Looking for non-sacrificial doctrine

[CelticRebel]

A different place every week (I moved about a month and a half ago).
I tried Presbyterians: (Kinda stuffy, only old people, message didn't feel relavent (kinda fluffy no conviction).
Tried Lutherans: (Lots of good work helping the poor, mostly old people in the service and no day care for my daughter, pretty good sermons. very ritualistic. Went twice)
Tried "non denominational Family Church": (Lots of people my age and lots of activities for children. Modern, good music, fairly good preaching.... but they are very standard evangelical, the focus is on "saving souls" rather then helping the pool. Substitution focused on a lot and mentioned often. Women can't preach or be leaders
. (went twice)
Narareen: (Lots of kids and programs for kids, the preacher was a guest speaker, but I know the usual guy's very big on Fox News. Focus on personal individual piety. Went once)
I called about 5 other places also. These guys seemed the best based on their web page and talking on the phone.
Not sure what to do.

I know the feeling.

 

[CelticRebel]

Thanks, Seashale76. I have looked at some of what you reference. As a whole I am looking for something that goes way beyond that. I'm not looking for an explanation of Christianity that is a different take on the message of the cross. I am looking for a Christianity based on the teachings of Jesus. He spent three years followed by large crouds teaching, preaching and healing. And his cousin John was also a preacher (but not a healer) What was the message they taught? Repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sin. It was non-sacrificial. The only recorded deliberately hostile action of Jesus was setting free the animals sold at the Temple for sacrifice. Jesus directly confronted the Temple sacrificial system. I'm looking for a Chrisitanity focused on the core teaching of Jesus that you do not need a sacrifice. Not where he is one.

I must again revisit this thread to say the following: I, too, am looking for something that goes beyond just a disavowal of penal substitution. The whole idea of the necessity of a blood sacrifice is abhorrent to me. I don't believe God ever required such, and I believe that the OT prophets affirm that He did not require it. So, are there any "denominations" or Bodies that teach this? I know there are some other religions that don't believe in blood sacrifice -- but I am a Christian, not a Buddhist or some other religion. I believe Jesus was the unique Son of God, and I believe in His bodily resurrection. No non-Christian religion teaches this. I do not hold to Western views about the meaning of the death of Jesus. I am closer to Eastern views, but I do not agree with part of the following statement from an Orthodox website:
"The Old Testament sacrificial system was not a picture of penal substitution. God was not pouring out His wrath on the animals in place of the Israelites. He didn’t vent His righteous judgment on the animals, sending them to hell in place of the Israelites. On the contrary, they were killed honorably and as painlessly as possible. Their life (i.e. their blood) was offered to God as a sweet smelling aroma. The resulting meat was good and holy—not just worthless carrion fit for dogs and vultures. Such is also the case with Christ’s sacrifice: it is a holy offering of blood to the Father, not a means whereby God can vent His wrath."

So, like the OP, and in accord with the OT prophets, I am looking for a Body which teaches that a blood sacrifice was not necessary, that God never required such, neither in the OT or the NT. I acknowledge how Jesus died, but I don't believe it was as a blood sacrifice for our sins.

 

[Albion]

I must again revisit this thread to say the following: I, too, am looking for something that goes beyond just a disavowal of penal substitution. The whole idea of the necessity of a blood sacrifice is abhorrent to me. I don't believe God ever required such, and I believe that the OT prophets affirm that He did not require it. So, are there any "denominations" or Bodies that teach this? I know there are some other religions that don't believe in blood sacrifice -- but I am a Christian, not a Buddhist or some other religion. I believe Jesus was the unique Son of God, and I believe in His bodily resurrection. No non-Christian religion teaches this. I do not hold to Western views about the meaning of the death of Jesus. I am closer to Eastern views, but I do not agree with part of the following statement from an Orthodox website:
"The Old Testament sacrificial system was not a picture of penal substitution. God was not pouring out His wrath on the animals in place of the Israelites. He didn’t vent His righteous judgment on the animals, sending them to hell in place of the Israelites. On the contrary, they were killed honorably and as painlessly as possible. Their life (i.e. their blood) was offered to God as a sweet smelling aroma. The resulting meat was good and holy—not just worthless carrion fit for dogs and vultures. Such is also the case with Christ’s sacrifice: it is a holy offering of blood to the Father, not a means whereby God can vent His wrath."

