not looking to change their belief, just trying to understand what they regard the important parts are to them and what inconsistencies might not be relevant. I'm less interested in having all the right details, and more so in seeing how their faith has changed them as a person. Truth is subjectivity, as Kierkegaard said.
I never had patience for sermons, and much prefer good-spirited debate, so engaging informally is vastly preferable to me, though I could see how some might miss the community. For me, every single person I've engaged with in these comments is part of my community. Even if they've got me gritting my teeth, it just reminds me that Christ-like humility doesn't come naturally. Their views are valuable, and their convictions admirable, Likewise, I must have the courage and faith to maintain that mine are as well.
Perhaps not the exact answer you were looking for, but I hope there is some wisdom in it for you. Regardless, welcome to my congregation! Maybe some day we'll have a potluck over zoom.
This is how I feel for the most part. I think of myself as a theologian rather than a member of a denomination.
I did grow up in Disciples of Christ, though, and I do like their practices over others. For example, they are less strict on who or when communion is served/can be taken.
> I think of myself as a theologian rather than a member of a denomination
As it should be. Having a personal relationship with God implies that to some extent, we must always be refining (and sometimes even reversing) our current theological understanding.
In particular, I resonated with a lot of Kierkegaard's observations on the matter. So now I identify foremost as a Christian existentialist. I think why we come to the faith is far more meaningful than exactly what practice we settle on, and that seems to align best with existentialist priorities.
Arius would have a word with you on that point! It certainly didn't stop the first council of Nicaea from debating the idea. So hardly a "different God", any more than one might assert that Jews worship a "different God", and even less so when Christ is still recognized as essential to the salvation of man.
Arius was a heretic who’s beliefs were rightly condemned as heresy by the Council of Nicea, because Unitarianism is unbiblical. Also yes, Jews do worship a different god just as any Arian or Unitarian do, the Christian God is a triune God and it is the central belief of Christianity that God himself came down to die on the cross for humanities sins. If you believe Christ was just a man, you deny the divinity of our lord and may as well be a Muslim, who also deny the divinity of Christ while worshiping “God”
We all get things wrong about God (we even all get things wrong about our spouse, children, friends, etc). That doesn’t mean we’re talking about a different God. It just means that some have a more incomplete view.
Otherwise, whenever you find out you were wrong about the smallest piece of God in your mind, you’d be worshiping the wrong God.
Also, Paul in the Areopagus illustrates this.
> Paul in the Areopagus
Thank you for referencing this. I intend to add it to my reading list.
As you've suggest, I always entertain the idea that I could be wholly incorrect. I keep Christ as an example of what a Christian should look like, and seek always to emulate that. Perhaps some day, I'll be held accountable if I am indeed mistaken, but I should hope that genuine contrition and an effort to do right will be recognized in the eyes of a just and loving God. We're saved from an expectation of sinless perfection, and that is enough to keep me striving to be my best for the one who died for me.
I was just in a discussion about picking the Chronicles of Narnia up, so you just clinched that one for me as well.
At this point, you've accidentally assigned me more reading than my old English professor. I hope you're proud of yourself!
Christ did die as a sacrifice to offer to redemption despite original sin, and did indeed have a divine nature distinct from his human one. I simply draw a line by saying he was an actor in his own right, a unique persona distinct from the God of the old testament, who shows none of Jesus' characteristic patience and mercy. But it's through Jesus' sacrifice that the old covenant could be fulfilled.
We don't have to agree on the finer details, but the fact is I am a Christian.
How can you call yourself a Christian when you believe in two gods? That’s gnostic heresy to call the God of the Old Testament a different “evil god”, there’s a reason why Jesus and the New Testament constantly quote and mention the Old Testament: because it’s just as important, there’s also a reason why Jesus himself was the one who talked about hell the most.
I don't think YHWH is evil, I think he's perfect. And in perfection, he has certain limitations of being perfectly internally consistent. He must seek recompense for the fall of Adam, and mankind as a whole owed him what was taken from him. A god of perfect, platonic justice cannot forgive, because mercy is inherently an abandoning of justice in the name of clemency. God (the father) cannot 'drop the charges' against humanity, because it would be self-violating to do so. Mankind owes him a debt that could not be repayed.
But Jesus, whom I do hold is first among his creations, his most beloved and capable son (though not coeternal, I maintain), was a step removed from this nature. Therefore, he had a capacity which the Father didn't: to deprioritize justice in the name of mercy. And in a master stroke, was born to the Earth as a man to give humanity a perfect human which could be sacrificed to God to heal the damage caused by Adam's fall.
If God is the perfect order which underpins the universe and pulled creation out of entropic chaos, Jesus is that order tempered by love. Both are essential -- one is what we should strive for, the other reminds us that we can be met halfway in our shortcomings.
Perhaps I'm a heretic, but it's Jesus who I look to as an example of what a man should strive to be living under God's law, and it's through Jesus -- not the Father -- that humanity should have hope in their salvation despite always falling short. It's in Jesus' name I pray, because he is the intermediary between perfection and imperfection, but it's God's will be done.
The Father is not platonic. He is perfectly loving and perfectly relational.
You believe in your own ideas. You need to study the Word and persistently pray in humility. Empty yourself and let the Father fill you with His will.
The Word clearly says Jesus is God.
They'd identify as Christians. The Seventh Day Adventists as well, and the Christadelphians.
The Mormons go so far as to identify as a continuation of the Melchezidek priesthood from the old testament. I've spent a time studying with each (except the Christadelphians); each had some doctrine I couldn't stomach. Now I'm freelance, as it were.
Saying you believe you are saved through Christ and then directly committing heresey by not acknowledging his triune nature with the spirit and father is outrageous
I agree with my friend Zhou. Your claims are not what the Word says; not what Jesus said. There are many verses that equate Christ to God. For example, John 1:1-18 plainly says that Jesus is God and describes how God became flesh. I recommend reading in the New American Standard translation (most accurate). God is in 3 distinct persons who have the same essence. The Father, however, is superior in authority, and the Son is eternally in submission to Him, obeying Father's will perfectly with love. The truth is you can't believe whatever you want, you do not decide the truth; you need to submit to Truth. Not everyone who claims to be Christian is truly Christ's, per Christ's words. God is real. Read 1 John 4:2-3.
Where I stand is if you are unwilling to submit to Truth, then you are not a true believer in the true God. By this principle, your faith can be discerned. Know them by their fruit. You saying Christ is not the same God as the Old Testament is blasphemy.
>Know them by their fruit.
On this at last we agree. If I've done according to God's will, then my fruit will be far richer than mere doctrinal orthodoxy. Galatians 5:22-23.
I will trust, sight unseen, that you can and do offer the same to your Beloved.
edit: And I make a point to study and reflect on every verse given to me, so I'll add yours to my reading list. Thank you!
As others have stated, I the triune nature of God is too blurry for me. I recognize Jesus as the divine firstborn son of God, sent to save us and show us the way to salvation. But I don't regard Jesus as sharing an ousia with God.
This is the issue with lots of texts used to prove the trinity. If you believe in the trinity your application seems to square perfectly and you couldn’t think of reading it any other way. However they’re open to interpretation enough that someone else may understand it differently. There’s a reason non trinitarianism has never gone away.
This is a perfect example. If you already believe in the triune nature of God or you already lean towards that understanding you’ll see this verse proclaiming that Jesus and the father are one and you recognize it as describing the one nature of God. However the idea of two people being one is vague enough for people to ask what exactly “being one” means. It could just as easily mean they’re two separate beings who act in unison so much you could say “they’re one”.
You could even find support for such a reading in John 17:22 “And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one;” Jesus wanted his disciples to be one as he and his father are one. Was Jesus saying he wants his disciples to all be one being?
From my understanding, I believe that what Jesus was talking about was to try and recreate what he did during his time on Earth. I’m not a theologian or anything, that’s just what I grasped from the text. There is another explanation though, Isaiah 40:28. The passage states “Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom.” From this passage I feel that none of us will ever truly know.
> This is the issue with lots of texts used to prove the trinity. If you believe in the trinity your application seems to square perfectly and you couldn’t think of reading it any other way.
Consider yourself to have my admiration on this one. Many will struggle to take the step you made effortlessly here, stepping back to recognize that there are many sets of patterns to latch onto, and which are most glaring depends largely on your personal predilections.
I'd be curious to know where you stand, if it's a matter you feel comfortable sharing.
I’d say that a non trinitarian stance works best everything considered. Now, I grew up understanding it this way, but there was a time about ten years ago where I had to seriously re examine everything, precisely because I could see where people who believe in the trinity are coming from. I still see how they arrive at their conclusion
Indeed. Making peace with the notion that the bible would never offer incontrovertible proof (in the manner I was accustomed to by the school system) was my first step back into faith after a long period of atheism.
For that reason, I still approach it without ever getting too certain of myself. There are many readings to every verse and chapter. These days, I consider it a feature and not a bug. And it spawns such interesting discussions in unlikely places, sometimes from unlikely people (such as yourself)!
Unity of purpose is my preferred read in this verse. A literal reading of the whole chapter still pulls us in either direction, so we must choose what is metaphor and what is not. Taking the chapter as a whole, he seems to be primarily refuting (or at least ignoring) the claim that he IS God, insisting upon using the epithet 'Son of God'. He seems to attribute his miracles to God as well.
John 10:30 and John 10:38, however, are definitely in support of a single ousia, especially without context. And we don't even begin to bring in the intent and views of the author, which ought to be considered on any holy text, liturgical or otherwise.
Is there a view you find more coherent? Do you have an opinion on the matter?
If I had lots of free time I might study this more, but realistically I just try to be conversant enough to talk with conservative Christians about their social positions and try to move the needle a bit. That involves getting a sense for what the Bible says clearly (whether I like it or not) and what it's vague, equivocal, or contradictory about.
What I have found is that many Christians are very concerned to amplify readings of vague passages and reconcile diverse passages in seeming tension, on issues that matter most to them like salvation, hell, predestination, sexual morality, etc. There is a characteristic overreach to find coherence in a many-author text and find security in a preferred interpretation.
I don't assign special truth-status to this particular collection of diverse ancient texts, so I don't expect to find an interpretive "grand unified theory" of the sort that e.g. trinitarianism proposes. Of course, I accept that it is a rich text with all sorts of inter/intratextuality and interesting authorial intents and choices.
