What denomination and why?

[eldermike]

Just a thought on the music thing. I understand all that's been said and it's ok, I just see it a different way.
All music was contemporary, even Hymns were contemporary, that's a calendar issue. I do agree that some Christian music is more for entertainment of Christians than worship, but that has always been so. We should pick the best of contemporary music for worship but there's plenty of it to choose from. A good new song is equal to an old good song, God's word is timeless.

Heres where I am going: God is calling people to write music Today! His message, His music, but we gate His progress in this area by saying that it's not a hymn.

Suppose we did this with preaching. Had a book of sermons and just read them every week while preachers had to write new ones to become the sermons of 100 years from now.

I don't think we understand how big God is and how active He is today! He's giving someone something to say right this moment. Listen to it.

 

[Monika]

Carly,

Yeah, I tend to agree there, too... it's not good if the decision is based more on subjective feelings. You have to make sure the church is teaching truth. It's scary to think that isn't common sense, though.

I guess I wasn't clear in my original post, which perhaps is why Elizabeth chose to quote me. It came down to subjective feelings for me because of the churches I visited, I didn't come across a church where the doctrine wasn't being taught objectively true. Since I couldn't make a decision based on that, the next step was that it had to come down to more subjective feelings.

 

[Filia Mariae]

Elder Mike,

I'm not really trying to debate you either, I'm just afraid my response may be seen that way, and rather than offend people for breaking the rules of this section, I'd rather play it safe and put it somewhere else.

In Christ,
Carly

 

[eldermike]

OK, place it in a proper forum and send me a link.
Eldermike

 

[Yitzchak]

Nice post Yitzchak. Thanks for sharing a godly attitude with us.

Is "Yitzchak" another form, maybe Hebrew, of Isaac?

God bless,
Don

Yitzchak is hebrew for Isaac and literally means laughter. It is not my natural name but rather a spiritual nickname I adopted. There are several reasons I identify with this name for myself.
First there is a passage in Galatians chapter four which explains the allegory of the two sons of Abraham. One, Ishmael is the son of the bondwoman and is associated with the flesh and the other son, Isaac is the son of promise and is associated with the spirit.
Second, there is the passage in genesis chapter 18 where Sarah laughs at the angel's announcement concerning Isaac's birth. Isaac was named on account of Sarah's laughter concerning God's promise. There is a jewish commentary on this passage which points out that to her perspective these were arab strangers and not angels. One of the lessons to be learned from this according to jewish tradition is that God can use unexpected means to bless us and we should always be prepared to receive from God even if it is an unexpected method , timing or source. Of course the ultimate example of this for the jewish people is the person of Christ.
I could probably write a whole book about what the name Isaac symbolizes and means to me. One last meaningful insight I will share for now since it at least partially relates to the topic of this thread. The birth of the church is one term given to the events that took place on pentecost in Acts 2.
Pentecost was the holiday which was celebrated fifty days after passover. (pentecost means fifty days after). It is called shavuot on the jewish calandar and is still celebrated to this day among the jews. What is celebrated on this day is the giving of the ten commandments and the convenant of mount Sinai which took place fifty days after the first passover.
I find it very interesting that during passover week Jesus became our passover lamb and that exactly 50 days later the new covenant was given to the church at Jerusalem. I think it relates to the discussion in galatians chapter four concerning the allegory of Isaac and Ishmael.

 

[Bastoune]

Monika,

Getting something out of is definately not a bad thing!

I tend to agree with Elizabeth though that some people are more concerned with subjective feelings of "I'm comfortable here" or "I like the worship style" rather than with "Is the doctrine being taught here objectively true" or "Is this the type of worship used in the early Church?"

In Christ,
Carly

I know several "non-denominational" Christians who church-hop and I told them that it's not really healthy. First of all, they need to examine why it is that every year or so they "don't feel fed" at the church they are attending. Could the problem possibly be ... them?

Of course, this doesn't win one friends!

In my experience, having belonged to non-denominational congregations, I've found this a common trend. Also, the "fire" of most of the people starts out strong. They've all formed a new church where they "feel good" and are with like-minded people, but eventually among those people, divisions seep in (whether among founders or with the arrival of new members) and ultimately a new church forms after breaking away from the old.

So be it... but that's not the Spirit of God bringing division.

As for what the Early Church truly taught, I suggest, Elder Mike, you read, The Teachings of the Church Fathers by John Willis, compiling, in 500 pages, the teachings from the first 400 years of Christian writings. It's pretty clear that there was not as much division as you'd like to portray. The division came from the heretics, like Arians or Monophysites but orthodoxy was preserved in spite of their heavy influence (and the backing by secular leaders trying to infiltrate the Church.)

Other books like Early Christian Doctrines by J.N.D. Kelly and History of the Christian Church by Philip Schaff (both Evangelical Protestants) will corroborate this. You could also check out The History of Christianity by Paul Johnson.

Protestant theologian David W. Bercot, in his book Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up? (Scroll Publishing Co., 1989) took, what he described as a “new look at today’s Evangelical Church in light of early Christianity.” He denounces false doctrines which “reformers” introduced such as symbolic baptism, Calvinist predestination, and salvation by faith alone.

In his book, Common Sense: A New Approach to Understanding Scripture (Scroll Publishing Co., 1992), Bercot says that it is arrogance to reject the early Church Fathers’ interpretations of the Bible in favor of our own modern-day interpretations: “Your quest is to find out how the primitive Church in general understood the New Testament. In other words, what was the ‘course of performance’ of the first generations of Christians? After you have read enough of their works to have a good feel for their culture, mindset, and overall Christian beliefs, go back and re-read the New Testament. Read it through their pattern of thinking. See what new things you will discover. When you’re through, you’re free to go back and pick up all of your former beliefs, if you like. But perhaps you never will” (p. 165-166). He talked of great Church fathers like Polycarp (A.D.69-155), a disciple of John the Apostle himself. This man, like so many other early Christian leaders, refused to renounce Jesus Christ, and became a martyr for the faith. Men willing to die for the teachings of the Apostles, Bercot argues, would not be likely to corrupt those teachings knowingly.

For more about what the the Early Church taught and defended, read up on Athanasius, or Irenaeus (disciple of Polycarp) and other amazing men:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

 

[eldermike]

The OP is in violation of the specific forum rules for this forum. It asks a question then debates the possible answers before they are given. To prevent further debate in a forum that is a safe place from this very type of debate, the thread is now closed.