So, like the OP, and in accord with the OT prophets, I am looking for a Body which teaches that a blood sacrifice was not necessary, that God never required such, neither in the OT or the NT. I acknowledge how Jesus died, but I don't believe it was as a blood sacrifice for our sins.

Wouldn't one of "liberal" denominations accomplish what you seek? The United Church of Christ (UCC), for example? Or The Christian Church, Disciples of Christ? Or the Quakers? They certainly don't talk the sacrificial line, impose such doctrines on their members, or anything like that.

 

[CelticRebel]

Wouldn't one of "liberal" denominations accomplish what you seek? The United Church of Christ (UCC), for example? Or The Christian Church, Disciples of Christ? Or the Quakers? They certainly don't talk the sacrificial line, impose such doctrines on their members, or anything like that.

Three problems: One, I have found that I would need a congregationally-governed denomination; two, I cannot abide the liberal denominations' stance on moral issues; three, I have limited options where I live.

Seems the closest I might come would be a moderate, congregational, believer's baptism denomination -- and one which does not hold that blood atonement is necessary for salvation or forgiveness of sins. There are none near me. Maybe there are individual churches or non-denominational churches, but I have not found them. There are a couple of Native American Mennonite churches about 2.5 hours away which might be a possible fit, but those are not an option due to distance. The search continues.

As always, I appreciate your help and care.

 

[Albion]

Three problems: One, I have found that I would need a congregationally-governed denomination; two, I cannot abide the liberal denominations' stance on moral issues; three, I have limited options where I live.

Seems the closest I might come would be a moderate, congregational, believer's baptism denomination -- and one which does not hold that blood atonement is necessary for salvation or forgiveness of sins. There are none near me. Maybe there are individual churches or non-denominational churches, but I have not found them. There are a couple of Native American Mennonite churches about 2.5 hours away which might be a possible fit, but those are not an option due to distance. The search continues.

As always, I appreciate your help and care.

Thank you. Yes, I'd forgotten some of the specifics from our earlier conversations. Did we assess the Churches of Christ?

 

[CelticRebel]

Thank you. Yes, I'd forgotten some of the specifics from our earlier conversations. Did we assess the Churches of Christ?

Yes, we talked about them. I can't accept their doctrine of baptismal regeneration, or baptism being necessary for salvation. And, being a musician, and loving instrumental music, I can't go along with their belief of no musical instruments in worship. Also, they don't allow women to even pray in church. I do not affirm that.

 

[Albion]

Yes, we talked about them. I can't accept their doctrine of baptismal regeneration, or baptism being necessary for salvation. And, being a musician, and loving instrumental music, I can't go along with their belief of no musical instruments in worship. Also, they don't allow women to even pray in church. I do not affirm that.

I think you're going to have to make peace with the doctrinal profile of some church or other since there is apparently none that is both available to you and fits with your convictions completely.

That would mean choosing one that is so loose, doctrinally, that it tolerates a wide range of beliefs among its members such that you are not secretly in opposition to something it believes is an essential doctrine (that's where the UCC idea came from) OR ELSE choose one about which the differences between you and it are deemed--by you--to be of lesser importance than would be the case with some other church.

 

[CelticRebel]

I think you're going to have to make peace with the doctrinal profile of some church or other since there is apparently none that is both available to you and fits with your convictions completely.

That would mean choosing one that is so loose, doctrinally, that it tolerates a wide range of beliefs among its members such that you are not secretly in opposition to something it believes is an essential doctrine (that's where the UCC idea came from) OR ELSE choose one about which the differences between you and it are deemed--by you--to be of lesser importance than would be the case with some other church.

Yes, you are probably right. The kind of church/denomination that would fit me best would be congregationally governed, theologically moderate, socially liberal, morally and ethically conservative. Not sure if such exists.

 

[Albion]

Yes, you are probably right. The kind of church/denomination that would fit me best would be congregationally governed, theologically moderate, socially liberal, morally and ethically conservative. Not sure if such exists.

Maybe not, but there are some that come close and--given the differences that exist from congregation to congregation--there may well be one that would be workable.