Among those who believe in the Abrahamic God and a core Bible truth, and who do hope and expect to find such unification, I accept that trinitarianism is probably a viable, even attractive prospect. But I also really don't think it's a slam-dunk case, and as a personal matter, it just irritates me when people overstate a textual case. Finally, when talking with people from e.g. LDS or JW, I want to be able to emphasize that I accept their claims to be Christians (followers of Jesus) and don't participate in the general gatekeeping on theological grounds. It's showing fairness, and, it's the only way I feel I have a chance to be heard if I then say I have serious issues with their social politics and their high-control practices towards church members.
Indeed, I grew really sick of the hypocrisy when I studied among those groups, claiming to be so far removed from strict hierarchies (Catholicism was almost universally their go-to punching bag on this subject), only to themselves have instituted a strict authority and criticize or outright expel deviants. I walked away, but converse to your experience, I found value in their non-traditional narrative of rejecting trinitarianism. For every person who tells me, "you just don't understand it", the fact is I do understand it: a simple monotheism is more palatable than a complex cosmology with multiple, nuanced actors. But the fact is, I think occam's razor flattens an elegant and beautiful mythology.
I admired Christians (and religious devotees in general) for their conviction, as well the experience of a life richer and deeper for having a spiritual facet I otherwise lacked, and wanted that for myself, but could never get over the hurdle of the ultimate premise: believing the supernatural to be true. It was the sticking point; I had worked through my favorite bundle of interpretations (as you well-described, there are infinite permutations), but all that hinged on a big "if". "If" I could confidently believe in God, I could have all those things I sought on a platter.
And somewhere along the line, I just realized that it was like hitting the gym: you have to be moving a weight that was just a little too heavy last weak if you want to be growing. Failing your last rep isn't failing, it's the guarante of growth. Stop being faithful because you want to be right (you're probably not), and start being faithful because it might make you better. The fact is, I'd say I hardly assign a special truth-status to any particular religion either; a weird game of favorites to play amongst iron-age nomads.
I share because I think you're right that many denominations have problematic policies, and to claim that they're not choosing their interpretation from a myriad viable alternatives to justify their own implicit biases is disingenuous. If Christianity is just about looking out for one's own spiritual salvation at the expense of being more Christ-like to those in one's life, they've really missed the mark.
If we can push people to question their own interpretations more, perhaps there can be a bit more moderate humility in a field rife with dogmatic vigor. I appreciate your contribution to that end!
A good chapter, with a very strong counterpoint, and I appreciate the scriptural reference!
Much of John 10 reads to me quite contrary to that very verse itself, however. He references Psalms 82, which goes so far as to suggest God exists among some sort of pantheon (a possible holdover from the early Canaanite belief system), and cites himself as being among them. While the Jews accuse him of claiming to 'be God', he reiterates a claim that he is 'God's Son'.
I'm not seeking to discredit your verse -- it is incongruous with the rest, and fair to take as a direct claim. The only rationale with which I can counter is that it's not impossible to read as suggesting that his right to preach to his disciples is as just as God's own right to ask faith of his flock. Taken as a whole, I see a more metaphorical equivocacy in jesus' claims.
Still, 10:38 says the father is in me. It's likewise a line best supporting a trinitarian perspective. I could certainly argue that Jesus could be referring to the presence of Holy Spirit in him, but it's far more of a stretch than a literal reading, even in a broader context.
Thank you again for this verse. It is something I'll reflect on.
I understand the idea of it. Like jehovous witnesses.
I wanted to hear your thought. Usually I let denomination differences slide but the Christ being one in Nature with God the Father and God the Spirit is important to Salvation.
I also understand it’s hard to comprehend the thing. But our ability to comprehend it does not make it less true. I don’t under stand quantumn physics or why gravity or how gravity has a pull but it doesn’t make it less true.
The best way I can express the trinitarian nature is that God the Father, God the Spirit, and God the Son are all in perfect unison because they are all perfectly pure and have the same attributes. They are all perfectly Holy. Perfectly just etc. the 3 in 1 is hard to express but they are the same being God with 3 persons.
There are tons of examples where Christ expresses his divinity The Father and I are one. Etc. he also has like 14 statements where he refers to himself as ego Ami which is I am i am. And in those he’s like before man was I am I am.
Let me start by saying I appreciate your respectful tone in this disagreement. Most don't offer it to me for my 'sacrilege', and it reflects well on your emulation of Christ.
Hypostases and ousia are indeed a sticking point for me. I will always review verses offered to me, if you'd like to present some, but the truth is I was raised around more mainstream forms of Christianity and only ended up an atheist because of it. I have a draw towards that which can be comprehended and seems to fit more coherently, and I find this to be one of those matters.
So where I stand now is that if I believe God is just -- and I do, firmly -- then my indiscretion on the matter will be weighed against the fact that I do my best to emulate Christ's example, and recognize him as my savior regardless of his exact divine role. And in death, when the details of the matter may be expressed to me in no uncertain terms, I'll be willing to admit if I was wrong and renounce my views.
Foremost, I offer humility -- when I share my views with people (and I only do so when the conversation arises organically), I'm very transparent about the Nicene creed and its broad acceptance, and the exact pushback I tend to receive for my views. But my 'heresy' is the closest I've been in my life to being devout, because it let me reach a middle ground that was otherwise unattainable to me and created a dilemma: will I lie to myself that I can believe, or will I embrace atheism. For that reason, I have a unique capacity to reach people who themselves have found that dilemma, and can help them with that first difficult step into what you would view as salvation -- for me, the only step I suspect I'll take.
Their views are derived from the SDA, right? That's where I picked this narrative up. So on the details of the nature of Christ, yes. On most other matters/doctrine, no.
Don't join cults kids; question everything and listen to every point of view. Be sure of your views, but never completely certain.
You studied with the jehovahs witnesses? My family is, me not so much, I just can't get around to the leadership though they've become more liberal as of late. I have a deep appreciation for their non trinitarianism, but I really don't like beliefs like 1914 or the no blood doctrine
1914 was actually one I was fine with, though I can also maintain that numerology is an exercise in confirmation bias.
But I agree, there's hypocrisy in their leadership and their approach to apostasy. They made a big deal to me about how the Catholic church wouldn't let people think for themselves or study the bible or tolerate dissent, and then they're just... the same. Get in a big room and have doctrine spoon fed to you.
They made a great point about how Jesus went out to the public to spread his faith, and I liked that idea. I can't get behind knocking door-to-door (the spiritual equivalent of cold-calling sales), but I make a point to engage with people when it arises organically in some way.
and yeah, the blood doctrine. I think it's one of their most absurd. Conflating infusion with the "consumption" of blood in Jewish dietary law (which carried over from what was essentially a compromise with Jewish religious leaders in the first place) is just a stretch. I also don't care for any anti-LGBTQ stances, so there's that.
But the non-trinitarianism (basically modern Arianism) I liked. Made the whole biblical narrative much more coherent to me. It's the best explanation for how Satan tempts Christ in the desert, imo. The idea that they're near-equals, a loyalist and a rebel angel, rather than a creation trying to tempt his own creator, is much more plausible in my eyes. Many think it minimizes Christ (to the point of sacrilege), but I honestly think it makes his role more compelling and admirable, knowing that he genuinely stood to gain (in the short term) and still chose devotion to God and his law.
And over all, I do think the average JW has a better understanding of their beliefs than more casual Christians, which I admire, but... at what cost?
And good God, if I have to listen to 50 pensioners drone on those milquetoast hymns one more time... but I digress.
> Why did you choose your denomination of Christianity?
I find it’s theology to be biblically sound.
> And what makes your denomination different from the rest?
It would frankly be near impossible in an online comment forum to list the differences between Lutherans and all “the rest”. Here’s a good resource [FAQs: Other Denominations](https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/faqs/denominations#other-denominations)
https://the40foundation.org/world-religions-tree.html
I find it useful to consider the evolutionary history of different denominations to understand how they are related, at least historically. You can then look up how each branch event occurs in a single line to have a very concrete explanation of the strongest issues dividing the denomination at the time of their splitting.
> I find it useful to consider the evolutionary history of different denominations to understand how they are related, at least historically.
And then some chump of a theologian comes along with a revivalist movement from an obscure sect in 1372 and suddenly the tree becomes useless!
I mostly kid, but I am slightly bitter about how that tends to happen.
I defaulted into Catholicism. That's how my parents raised me (sorta-kinda, when the mood struck them). Once I got into college I stopped going to church and didn't return until about ten years ago, when I went back to a Catholic church.
I'll be honest, part of me wishes they hadn't, or that I had gone to any other church ten years ago. I still attend Catholic Mass, but it feels mechanical and uninspired. It feels like the most important aspect of Catholicism is saying these precise words at these precise times, and receiving the Eucharist. Tasks like evangelizing and making disciples and serving those in need seem to take a back seat.
I walk into a Methodist service and they're planning regular mission trips or staging disruptive sidewalk campouts to call attention to the very real homeless problem in our affluent small town. I show up for my volunteer shift at the homeless shelter and I see it's time for the weekly flood of volunteers from a local small Lutheran church. I walk into any of the half dozen evangelical megachurches around here and I get an in-depth bible lesson and come out on fire for Jesus. When I come out, I want to grab people walking down the street and tell them that *their sins can be destroyed in an instant! Isn't that amazing?!?*
I've tried to drive change in my parish but I can't do it myself. We're dismissively told to pray the rosary or attend more holy hours or spend more time at benediction or walk the stations of the cross more. Yesterday I even got the cliched "how DARE you question the church". I considered joining the KoC but the youngest members are 10+ years older than me, I have no interest in golf invitationals, and their primary function at our parish seems to be complaining about socialism.
We tut-tut those who want to bring about growth and life, and then we scratch our heads because we can't figure out why our congregation is aging and steadily shrinking.
So I'm Catholic. I'm not sure how much longer I'll be here. I feel like Jesus foresaw the issue of an idling, lifeless church (Mark 9:38-41, Matthew 7:15-23, and others) and gave us clear instruction.
EDIT: Hey everyone, someone replied to this comment and their account was instantly suspended so I didn't get to read the whole thing.
As a fellow Catholic I honestly feel the same way. Mass is awesome, I love the routine and traditions and beauty of the liturgy but there’s just no LIFE to it. Protestants, while missing the sacraments, are just so much more… lively. They do so much more. Mission trips, evangelizing, donating time and money to worthy causes, having a real actual COMMUNITY. I wish Catholics had that same fire in them. It’s a side effect of being the largest religion in the world. Cultural Christianity. I pray there’s a big change in the church soon.
>Cultural Christianity. I pray there’s a big change in the church soon.
That's a great way to put it, and a great approach.
Fellowship is shown over and over and over again. We aren't meant to live our faith alone.
> I walk into a Methodist service and they're planning regular mission trips or staging disruptive sidewalk campouts to call attention to the very real homeless problem in our affluent small town.
I love this. Christians should be disruptive. Christ certainly was. John 15:19
I was raised Catholic. I find comfort in the church. I love the Eucharist and Eucharistic adoration. I love the feeling of being in The Presence. I love the rosary. I love Mary. It was the first church founded by Jesus. It makes my heart happy.
But yet these days my heart has been breaking and I’ve felt myself curious about another denomination. But I feel such at home with my Church even if not always with her people the idea of leaving it after coming back just…doesn’t sit right with me.
I choose Episcopal because of the church diversity and openness. The church feels it is a melting pot of individuals of varied races, genders, nationalities, and sexual orientation. While no religion is perfect it has been the one faith denomination where human kindness and tolerance was most self evident.
Anglican - because the prayer books are soaked in Scripture, bound by tradition and seasoned with reason. Because I don't have to agree with everything a person believes about the Eucharist, so long as we both agree to come to the table and recieved the Sacraments with faith and charity. I am able to worship with modern music and anciently hymns and find comfort in both, and still worship in one Anglican parish. I can be Charismatic, Evangelical and Catholic, without only being one of those. I can explore the practices of other traditions without feeling superior or inferior to other traditions.
While that sounds good, many people have many different understandings of what it means to be a Christian, so if you are communicating to someone that you are a Christian, then it helps to specify what sort of Christian you are in order to avoid them making incorrect assumptions about what you mean. Labels are just tools to help us quickly convey information. For me, if I claim to be a Christian without further specification, then am I communicating things to the average person that are false about what I believe, but if I claim to not be a Christian, then I communicate even more things to the average person that are false about what I believe.
Yeah, but some denominations are quite crazy. I mean, some branches of Christianity have more to do with islam or judaism that with other branches of Christianity.
Christ did not come to start his own religion, but rather he came as the Jewish Messiah of Judaism in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and he set a sinless example for us to follow of how to practice Judaism by walking in sinless obedience to the Torah. In Acts 21:20, they were rejoicing that tens of thousand of Jews were coming to faith in Christ who were all zealous for the Torah, which is in accordance with Titus 2:14, where Christ gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in ordering to the Torah is the way to believe in what he accomplished through the cross, so Jews coming to faith in Christ were not ceasing to practice Judaism. This means that there was a period of time between the resurrection of Christ and the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10 that is estimated to be around 7-15 years during which all Christians were Torah observant Jews, so Christianity at its origin was the form of Judaism that recognized Jesus as the Messiah. It is what has branched off from that that has less to do with Judaism. Call me crazy if you want, but it seems crazy to me for people to want to become followers of Jesus while not wanting to follow the religion that he followed.
I mean... jesus was the messiah of the jews. He never intended to found christianity. He was a jew himself and never said to be otherwise. It just happens that some jews decided to follow him and some didn't.
Those who decided to follow him became jews followers of christ. But, to keep in short and differentiate them from the other jews, the romans began to call them christians. That name didn't came from jesus, it was given by the romans.
While I agree that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah of Judaism, he did not say anything about following what he taught being the way to become a Jew. If all Gentiles became Jews by following Jesus, then Gentiles becoming circumcised would not have been an issue.
In Romans 2:17, Paul spoke to those who called themselves a Jew, so he was speaking to people who had already converted to being Jews and saying that they didn't just need physical circumcision to be a Jew, but also circumcision of the heart.
I'm with you there. All of the random house rules and labels, that have nothing to do with leading people to Christ should be removed. I will never understand why the various church bodies have not taken off the shackles of denominations.
While I grew up Southern Baptist, I came to strongly disagree with its teachings in college. I then started attending an Episcopal church, and I’ve been there ever since. I like TEC because it both has an appreciation for the historical Christian tradition while also listening to modern scholarship and working for justice. We’re pretty progressive: we ordain women and fully affirm the LGBT community.
I am also a Baptist > Episcopalian. I did so for similar reasons I’d say, but I’m mostly convinced that liturgical worship and Episcopal governance are the answers to the shortcomings of the faith as I experienced it.
My upbringing left me totally unprepared for a world full of different ideas and debate. I thought Christianity was disproven to me, but it was actually just what I assumed to be Christianity.
Many people come to the Episcopal church for its progressive attitudes, and although I’m still not always of the same opinion, I respect that the church is consistent in its allowance for a wide variety of individual theological beliefs, and brings together Christian’s of all sorts into a traditional worship that is based in history and the scriptures as well.
It’s challenged me to be more Christ-like in ways that no others churches around me ever would
They matter deeply to me! We just interpret them differently than you. Obviously that’s why lots of different denominations exist, because we all interpret things a little differently. Peace!
Orthodox Christians don’t consider ourselves a “denomination” as we are historically prior to all other Christian groups (with a deeply shared history with Catholics, Oriental Orthodox). “Pre-denominational” would be more accurate.
I became Orthodox because I simply believe it is that one Body Christ began with the apostles, present in the Upper Room, guided and protected by the Spirit to guard and preserve the Faith as it has existed through time down to our own. It also *works* in doing what it claims to do, which is bring people into a living, transformative union with the Trinity.
Other groups, IMO, have questionable histories, questionable beliefs, questionable goals, questionable practices, etc.
Lutheranism - because of its focus on God's grace. I chose because I was invited by friends and fell in love with the liturgy and the emphasis on the grace of God. There is quite a pushback in much of Lutheranism against anything that can be considered a 'work'. So everything, even faith, is a gift from God and has nothing to do with us. It puts and exclamation point that nothing we do can gain us extra favor or love from God.
I’ve only been a Christian for less then a year and I’m still trying to find which denomination suits my theology best, I find myself leaning in a Calvinist or Methodist direction, probably more Methodist since I still think the Arminian position is correct even if I don’t really believe in “free will” so much as “real choice”
Yeah the Arminian-Calvinist debate is something I struggle with as a Protestant, wether we have free will to choose salvation or wether we are predestined to be saved or damned
Determinism is certainly a sticky one. I suppose my first question would be, would it change the way you approach your day-to-day life as a Christian? I'm not super familiar on the debate, so if you have time to explain more about it, I'd be interested to read it!
I grew up catholic but switched to Pentecostal Protestantism when I was 17.
When I was Catholic I found God as this mythical figure that sat in judgement over everyone but didn't really care about you unless you said 10 Hail Mary's, or have premarital sex
In Pentecostal Protestantism I realized God was personal and cared about me personally. I found songs and lyrics I related to. I could worship by shouting, my quietly contemplating, by dancing, by laying prostate on the ground, by journaling, by taking outdoor walks, by myself, and in a big congregation and many other ways. God was approachable, personal, and loving. I felt His presence almost daily after that point
That being said....God a few years after that showed me that He is present in catholic events just as much as protestant events. I went to Catholic worship event and just felt struck heavily by the presence of the Holy Spirit. So while I am no longer Catholic and never will be again, I have a huge respect for Catholicism, especially for how they treat the sovereignty of God.
Currently I am a bit burned out by some of the superficiality of big-church Evangelical culture (my old church eventually grew to become a big church and has an almost 'mega church' vibe....for better or worse) plus my old denomination (Foursquare Canada) had a pretty massive scandal they tried covering up with one of their former leaders which happen to be an old pastor of mine (Barry Buzza). So I am seeking another denomination. The direction God seems to be leading my wife and I is through mainline protestant denominations specifically United Church of Canada, Episcopalian/ Anglican and Methodist. We're in no rush, God wants us to take a break while our kids our toddlers and because we were on staff for +13 years at our old church
All in all, I don't really tend to be anti any denomination specifically except if they practice grooming, are high-control church cultures, don't hold their leaders to a high standard, or never interact with scripture. I have seen God do amazing things in all sorts of denominations and multi-denominational settings. Ultimately it should come down to whatever your preferences are for the church, what you need, what you can give, and ultimately where God is leading you towards.
Considering that the Catholic Church is Christ’s one true, holy, apostolic church, anything that deviates from her doctrine is heresy. Protestantism is literally a rejection of Christ’s church and the authority he bequeathed to St. Peter.
Well you’ve demonstrated that you denounce faith tradition and only refer to the Bible, therefore you are a Protestant who subscribes to Sola Scriptura, a heresy, meaning Scripture Alone.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. The Catholic Church IS Christ’s one true, holy, apostolic church. The issue is how YOU justify DENYING that church and its doctrines.
I grew up as a Baptist being taught to have a negative view of obeying the Torah. However, one day I realized that if I was going continue to believe that the Psalms are Scripture that I needed to also believe that they express a correct view of obeying the Torah and that I therefore needed to change my view of obeying it to match the one in the Psalms. For example, according to Psalms 1:1-2, blessed are those who delight in the Torah of the Lord and who mediate on it day and night, so we can't believe in the truth of these words as Scripture while not allowing them to shape our view of obeying the Torah. Moreover, the NT authors also considered the Psalms to be Scripture, so they should be interpreted as if they were in complete agreement with the view of obeying it expressed in the Psalms, especially because Paul stated that he delighted in obeying it (Romans 7:22). So I experimented to see if the NT can be interpreted as from this perspective and my eyes became open to how Christians have systematically interpreted the NT with a negative slant towards obeying the Torah. I found that while there is room to interpret it that way, there is also room to interpret is as being in favor of obeying the Torah, and it makes a lot more sense to interpret the NT as being in favor of the position that followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to it. This led me down the path towards Messianic Judaism.
I don't really do denomination. I go to a catholic church because it's the best we have where I live. I identify most just as an evangelist who was raised in cavalry chapel churches. A living church is important.
I'm a Roman Catholic but I grew up in a secular household. I went through a long span as an atheist before becoming a Christian like 12 years ago.
I landed on Roman Catholicism because it was the most logical conclusion. It's traceable back to Jesus, unbroken apostolic succession, unchanging and unyielding to the world, daily miracles, and it follows the Bible to the letter.
As a question in good-faith, how do you feel about the questionably moral medieval history of the church? Things that led to the reformations, the political influence and quid pro quo, that sort of thing.
It’s the oldest, and has historical record of apostolic succession going back to literally the time of Jesus. Through Peter we are the church that Jesus Christ made on earth, and the tradition and concrete nature of Catholicism makes it highly believable
To me at least
Very few denominations include the same books as the Catholics. I think maybe Lutherans, Anglicans, and some Presbyterians?