So we are again facing "Which of the possibilities causes you to compromise the least...and is
non-conformity on that point considered a big deal with the church in question?"

 

[CelticRebel]

Maybe not, but there are some that come close and--given the differences that exist from congregation to congregation--there may well be one that would be workable.

So we are again facing "Which of the possibilities causes you to compromise the least...and is
non-conformity on that point considered a big deal with the church in question?"

Yes, central questions indeed, and questions for which I have yet to find an answer.

 

[Albion]

Yes, central questions indeed, and questions for which I have yet to find an answer.

I understand, but I sure would like for you to find peace on this matter, and I think this is how you have to approach the problem of not having a church that's just perfect for you.

 

[CelticRebel]

I understand, but I sure would like for you to find peace on this matter, and I think this is how you have to approach the problem of not having a church that's just perfect for you.

Thanks, and I agree. I know there's no perfect church, and no perfect church for me. i wish my options were more diverse, but they're just not, around here. I have to agree with what you said a while back -- I think I'll have to consider only those churches within 20-30 minutes away, and that will limit me further. That leaves Church of the Nazarene, various Pentecostal churches (denominational and independent), very conservative Baptist, Church of Christ, RC, Episcopal, Presbyterian, UMC, independent/community Methodist, and a cowboy church. I don't think I'm close to any of them, doctrinally.

 

[Job8]

I understand, but I sure would like for you to find peace on this matter, and I think this is how you have to approach the problem of not having a church that's just perfect for you.

When someone rejects Bible truth, he should not expect to find peace. Looking for "non-sacrificial" doctrine is a rejection of Bible truth, and a rejection of the meaning of the Cross.

 

[Albion]

When someone rejects Bible truth, he should not expect to find peace. Looking for "non-sacrificial" doctrine is a rejection of Bible truth, and a rejection of the meaning of the Cross.

I'm sorry, my friend, but on this forum we are supposed to try to find the inquirer the church that meets his/her preferences, not ours. And we are not supposed to argue doctrine with him or with each other.

 

[CelticRebel]

When someone rejects Bible truth, he should not expect to find peace. Looking for "non-sacrificial" doctrine is a rejection of Bible truth, and a rejection of the meaning of the Cross.

I have peace with God but not with man-made doctrines or denominations that teach them, such as you propose. You have no clue about "Bible truth" or the meaning of the cross. Neither are what you suppose them to be. Blood sacrifice to forgive sin and appease a deity are pagan concepts condemned by the OT Jewish prophets. Your doctrine of the atonement was invented by a state-church persecutor and murderer in the 16th century; it has nothing to do with "Bible truth" or "the meaning of the cross". How do you feel knowing that your false doctrine and gospel is only 500 years old and was not known or taught before then, not in the first century or the early churches, nor for the first 1000 years of church history. Some study of church history and doctrine might wise you up. Until then, your false accusations are exhibitions of ignorance.

 

[CelticRebel]

I'm sorry, my friend, but on this forum we are supposed to try to find the inquirer the church that meets his/her preferences, not ours. And we are not supposed to argue doctrine with him or with each other.

I'm used to such attacks. I guess those who resort to them are insecure and fearful. But they do get tiring.

 

[Albion]

I'm used to such attacks. I guess those who resort to them are insecure and fearful. But they do get tiring.

I know, but it's meant as a reminder rather than a putdown. I occasionally make cautionary comments like I did because the poster has forgotten the forum's purpose (or didn't bother to read the Statement of Purpose) and thinks that "Looking for a Church" means it's debate time.

No, "Looking for a church" means "Where do I find the church that I am now going to describe?"

 

[CelticRebel]

I know, but it's meant as a reminder rather than a putdown. I occasionally make cautionary comments like I did because the poster has forgotten the forum's purpose (or didn't bother to read the Statement of Purpose) and thinks that "Looking for a Church" means it's debate time.

No, "Looking for a church" means "Where do I find the church that I am now going to describe?"

Yes, and I appreciate what you said.

 

[CelticRebel]

I must say that I find myself in the exact position as the OP. I wonder if he ever found a satisfactory answer to his situation/questions/search.

 

[CelticRebel]

Ten years later, and I found this thread again. I hope the OP found his answer. And I do miss Albion.