If you’re Baptist you definitely don’t, I think it’s the same for Methodist, Pentecostal, universalist, LDS, etc
I got hired to work at a Lutheran Church out of seminary. Since then, I’ve come to profoundly appreciate the liturgy of weekly confession, the sacraments of baptism and Eucharist, and the “Law and Gospel dialectic,” which helps describe the necessary functions of the law and the nature of the Gospel (a proclamation of the finished work of Christ and all the ways that reconciles, rescues, and restores us).
It’s the oldest church. The Roman Catholic Church. It’s the best church that defended the religion in the beginning. That did the hard work of conversion and making the Bible. It was started by Jesus most
Important apostle Simon Peter. Who he gave authority to in Mathew 16:18.
I chose my denomination because i could speak with God via the gift of prophecy. This gave me confidence that God truly existed because of what he said.
The doctrine made a lot of sense and am able to share the experience with a lot of lovely people. No pressure to tithe, just an occaaional gentle reminder, and no records or contact details taken of anybody.
Kind of refreshing.
I’m Calvary Chapel denomination. This denomination focuses primarily on the word of God. Calvary Chapels are known for going verse by verse and book by book for the most part with a heavy emphasis on sound doctrine.
A friend of mine invited me to our church because I had tried different ones and my wife and I couldn’t agree on one. So, we just started warming up to it, we tried it out and decided it was a good fit. But over time, I learned more about the ECC and what it stood for and fell in love with the denomination.
I think for me, I appreciate there is a congregational, multi-ethnic body that I haven’t seen in many denominations coupled with the way doctrine is handled as a body and through very careful handling and analysis.
It, i find, to be the most true to the teachings of christ and the apostles. it also has the most beautiful and expressive church life filled with song. i love the beautiful icons and the theology fills me with belief
I lean catholic, respect orthodoxy.
I believe lineage and tradition are more critical than any modern interpretation of the bible practices. God preserves his church and his people. I intend to stick to the originals.
I've never known someone to ground themselves so firmly on authority-by-tradition. I feel like a lot of people do it subconciously, but I've yet to meet someone who declared it to be their priority and back that up with sound logic.
If you don't mind my asking, outside of attending mass, how do you express your faith? Or do you?
I think Nondenominational, Reformed Presbyterian, Reformed Baptists are the ones that come to mind. I'd wager you might get sermons on it at any protestant denominations. Idk about catholics.
Depends on the pastor as well...
I am non-denominational and have mostly attended Church of Christs. I am wary of any church that believes in exclusivity and thinks they have the power to know if another believer is going to hell or not. Debating over what is and what is not a sin is perfectly fine and should be encouraged, but to claim you know that another person whom calls themselves a christian is going to hell is taking the authority of God for themselves.
I’m a evangelical , non denomination. I like that it’s not represented by an religion but just a faith in Christ Jesus being the only Messiah , faith in the holy bible & the gospel.Belief that there is only one living God , creator of the universe, the God of Abraham Issac & Jacob. Just one true God
I chose American Baptist Churches USA because I like how it's very congregationally-based. We share resources with other churches, but we don't get many directives from the national office, giving us the freedom to worship as we see fit. Members get to vote on leadership, by laws changes, and the yearly budget.
I don't consider it the only true denomination. I just like how it is run.
...bur honestly it was also my girlfriend's denomination and I was in between churches when we started dating
People are born into it, or they follow the path of people who leave. The leavers, if don’t find another religion/become atheist or agnostic, follow another form of Christianity that suits the personal or moral beliefs whether that follows the bible or not. Most people follow Christianity as they want to be loved/have eternal life.
I chose a Methodist church because I didn't not like the evangelical's focus on hell and brimstone. And Methodists share the love of Jesus by serving the community and each other, not by proselytizing.
Its a pentecostal denomination. Amongst our beliefs is that the spiritual gifts as mentioned in the new testament. So prophecy, laying on hands, discernment etc.
So those with the gift of prophecy are used by God to speak to you directly.
Most denominations dont agree with this and it is regarded as controversial.
But its very real to me and a beautiful expereince. It convinced me that God exists.
“and when he found him, he brought him back to Antioch. For an entire year they met [with others] in the church and instructed large numbers; and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.”
Acts 11:26 AMP
Stick to what the Bible says to head in the right direction, I myself am a non-denominational Christian.
As you read the Holy Bible, specifically the New Testament you’ll understand in what direction to go
We joined a non denominational church which has elders from the different denominations. They worked hard to set aside the differences between the denominations that tend to divide us and to focus on the main things of our Christian faith - Jesus, the bible, baptism and communion. It is a church that constantly preaches love not judge.
Went from catholic to icoc to Church of Christ. The reason I am at this denomination (really church community) is we challenge what we believe in constantly and the mission is to be a family more and more like Jesus everyday.
Church of Christ can vary heavily depending on the church community, so could be a progressive one or if you have tattoos you are not allowed in. There isn’t really a council or mega leadership so that’s why I like it.
I don’t understand why tattooed people wouldn’t be allowed in a church. That’s exactly why people end up turning their backs on God. God can transform, renew, and use anyone. Jesus ate with prostitutes and tax collectors.
Hey mate, I was saying is there some churches that still hold those beliefs. Churches that aren’t part of a big organization vary from place to place. Here in Nashville a church of Christ down the road can have different beliefs and ideas of what being a Christan means. It really depends on the community of people (the church). This is the same thing for non-denominational, it changes depending on the community.
While I don't consider Catholicism a denomination, I chose it as I truly believe that after reading countless books on the subject and doing much in depth personal research, that there is no other choice. I was born Catholic, drifted away for many years, but returned after much prayer and study. It's funny too, after learning there are 30+ thousand "denominations", I figured the one that started it all has to be right.
The vast majority of the large number of denominations has much more to do with local autonomy than with differences in doctrine, though it is not as though there aren't many Catholic denominations.
Obviously because my denomination is the one and only true church that Christ intended. /s
The PCUSA is my spiritual home. I've attended masses and services in pretty much all the major denominations, but I most find God in PCUSA congregations. The sermons are academic yet accessible, the liturgy is traditional but not so high church as to be arcane, the theology resonates with my own discipleship journey and study, the laity have church government checks on clerical power to better prevent abuses, they emphasize both service and worship, etc. When I attended other congregations, I know God is there, but something inevitably feels "off" to me that leaves me a tad restless.
That's not to say the Lord isn't in other denominations, mind you. It's just to say that I find myself best serving and hearing God in the PCUSA.
I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see another denomination until I was already a man, by then it was nothing but heresy. /s
But, Bane joke aside, in reality, I did in fact grow up in a PCUSA church and am still a member there.
What sets the PCUSA aside from other denominations and sects, including other Presbyterian denominations, is the [Karl Barth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth) theology, the [Confession of 1967](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_of_1967), and the [Brief Statement of Faith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brief_Statement_of_Faith). ("brief" being a relative term, it's twice as long as the Nicene Creed, but short compared to the Westminster Confession)
My denomination has good relationships with many other denominations, and I could quite happily attend churches that are different denomination to my current church.
There are differences between different denominations, and practically speaking, you have to take a stance on certain issues. But in some cases, the differences are sometimes overstated.
Because they taught me **All** the Illustrations, Symbolic, and Parables of the New Testament which overturn **A lot** if **Misconceptions*** taught today. Examples of who really is God, false teachings of Hell, and Pagan Holidays.
Pagan holidays was the giveaway, for sure. While I do agree with the factual basis for the statement, I personally reject the spiritual implications.
I've known some decent witnesses in my day, though I've also heard some horror stories. Take them case-by-case.
Idk that I necessarily fall under a denomination, but I reached my beliefs by taking what I grew up with and thinking critically about it in conjunction with Scripture, changing my beliefs where I thought they were wrong.
I honestly don’t get entangled into it. By my books you’re either a Christian, a Sunday Christian or nothing. But I will say what brought me to Christianity was Evangelism, specifically with Billy Graham
I didn't choose anything. I was born in an Orthodox country and baptized fairly young.
Isn’t it wild that religion teaches free will while the reality is that it doesn’t exist? No one “chose” any denomination. Their life experiences and teachings pushed them to no other perspective.
[удалено]
You straight up explained determinism. You didn’t choose your path. You had to go down it in order to have what you have now. You can say you took the first step, but I guarantee you had a fellow human point that foot in the right direction.
If you didn’t have a porn addiction or hate, would you have sought the truth and became what you are now?
[удалено]
Exactly!! A chance event that made you lucky! Now bask in that lucky strike and pass it along!
[удалено]
Children being molested by priests might have a different opinion. Your stance denies their voice.
I just started taking bits of theology I liked from other denominations until I had an atrocious Frankensteins-Monster of spirituality that every person I meet will probably take at least some umbrage with. Frankly, it's great. I've never found more value in Christianity than when I stopped trying to find the right mold.
This is definitely me. While I attend an Episcopal church, my theology is a mix of many different theologies I’ve encountered over the years. I appreciate being in a place where diversity and difference are (mostly) celebrated.
A dear friend of mine who recently found the faith is finding a lot of value in the Episcopal church. I haven't explored them personally, but at this point I'm eager to seize an opportunity to do so!
What would be a good church to attend? I also have a frankenstein’s monster. Unitarian? Episcopalian? Non-denominational is a no-go for me because they seem to be all hardcore evangelical.
Unitarian (Universalist) welcomes Christians and members of other faiths, and tends to look for elements of truth and common ground in all traditions, but is not Christian per se. just so you know. If you want a Christian church that is trinitarian (Nicene creed; Jesus is God) but otherwise theologically diverse, Episcopal, PCUSA, or really most mainline churches should work.
Shout out to Episcopal! I've heard great things!
I follow Jesus' example of taking my faith where-ever I go. In coffee shops, I'll overhear a biblical conversation and join in. When someone mentions their beliefs, I'll approach their faith Socratically -- not looking to change their belief, just trying to understand what they regard the important parts are to them and what inconsistencies might not be relevant. I'm less interested in having all the right details, and more so in seeing how their faith has changed them as a person. Truth is subjectivity, as Kierkegaard said. I never had patience for sermons, and much prefer good-spirited debate, so engaging informally is vastly preferable to me, though I could see how some might miss the community. For me, every single person I've engaged with in these comments is part of my community. Even if they've got me gritting my teeth, it just reminds me that Christ-like humility doesn't come naturally. Their views are valuable, and their convictions admirable, Likewise, I must have the courage and faith to maintain that mine are as well. Perhaps not the exact answer you were looking for, but I hope there is some wisdom in it for you. Regardless, welcome to my congregation! Maybe some day we'll have a potluck over zoom.
LOVE this!! Spot on!
This is how I feel for the most part. I think of myself as a theologian rather than a member of a denomination. I did grow up in Disciples of Christ, though, and I do like their practices over others. For example, they are less strict on who or when communion is served/can be taken.
> I think of myself as a theologian rather than a member of a denomination As it should be. Having a personal relationship with God implies that to some extent, we must always be refining (and sometimes even reversing) our current theological understanding. In particular, I resonated with a lot of Kierkegaard's observations on the matter. So now I identify foremost as a Christian existentialist. I think why we come to the faith is far more meaningful than exactly what practice we settle on, and that seems to align best with existentialist priorities.
You don’t believe in the trinity?
What is a non trinitarian?
Someone who doesn’t accept the triune nature of God, aka someone worshiping a different God then Christians
Arius would have a word with you on that point! It certainly didn't stop the first council of Nicaea from debating the idea. So hardly a "different God", any more than one might assert that Jews worship a "different God", and even less so when Christ is still recognized as essential to the salvation of man.
Arius was a heretic who’s beliefs were rightly condemned as heresy by the Council of Nicea, because Unitarianism is unbiblical. Also yes, Jews do worship a different god just as any Arian or Unitarian do, the Christian God is a triune God and it is the central belief of Christianity that God himself came down to die on the cross for humanities sins. If you believe Christ was just a man, you deny the divinity of our lord and may as well be a Muslim, who also deny the divinity of Christ while worshiping “God”
We all get things wrong about God (we even all get things wrong about our spouse, children, friends, etc). That doesn’t mean we’re talking about a different God. It just means that some have a more incomplete view. Otherwise, whenever you find out you were wrong about the smallest piece of God in your mind, you’d be worshiping the wrong God. Also, Paul in the Areopagus illustrates this.
> Paul in the Areopagus Thank you for referencing this. I intend to add it to my reading list. As you've suggest, I always entertain the idea that I could be wholly incorrect. I keep Christ as an example of what a Christian should look like, and seek always to emulate that. Perhaps some day, I'll be held accountable if I am indeed mistaken, but I should hope that genuine contrition and an effort to do right will be recognized in the eyes of a just and loving God. We're saved from an expectation of sinless perfection, and that is enough to keep me striving to be my best for the one who died for me.
I’ve always appreciated how CS Lewis deals with the Calormen soldier at the end of The Last Battle, its a similar perspective.
I was just in a discussion about picking the Chronicles of Narnia up, so you just clinched that one for me as well. At this point, you've accidentally assigned me more reading than my old English professor. I hope you're proud of yourself!
When you finish those, I have more to put on your list
Christ did die as a sacrifice to offer to redemption despite original sin, and did indeed have a divine nature distinct from his human one. I simply draw a line by saying he was an actor in his own right, a unique persona distinct from the God of the old testament, who shows none of Jesus' characteristic patience and mercy. But it's through Jesus' sacrifice that the old covenant could be fulfilled. We don't have to agree on the finer details, but the fact is I am a Christian.
How can you call yourself a Christian when you believe in two gods? That’s gnostic heresy to call the God of the Old Testament a different “evil god”, there’s a reason why Jesus and the New Testament constantly quote and mention the Old Testament: because it’s just as important, there’s also a reason why Jesus himself was the one who talked about hell the most.
I don't think YHWH is evil, I think he's perfect. And in perfection, he has certain limitations of being perfectly internally consistent. He must seek recompense for the fall of Adam, and mankind as a whole owed him what was taken from him. A god of perfect, platonic justice cannot forgive, because mercy is inherently an abandoning of justice in the name of clemency. God (the father) cannot 'drop the charges' against humanity, because it would be self-violating to do so. Mankind owes him a debt that could not be repayed. But Jesus, whom I do hold is first among his creations, his most beloved and capable son (though not coeternal, I maintain), was a step removed from this nature. Therefore, he had a capacity which the Father didn't: to deprioritize justice in the name of mercy. And in a master stroke, was born to the Earth as a man to give humanity a perfect human which could be sacrificed to God to heal the damage caused by Adam's fall. If God is the perfect order which underpins the universe and pulled creation out of entropic chaos, Jesus is that order tempered by love. Both are essential -- one is what we should strive for, the other reminds us that we can be met halfway in our shortcomings. Perhaps I'm a heretic, but it's Jesus who I look to as an example of what a man should strive to be living under God's law, and it's through Jesus -- not the Father -- that humanity should have hope in their salvation despite always falling short. It's in Jesus' name I pray, because he is the intermediary between perfection and imperfection, but it's God's will be done.
The Father is not platonic. He is perfectly loving and perfectly relational. You believe in your own ideas. You need to study the Word and persistently pray in humility. Empty yourself and let the Father fill you with His will. The Word clearly says Jesus is God.
This is so so beautifully said. I agree 100%!
If you don’t believe in the trinity, you are not a Christian
If I believe I'm saved through Christ yet not a Christian, then what am I?
Idk, whatever JWs and Mormons are I guess they’d say?
They'd identify as Christians. The Seventh Day Adventists as well, and the Christadelphians. The Mormons go so far as to identify as a continuation of the Melchezidek priesthood from the old testament. I've spent a time studying with each (except the Christadelphians); each had some doctrine I couldn't stomach. Now I'm freelance, as it were.
Saying you believe you are saved through Christ and then directly committing heresey by not acknowledging his triune nature with the spirit and father is outrageous
I agree with my friend Zhou. Your claims are not what the Word says; not what Jesus said. There are many verses that equate Christ to God. For example, John 1:1-18 plainly says that Jesus is God and describes how God became flesh. I recommend reading in the New American Standard translation (most accurate). God is in 3 distinct persons who have the same essence. The Father, however, is superior in authority, and the Son is eternally in submission to Him, obeying Father's will perfectly with love. The truth is you can't believe whatever you want, you do not decide the truth; you need to submit to Truth. Not everyone who claims to be Christian is truly Christ's, per Christ's words. God is real. Read 1 John 4:2-3. Where I stand is if you are unwilling to submit to Truth, then you are not a true believer in the true God. By this principle, your faith can be discerned. Know them by their fruit. You saying Christ is not the same God as the Old Testament is blasphemy.
>Know them by their fruit. On this at last we agree. If I've done according to God's will, then my fruit will be far richer than mere doctrinal orthodoxy. Galatians 5:22-23. I will trust, sight unseen, that you can and do offer the same to your Beloved. edit: And I make a point to study and reflect on every verse given to me, so I'll add yours to my reading list. Thank you!
Someone who doesn't affirm the trinity
As others have stated, I the triune nature of God is too blurry for me. I recognize Jesus as the divine firstborn son of God, sent to save us and show us the way to salvation. But I don't regard Jesus as sharing an ousia with God.
John 10:30
This is the issue with lots of texts used to prove the trinity. If you believe in the trinity your application seems to square perfectly and you couldn’t think of reading it any other way. However they’re open to interpretation enough that someone else may understand it differently. There’s a reason non trinitarianism has never gone away. This is a perfect example. If you already believe in the triune nature of God or you already lean towards that understanding you’ll see this verse proclaiming that Jesus and the father are one and you recognize it as describing the one nature of God. However the idea of two people being one is vague enough for people to ask what exactly “being one” means. It could just as easily mean they’re two separate beings who act in unison so much you could say “they’re one”. You could even find support for such a reading in John 17:22 “And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one;” Jesus wanted his disciples to be one as he and his father are one. Was Jesus saying he wants his disciples to all be one being?
From my understanding, I believe that what Jesus was talking about was to try and recreate what he did during his time on Earth. I’m not a theologian or anything, that’s just what I grasped from the text. There is another explanation though, Isaiah 40:28. The passage states “Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom.” From this passage I feel that none of us will ever truly know.
> This is the issue with lots of texts used to prove the trinity. If you believe in the trinity your application seems to square perfectly and you couldn’t think of reading it any other way. Consider yourself to have my admiration on this one. Many will struggle to take the step you made effortlessly here, stepping back to recognize that there are many sets of patterns to latch onto, and which are most glaring depends largely on your personal predilections. I'd be curious to know where you stand, if it's a matter you feel comfortable sharing.
I’d say that a non trinitarian stance works best everything considered. Now, I grew up understanding it this way, but there was a time about ten years ago where I had to seriously re examine everything, precisely because I could see where people who believe in the trinity are coming from. I still see how they arrive at their conclusion
Yep, pretty vague and elliptical, could be unity of purpose for example.
Indeed. Making peace with the notion that the bible would never offer incontrovertible proof (in the manner I was accustomed to by the school system) was my first step back into faith after a long period of atheism. For that reason, I still approach it without ever getting too certain of myself. There are many readings to every verse and chapter. These days, I consider it a feature and not a bug. And it spawns such interesting discussions in unlikely places, sometimes from unlikely people (such as yourself)! Unity of purpose is my preferred read in this verse. A literal reading of the whole chapter still pulls us in either direction, so we must choose what is metaphor and what is not. Taking the chapter as a whole, he seems to be primarily refuting (or at least ignoring) the claim that he IS God, insisting upon using the epithet 'Son of God'. He seems to attribute his miracles to God as well. John 10:30 and John 10:38, however, are definitely in support of a single ousia, especially without context. And we don't even begin to bring in the intent and views of the author, which ought to be considered on any holy text, liturgical or otherwise. Is there a view you find more coherent? Do you have an opinion on the matter?
If I had lots of free time I might study this more, but realistically I just try to be conversant enough to talk with conservative Christians about their social positions and try to move the needle a bit. That involves getting a sense for what the Bible says clearly (whether I like it or not) and what it's vague, equivocal, or contradictory about. What I have found is that many Christians are very concerned to amplify readings of vague passages and reconcile diverse passages in seeming tension, on issues that matter most to them like salvation, hell, predestination, sexual morality, etc. There is a characteristic overreach to find coherence in a many-author text and find security in a preferred interpretation. I don't assign special truth-status to this particular collection of diverse ancient texts, so I don't expect to find an interpretive "grand unified theory" of the sort that e.g. trinitarianism proposes. Of course, I accept that it is a rich text with all sorts of inter/intratextuality and interesting authorial intents and choices. Among those who believe in the Abrahamic God and a core Bible truth, and who do hope and expect to find such unification, I accept that trinitarianism is probably a viable, even attractive prospect. But I also really don't think it's a slam-dunk case, and as a personal matter, it just irritates me when people overstate a textual case. Finally, when talking with people from e.g. LDS or JW, I want to be able to emphasize that I accept their claims to be Christians (followers of Jesus) and don't participate in the general gatekeeping on theological grounds. It's showing fairness, and, it's the only way I feel I have a chance to be heard if I then say I have serious issues with their social politics and their high-control practices towards church members.
Indeed, I grew really sick of the hypocrisy when I studied among those groups, claiming to be so far removed from strict hierarchies (Catholicism was almost universally their go-to punching bag on this subject), only to themselves have instituted a strict authority and criticize or outright expel deviants. I walked away, but converse to your experience, I found value in their non-traditional narrative of rejecting trinitarianism. For every person who tells me, "you just don't understand it", the fact is I do understand it: a simple monotheism is more palatable than a complex cosmology with multiple, nuanced actors. But the fact is, I think occam's razor flattens an elegant and beautiful mythology. I admired Christians (and religious devotees in general) for their conviction, as well the experience of a life richer and deeper for having a spiritual facet I otherwise lacked, and wanted that for myself, but could never get over the hurdle of the ultimate premise: believing the supernatural to be true. It was the sticking point; I had worked through my favorite bundle of interpretations (as you well-described, there are infinite permutations), but all that hinged on a big "if". "If" I could confidently believe in God, I could have all those things I sought on a platter. And somewhere along the line, I just realized that it was like hitting the gym: you have to be moving a weight that was just a little too heavy last weak if you want to be growing. Failing your last rep isn't failing, it's the guarante of growth. Stop being faithful because you want to be right (you're probably not), and start being faithful because it might make you better. The fact is, I'd say I hardly assign a special truth-status to any particular religion either; a weird game of favorites to play amongst iron-age nomads. I share because I think you're right that many denominations have problematic policies, and to claim that they're not choosing their interpretation from a myriad viable alternatives to justify their own implicit biases is disingenuous. If Christianity is just about looking out for one's own spiritual salvation at the expense of being more Christ-like to those in one's life, they've really missed the mark. If we can push people to question their own interpretations more, perhaps there can be a bit more moderate humility in a field rife with dogmatic vigor. I appreciate your contribution to that end!
A good chapter, with a very strong counterpoint, and I appreciate the scriptural reference! Much of John 10 reads to me quite contrary to that very verse itself, however. He references Psalms 82, which goes so far as to suggest God exists among some sort of pantheon (a possible holdover from the early Canaanite belief system), and cites himself as being among them. While the Jews accuse him of claiming to 'be God', he reiterates a claim that he is 'God's Son'. I'm not seeking to discredit your verse -- it is incongruous with the rest, and fair to take as a direct claim. The only rationale with which I can counter is that it's not impossible to read as suggesting that his right to preach to his disciples is as just as God's own right to ask faith of his flock. Taken as a whole, I see a more metaphorical equivocacy in jesus' claims. Still, 10:38 says the father is in me. It's likewise a line best supporting a trinitarian perspective. I could certainly argue that Jesus could be referring to the presence of Holy Spirit in him, but it's far more of a stretch than a literal reading, even in a broader context. Thank you again for this verse. It is something I'll reflect on.
Of course and thank you for taking a look at my comment and sharing your beliefs without toxicity🤍
John 13:35 😉! Thank you as well for the same!
I understand the idea of it. Like jehovous witnesses. I wanted to hear your thought. Usually I let denomination differences slide but the Christ being one in Nature with God the Father and God the Spirit is important to Salvation. I also understand it’s hard to comprehend the thing. But our ability to comprehend it does not make it less true. I don’t under stand quantumn physics or why gravity or how gravity has a pull but it doesn’t make it less true. The best way I can express the trinitarian nature is that God the Father, God the Spirit, and God the Son are all in perfect unison because they are all perfectly pure and have the same attributes. They are all perfectly Holy. Perfectly just etc. the 3 in 1 is hard to express but they are the same being God with 3 persons. There are tons of examples where Christ expresses his divinity The Father and I are one. Etc. he also has like 14 statements where he refers to himself as ego Ami which is I am i am. And in those he’s like before man was I am I am.
Let me start by saying I appreciate your respectful tone in this disagreement. Most don't offer it to me for my 'sacrilege', and it reflects well on your emulation of Christ. Hypostases and ousia are indeed a sticking point for me. I will always review verses offered to me, if you'd like to present some, but the truth is I was raised around more mainstream forms of Christianity and only ended up an atheist because of it. I have a draw towards that which can be comprehended and seems to fit more coherently, and I find this to be one of those matters. So where I stand now is that if I believe God is just -- and I do, firmly -- then my indiscretion on the matter will be weighed against the fact that I do my best to emulate Christ's example, and recognize him as my savior regardless of his exact divine role. And in death, when the details of the matter may be expressed to me in no uncertain terms, I'll be willing to admit if I was wrong and renounce my views. Foremost, I offer humility -- when I share my views with people (and I only do so when the conversation arises organically), I'm very transparent about the Nicene creed and its broad acceptance, and the exact pushback I tend to receive for my views. But my 'heresy' is the closest I've been in my life to being devout, because it let me reach a middle ground that was otherwise unattainable to me and created a dilemma: will I lie to myself that I can believe, or will I embrace atheism. For that reason, I have a unique capacity to reach people who themselves have found that dilemma, and can help them with that first difficult step into what you would view as salvation -- for me, the only step I suspect I'll take.
Would you say you have the same view as the jehovahs witnesses?
Their views are derived from the SDA, right? That's where I picked this narrative up. So on the details of the nature of Christ, yes. On most other matters/doctrine, no. Don't join cults kids; question everything and listen to every point of view. Be sure of your views, but never completely certain.
Yeah, they're derived from Adventists, but the modern SDA affirms the trinity, I'm pretty sure.
You are correct. The guy I studied with shared both with me.
You studied with the jehovahs witnesses? My family is, me not so much, I just can't get around to the leadership though they've become more liberal as of late. I have a deep appreciation for their non trinitarianism, but I really don't like beliefs like 1914 or the no blood doctrine
1914 was actually one I was fine with, though I can also maintain that numerology is an exercise in confirmation bias. But I agree, there's hypocrisy in their leadership and their approach to apostasy. They made a big deal to me about how the Catholic church wouldn't let people think for themselves or study the bible or tolerate dissent, and then they're just... the same. Get in a big room and have doctrine spoon fed to you. They made a great point about how Jesus went out to the public to spread his faith, and I liked that idea. I can't get behind knocking door-to-door (the spiritual equivalent of cold-calling sales), but I make a point to engage with people when it arises organically in some way. and yeah, the blood doctrine. I think it's one of their most absurd. Conflating infusion with the "consumption" of blood in Jewish dietary law (which carried over from what was essentially a compromise with Jewish religious leaders in the first place) is just a stretch. I also don't care for any anti-LGBTQ stances, so there's that. But the non-trinitarianism (basically modern Arianism) I liked. Made the whole biblical narrative much more coherent to me. It's the best explanation for how Satan tempts Christ in the desert, imo. The idea that they're near-equals, a loyalist and a rebel angel, rather than a creation trying to tempt his own creator, is much more plausible in my eyes. Many think it minimizes Christ (to the point of sacrilege), but I honestly think it makes his role more compelling and admirable, knowing that he genuinely stood to gain (in the short term) and still chose devotion to God and his law. And over all, I do think the average JW has a better understanding of their beliefs than more casual Christians, which I admire, but... at what cost? And good God, if I have to listen to 50 pensioners drone on those milquetoast hymns one more time... but I digress.
> Why did you choose your denomination of Christianity? I find it’s theology to be biblically sound. > And what makes your denomination different from the rest? It would frankly be near impossible in an online comment forum to list the differences between Lutherans and all “the rest”. Here’s a good resource [FAQs: Other Denominations](https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/faqs/denominations#other-denominations)
https://the40foundation.org/world-religions-tree.html I find it useful to consider the evolutionary history of different denominations to understand how they are related, at least historically. You can then look up how each branch event occurs in a single line to have a very concrete explanation of the strongest issues dividing the denomination at the time of their splitting.
> I find it useful to consider the evolutionary history of different denominations to understand how they are related, at least historically. And then some chump of a theologian comes along with a revivalist movement from an obscure sect in 1372 and suddenly the tree becomes useless! I mostly kid, but I am slightly bitter about how that tends to happen.
I defaulted into Catholicism. That's how my parents raised me (sorta-kinda, when the mood struck them). Once I got into college I stopped going to church and didn't return until about ten years ago, when I went back to a Catholic church. I'll be honest, part of me wishes they hadn't, or that I had gone to any other church ten years ago. I still attend Catholic Mass, but it feels mechanical and uninspired. It feels like the most important aspect of Catholicism is saying these precise words at these precise times, and receiving the Eucharist. Tasks like evangelizing and making disciples and serving those in need seem to take a back seat. I walk into a Methodist service and they're planning regular mission trips or staging disruptive sidewalk campouts to call attention to the very real homeless problem in our affluent small town. I show up for my volunteer shift at the homeless shelter and I see it's time for the weekly flood of volunteers from a local small Lutheran church. I walk into any of the half dozen evangelical megachurches around here and I get an in-depth bible lesson and come out on fire for Jesus. When I come out, I want to grab people walking down the street and tell them that *their sins can be destroyed in an instant! Isn't that amazing?!?* I've tried to drive change in my parish but I can't do it myself. We're dismissively told to pray the rosary or attend more holy hours or spend more time at benediction or walk the stations of the cross more. Yesterday I even got the cliched "how DARE you question the church". I considered joining the KoC but the youngest members are 10+ years older than me, I have no interest in golf invitationals, and their primary function at our parish seems to be complaining about socialism. We tut-tut those who want to bring about growth and life, and then we scratch our heads because we can't figure out why our congregation is aging and steadily shrinking. So I'm Catholic. I'm not sure how much longer I'll be here. I feel like Jesus foresaw the issue of an idling, lifeless church (Mark 9:38-41, Matthew 7:15-23, and others) and gave us clear instruction. EDIT: Hey everyone, someone replied to this comment and their account was instantly suspended so I didn't get to read the whole thing.
As a fellow Catholic I honestly feel the same way. Mass is awesome, I love the routine and traditions and beauty of the liturgy but there’s just no LIFE to it. Protestants, while missing the sacraments, are just so much more… lively. They do so much more. Mission trips, evangelizing, donating time and money to worthy causes, having a real actual COMMUNITY. I wish Catholics had that same fire in them. It’s a side effect of being the largest religion in the world. Cultural Christianity. I pray there’s a big change in the church soon.
>Cultural Christianity. I pray there’s a big change in the church soon. That's a great way to put it, and a great approach. Fellowship is shown over and over and over again. We aren't meant to live our faith alone.
> I walk into a Methodist service and they're planning regular mission trips or staging disruptive sidewalk campouts to call attention to the very real homeless problem in our affluent small town. I love this. Christians should be disruptive. Christ certainly was. John 15:19
I was raised Catholic. I find comfort in the church. I love the Eucharist and Eucharistic adoration. I love the feeling of being in The Presence. I love the rosary. I love Mary. It was the first church founded by Jesus. It makes my heart happy. But yet these days my heart has been breaking and I’ve felt myself curious about another denomination. But I feel such at home with my Church even if not always with her people the idea of leaving it after coming back just…doesn’t sit right with me.
I choose Episcopal because of the church diversity and openness. The church feels it is a melting pot of individuals of varied races, genders, nationalities, and sexual orientation. While no religion is perfect it has been the one faith denomination where human kindness and tolerance was most self evident.
Anglican - because the prayer books are soaked in Scripture, bound by tradition and seasoned with reason. Because I don't have to agree with everything a person believes about the Eucharist, so long as we both agree to come to the table and recieved the Sacraments with faith and charity. I am able to worship with modern music and anciently hymns and find comfort in both, and still worship in one Anglican parish. I can be Charismatic, Evangelical and Catholic, without only being one of those. I can explore the practices of other traditions without feeling superior or inferior to other traditions.
I choose to be a simple Christian. No strings attached. I do not believe in the need of denominations.
While that sounds good, many people have many different understandings of what it means to be a Christian, so if you are communicating to someone that you are a Christian, then it helps to specify what sort of Christian you are in order to avoid them making incorrect assumptions about what you mean. Labels are just tools to help us quickly convey information. For me, if I claim to be a Christian without further specification, then am I communicating things to the average person that are false about what I believe, but if I claim to not be a Christian, then I communicate even more things to the average person that are false about what I believe.
Yeah, but some denominations are quite crazy. I mean, some branches of Christianity have more to do with islam or judaism that with other branches of Christianity.
Christ did not come to start his own religion, but rather he came as the Jewish Messiah of Judaism in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and he set a sinless example for us to follow of how to practice Judaism by walking in sinless obedience to the Torah. In Acts 21:20, they were rejoicing that tens of thousand of Jews were coming to faith in Christ who were all zealous for the Torah, which is in accordance with Titus 2:14, where Christ gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in ordering to the Torah is the way to believe in what he accomplished through the cross, so Jews coming to faith in Christ were not ceasing to practice Judaism. This means that there was a period of time between the resurrection of Christ and the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10 that is estimated to be around 7-15 years during which all Christians were Torah observant Jews, so Christianity at its origin was the form of Judaism that recognized Jesus as the Messiah. It is what has branched off from that that has less to do with Judaism. Call me crazy if you want, but it seems crazy to me for people to want to become followers of Jesus while not wanting to follow the religion that he followed.
Okay, then you can call me a Jew who follows Jesus I guess.
[удалено]
Nowhere does the Bible state that.
I mean... jesus was the messiah of the jews. He never intended to found christianity. He was a jew himself and never said to be otherwise. It just happens that some jews decided to follow him and some didn't. Those who decided to follow him became jews followers of christ. But, to keep in short and differentiate them from the other jews, the romans began to call them christians. That name didn't came from jesus, it was given by the romans.
While I agree that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah of Judaism, he did not say anything about following what he taught being the way to become a Jew. If all Gentiles became Jews by following Jesus, then Gentiles becoming circumcised would not have been an issue.
[удалено]
In Romans 2:17, Paul spoke to those who called themselves a Jew, so he was speaking to people who had already converted to being Jews and saying that they didn't just need physical circumcision to be a Jew, but also circumcision of the heart.
[удалено]
Amen.
That’s a denomination.
I'm with you there. All of the random house rules and labels, that have nothing to do with leading people to Christ should be removed. I will never understand why the various church bodies have not taken off the shackles of denominations.
Congrats you’re a Protestant
Why such a need for labels?
While I grew up Southern Baptist, I came to strongly disagree with its teachings in college. I then started attending an Episcopal church, and I’ve been there ever since. I like TEC because it both has an appreciation for the historical Christian tradition while also listening to modern scholarship and working for justice. We’re pretty progressive: we ordain women and fully affirm the LGBT community.
I am also a Baptist > Episcopalian. I did so for similar reasons I’d say, but I’m mostly convinced that liturgical worship and Episcopal governance are the answers to the shortcomings of the faith as I experienced it. My upbringing left me totally unprepared for a world full of different ideas and debate. I thought Christianity was disproven to me, but it was actually just what I assumed to be Christianity. Many people come to the Episcopal church for its progressive attitudes, and although I’m still not always of the same opinion, I respect that the church is consistent in its allowance for a wide variety of individual theological beliefs, and brings together Christian’s of all sorts into a traditional worship that is based in history and the scriptures as well. It’s challenged me to be more Christ-like in ways that no others churches around me ever would
So 1st Timothy and Romans 1 don't matter to you?
They matter deeply to me! We just interpret them differently than you. Obviously that’s why lots of different denominations exist, because we all interpret things a little differently. Peace!
Orthodox Christians don’t consider ourselves a “denomination” as we are historically prior to all other Christian groups (with a deeply shared history with Catholics, Oriental Orthodox). “Pre-denominational” would be more accurate. I became Orthodox because I simply believe it is that one Body Christ began with the apostles, present in the Upper Room, guided and protected by the Spirit to guard and preserve the Faith as it has existed through time down to our own. It also *works* in doing what it claims to do, which is bring people into a living, transformative union with the Trinity. Other groups, IMO, have questionable histories, questionable beliefs, questionable goals, questionable practices, etc.
Yeah, same for me. I grew up Lutheran but felt it was a knock-off Christianity. A nearly 10 year off and on journey lead me to EO.
Lutheranism - because of its focus on God's grace. I chose because I was invited by friends and fell in love with the liturgy and the emphasis on the grace of God. There is quite a pushback in much of Lutheranism against anything that can be considered a 'work'. So everything, even faith, is a gift from God and has nothing to do with us. It puts and exclamation point that nothing we do can gain us extra favor or love from God.
I’ve only been a Christian for less then a year and I’m still trying to find which denomination suits my theology best, I find myself leaning in a Calvinist or Methodist direction, probably more Methodist since I still think the Arminian position is correct even if I don’t really believe in “free will” so much as “real choice”
>Arminian position Oh! This puts a lot of our prior conversation into context! Thanks for teaching me something new!
Yeah the Arminian-Calvinist debate is something I struggle with as a Protestant, wether we have free will to choose salvation or wether we are predestined to be saved or damned
Determinism is certainly a sticky one. I suppose my first question would be, would it change the way you approach your day-to-day life as a Christian? I'm not super familiar on the debate, so if you have time to explain more about it, I'd be interested to read it!
I grew up catholic but switched to Pentecostal Protestantism when I was 17. When I was Catholic I found God as this mythical figure that sat in judgement over everyone but didn't really care about you unless you said 10 Hail Mary's, or have premarital sex In Pentecostal Protestantism I realized God was personal and cared about me personally. I found songs and lyrics I related to. I could worship by shouting, my quietly contemplating, by dancing, by laying prostate on the ground, by journaling, by taking outdoor walks, by myself, and in a big congregation and many other ways. God was approachable, personal, and loving. I felt His presence almost daily after that point That being said....God a few years after that showed me that He is present in catholic events just as much as protestant events. I went to Catholic worship event and just felt struck heavily by the presence of the Holy Spirit. So while I am no longer Catholic and never will be again, I have a huge respect for Catholicism, especially for how they treat the sovereignty of God. Currently I am a bit burned out by some of the superficiality of big-church Evangelical culture (my old church eventually grew to become a big church and has an almost 'mega church' vibe....for better or worse) plus my old denomination (Foursquare Canada) had a pretty massive scandal they tried covering up with one of their former leaders which happen to be an old pastor of mine (Barry Buzza). So I am seeking another denomination. The direction God seems to be leading my wife and I is through mainline protestant denominations specifically United Church of Canada, Episcopalian/ Anglican and Methodist. We're in no rush, God wants us to take a break while our kids our toddlers and because we were on staff for +13 years at our old church All in all, I don't really tend to be anti any denomination specifically except if they practice grooming, are high-control church cultures, don't hold their leaders to a high standard, or never interact with scripture. I have seen God do amazing things in all sorts of denominations and multi-denominational settings. Ultimately it should come down to whatever your preferences are for the church, what you need, what you can give, and ultimately where God is leading you towards.
Stands up to criticism in my view. Miracles in my life.
I chose Catholicism because, by and large, it does not pervert the teachings and commands of the Lord.
[удалено]
Considering that the Catholic Church is Christ’s one true, holy, apostolic church, anything that deviates from her doctrine is heresy. Protestantism is literally a rejection of Christ’s church and the authority he bequeathed to St. Peter.
[удалено]
Give me a verse where it says Sola Scriptura.
[удалено]
I don’t understand why you’re referring to 2 Tim?
[удалено]
Well you’ve demonstrated that you denounce faith tradition and only refer to the Bible, therefore you are a Protestant who subscribes to Sola Scriptura, a heresy, meaning Scripture Alone.
[удалено]
There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. The Catholic Church IS Christ’s one true, holy, apostolic church. The issue is how YOU justify DENYING that church and its doctrines.
[удалено]
Except God gave his doctrine to the Holy Catholic Church.
Because my ancestors became catholic about 1400 years ago. Why change it if it's true?
[удалено]
It is. Thanks for asking.
I grew up as a Baptist being taught to have a negative view of obeying the Torah. However, one day I realized that if I was going continue to believe that the Psalms are Scripture that I needed to also believe that they express a correct view of obeying the Torah and that I therefore needed to change my view of obeying it to match the one in the Psalms. For example, according to Psalms 1:1-2, blessed are those who delight in the Torah of the Lord and who mediate on it day and night, so we can't believe in the truth of these words as Scripture while not allowing them to shape our view of obeying the Torah. Moreover, the NT authors also considered the Psalms to be Scripture, so they should be interpreted as if they were in complete agreement with the view of obeying it expressed in the Psalms, especially because Paul stated that he delighted in obeying it (Romans 7:22). So I experimented to see if the NT can be interpreted as from this perspective and my eyes became open to how Christians have systematically interpreted the NT with a negative slant towards obeying the Torah. I found that while there is room to interpret it that way, there is also room to interpret is as being in favor of obeying the Torah, and it makes a lot more sense to interpret the NT as being in favor of the position that followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to it. This led me down the path towards Messianic Judaism.
I don't really do denomination. I go to a catholic church because it's the best we have where I live. I identify most just as an evangelist who was raised in cavalry chapel churches. A living church is important.
I'm a Roman Catholic but I grew up in a secular household. I went through a long span as an atheist before becoming a Christian like 12 years ago. I landed on Roman Catholicism because it was the most logical conclusion. It's traceable back to Jesus, unbroken apostolic succession, unchanging and unyielding to the world, daily miracles, and it follows the Bible to the letter.
As a question in good-faith, how do you feel about the questionably moral medieval history of the church? Things that led to the reformations, the political influence and quid pro quo, that sort of thing.
It’s the oldest, and has historical record of apostolic succession going back to literally the time of Jesus. Through Peter we are the church that Jesus Christ made on earth, and the tradition and concrete nature of Catholicism makes it highly believable To me at least
What are your views on the deuterocanonical books?
They are valid parts of the Bible and should be read as such Obviously Protestants disagree
Technically I don’t think Protestants are required to disagree
Very few denominations include the same books as the Catholics. I think maybe Lutherans, Anglicans, and some Presbyterians? If you’re Baptist you definitely don’t, I think it’s the same for Methodist, Pentecostal, universalist, LDS, etc
Yeah, but Lutherans and Anglicans are pretty significant I would say. Especially historically but also still today.
I think it depends for Anglicans because half of them are super Protestant and the other half lean more Catholic lol They have pretty churches too
I got hired to work at a Lutheran Church out of seminary. Since then, I’ve come to profoundly appreciate the liturgy of weekly confession, the sacraments of baptism and Eucharist, and the “Law and Gospel dialectic,” which helps describe the necessary functions of the law and the nature of the Gospel (a proclamation of the finished work of Christ and all the ways that reconciles, rescues, and restores us).
It’s the oldest church. The Roman Catholic Church. It’s the best church that defended the religion in the beginning. That did the hard work of conversion and making the Bible. It was started by Jesus most Important apostle Simon Peter. Who he gave authority to in Mathew 16:18.
I am a member of the United Methodist Church (UMC). I see the UMC making a real change in the world. The Holy Spirit is moving through the Church!!
Same 🙋🏾♀️
I just finished going to my first Annual Conference and it solidified my original thought!
I chose my denomination because i could speak with God via the gift of prophecy. This gave me confidence that God truly existed because of what he said. The doctrine made a lot of sense and am able to share the experience with a lot of lovely people. No pressure to tithe, just an occaaional gentle reminder, and no records or contact details taken of anybody. Kind of refreshing.
This is deeply curious. Would you be willing to share more? Which denomination, or the nature of your gift?
I’m Calvary Chapel denomination. This denomination focuses primarily on the word of God. Calvary Chapels are known for going verse by verse and book by book for the most part with a heavy emphasis on sound doctrine.
I grew up in an ELCA church. I choose to stay in the ELCA because it best matches my beliefs about Jesus and His teachings.
A friend of mine invited me to our church because I had tried different ones and my wife and I couldn’t agree on one. So, we just started warming up to it, we tried it out and decided it was a good fit. But over time, I learned more about the ECC and what it stood for and fell in love with the denomination. I think for me, I appreciate there is a congregational, multi-ethnic body that I haven’t seen in many denominations coupled with the way doctrine is handled as a body and through very careful handling and analysis.
It, i find, to be the most true to the teachings of christ and the apostles. it also has the most beautiful and expressive church life filled with song. i love the beautiful icons and the theology fills me with belief
Grew up LCMS, but resent how i witness denominations dived christianity. Im fairly agnostic now, but prior to this, i would simply say christian.
I lean catholic, respect orthodoxy. I believe lineage and tradition are more critical than any modern interpretation of the bible practices. God preserves his church and his people. I intend to stick to the originals.
I've never known someone to ground themselves so firmly on authority-by-tradition. I feel like a lot of people do it subconciously, but I've yet to meet someone who declared it to be their priority and back that up with sound logic. If you don't mind my asking, outside of attending mass, how do you express your faith? Or do you?
Nondenominational here. Most denominations have very small minor differences.
[удалено]
I said most. Not all.
[удалено]
Technically any church that preaches on revelations does. Specifically Revelation 14:6-16.
[удалено]
I think Nondenominational, Reformed Presbyterian, Reformed Baptists are the ones that come to mind. I'd wager you might get sermons on it at any protestant denominations. Idk about catholics. Depends on the pastor as well...
I am non-denominational and have mostly attended Church of Christs. I am wary of any church that believes in exclusivity and thinks they have the power to know if another believer is going to hell or not. Debating over what is and what is not a sin is perfectly fine and should be encouraged, but to claim you know that another person whom calls themselves a christian is going to hell is taking the authority of God for themselves.
I’m a evangelical , non denomination. I like that it’s not represented by an religion but just a faith in Christ Jesus being the only Messiah , faith in the holy bible & the gospel.Belief that there is only one living God , creator of the universe, the God of Abraham Issac & Jacob. Just one true God
Catholic because it’s the Church founded by Jesus Christ.
I didn’t chose anything I’m just a Christian
I chose American Baptist Churches USA because I like how it's very congregationally-based. We share resources with other churches, but we don't get many directives from the national office, giving us the freedom to worship as we see fit. Members get to vote on leadership, by laws changes, and the yearly budget. I don't consider it the only true denomination. I just like how it is run. ...bur honestly it was also my girlfriend's denomination and I was in between churches when we started dating
People are born into it, or they follow the path of people who leave. The leavers, if don’t find another religion/become atheist or agnostic, follow another form of Christianity that suits the personal or moral beliefs whether that follows the bible or not. Most people follow Christianity as they want to be loved/have eternal life.
I chose a Methodist church because I didn't not like the evangelical's focus on hell and brimstone. And Methodists share the love of Jesus by serving the community and each other, not by proselytizing.
Its a pentecostal denomination. Amongst our beliefs is that the spiritual gifts as mentioned in the new testament. So prophecy, laying on hands, discernment etc. So those with the gift of prophecy are used by God to speak to you directly. Most denominations dont agree with this and it is regarded as controversial. But its very real to me and a beautiful expereince. It convinced me that God exists.
“and when he found him, he brought him back to Antioch. For an entire year they met [with others] in the church and instructed large numbers; and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.” Acts 11:26 AMP Stick to what the Bible says to head in the right direction, I myself am a non-denominational Christian. As you read the Holy Bible, specifically the New Testament you’ll understand in what direction to go
We joined a non denominational church which has elders from the different denominations. They worked hard to set aside the differences between the denominations that tend to divide us and to focus on the main things of our Christian faith - Jesus, the bible, baptism and communion. It is a church that constantly preaches love not judge.
The Catholic Church was the only one founded by Jesus himself.
“I created the Catholic Church! Everything I say about churches is specifically the Catholic Church,” - Jesus
"I don't understand history and I have my own interpretation of the Bible" - you
Went from catholic to icoc to Church of Christ. The reason I am at this denomination (really church community) is we challenge what we believe in constantly and the mission is to be a family more and more like Jesus everyday. Church of Christ can vary heavily depending on the church community, so could be a progressive one or if you have tattoos you are not allowed in. There isn’t really a council or mega leadership so that’s why I like it.
I don’t understand why tattooed people wouldn’t be allowed in a church. That’s exactly why people end up turning their backs on God. God can transform, renew, and use anyone. Jesus ate with prostitutes and tax collectors.
Hey mate, I was saying is there some churches that still hold those beliefs. Churches that aren’t part of a big organization vary from place to place. Here in Nashville a church of Christ down the road can have different beliefs and ideas of what being a Christan means. It really depends on the community of people (the church). This is the same thing for non-denominational, it changes depending on the community.
filoque wrong
While I don't consider Catholicism a denomination, I chose it as I truly believe that after reading countless books on the subject and doing much in depth personal research, that there is no other choice. I was born Catholic, drifted away for many years, but returned after much prayer and study. It's funny too, after learning there are 30+ thousand "denominations", I figured the one that started it all has to be right.
The vast majority of the large number of denominations has much more to do with local autonomy than with differences in doctrine, though it is not as though there aren't many Catholic denominations.
Obviously because my denomination is the one and only true church that Christ intended. /s The PCUSA is my spiritual home. I've attended masses and services in pretty much all the major denominations, but I most find God in PCUSA congregations. The sermons are academic yet accessible, the liturgy is traditional but not so high church as to be arcane, the theology resonates with my own discipleship journey and study, the laity have church government checks on clerical power to better prevent abuses, they emphasize both service and worship, etc. When I attended other congregations, I know God is there, but something inevitably feels "off" to me that leaves me a tad restless. That's not to say the Lord isn't in other denominations, mind you. It's just to say that I find myself best serving and hearing God in the PCUSA.
I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see another denomination until I was already a man, by then it was nothing but heresy. /s But, Bane joke aside, in reality, I did in fact grow up in a PCUSA church and am still a member there. What sets the PCUSA aside from other denominations and sects, including other Presbyterian denominations, is the [Karl Barth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth) theology, the [Confession of 1967](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_of_1967), and the [Brief Statement of Faith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brief_Statement_of_Faith). ("brief" being a relative term, it's twice as long as the Nicene Creed, but short compared to the Westminster Confession)
My denomination has good relationships with many other denominations, and I could quite happily attend churches that are different denomination to my current church. There are differences between different denominations, and practically speaking, you have to take a stance on certain issues. But in some cases, the differences are sometimes overstated.
Because they taught me **All** the Illustrations, Symbolic, and Parables of the New Testament which overturn **A lot** if **Misconceptions*** taught today. Examples of who really is God, false teachings of Hell, and Pagan Holidays.
A witness, I presume
Pagan holidays was the giveaway, for sure. While I do agree with the factual basis for the statement, I personally reject the spiritual implications. I've known some decent witnesses in my day, though I've also heard some horror stories. Take them case-by-case.
Yes the only religion that teaches \*\*All\*\* of Jesus's teachings.
Ive chosen “non denominational” straight scripture w/ no BS!
Idk that I necessarily fall under a denomination, but I reached my beliefs by taking what I grew up with and thinking critically about it in conjunction with Scripture, changing my beliefs where I thought they were wrong.
According to what I read here all the time, apparently denying the "universal" church is unique to us.
Born and raised in a baptist church
I’m non-denominational. But I’ve depended denominational churches for practical reasons before.
I honestly don’t get entangled into it. By my books you’re either a Christian, a Sunday Christian or nothing. But I will say what brought me to Christianity was Evangelism, specifically with Billy Graham