Where do you fit?

[Ken]

My whole large extended family mostly fits in either #3 Mainstream Mennonite, Grew up Mennonite but no longer active practicing which I guess falls into "other"

Interestingly my extended family also ranges from quite conservative (PA Conservative Conference rural Mennonites) to very educated liberal urban and college town MCUSA types who basically don't see eye to eye on anything from politics to theology. Yet they all fall into #3 because no one is wearing traditional old Mennonite "costumes" and banning technology from their homes.

I realize this is an old poll. But thought I'd just put that out there.

[Fidelio]

Read your bible and do what it tells you to do, first and foremost. One denomination over another will not get you to heaven or even make you more holy. Find a fellowship where you believe God wants you to be, conform to the teachings of the Word and walk before HIM in holiness. You may find yourself in a Mennonite church or you may end up in a Pentecostal church or even be in a Lutheran church like my wife and I were for the last 7 years. She wears a head covering all of her waking hours. "Modesty" differs from one church to another, even amongst Mennonites, What is pleasing to God may not be according to the traditions of a particular group. Ask God to direct you, consider the teachings you hear, but be like the Bereans who listened to Paul's preaching, but checked it against the Word of God to see whether what he taught was so. They were called "more noble" for their response to the preaching of the Word.

Excellent advice. It is too easy to become enamored of a church body and think they are perfect. That must be how I was in the Lutheran Church for 34 years and never questioned their practice of infant baptism. Now I am seeking to understand the pure Word. Will have to recognize that no church is perfect (this side of eternity). So far I see major groupings in Christianity of Catholc (and Eastern Orthodox), Lutheran, Angelican, Reformed, and Anabaptist. I left Lutheranism and don't desire to go back. Catholic would be to go farther off the Lutheran end of things. Reformed never appealed to me with is varying levels of Calvinism. I am going to have to be (and am so far) content with something in the Anabaptist realm, and I think the ACCA is a pretty good fit.

My co-worker who also is a pastor said, "If you find a perfect church, don't join it. You'll ruin it."

[gcdonner]

My co-worker who also is a pastor said, "If you find a perfect church, don't join it. You'll ruin it."

Strange, the first pastor I assisted said the same thing to me! The infant baptism issue was a block for me at the Lutheran church, but our pastor there understood where I was coming from and we often had light hearted "discussions" about it. He had come to understand the need for being born again after that initial introduction into the kingdom and was not into the baptismal regeneration of most Lutherans. Do the folks at your present church believe in baptismal regeneration?

[Fidelio]

My co-worker who also is a pastor said, "If you find a perfect church, don't join it. You'll ruin it."

Strange, the first pastor I assisted said the same thing to me!

There is a whole lot of wisdom in that nugget!

The infant baptism issue was a block for me at the Lutheran church, but our pastor there understood where I was coming from and we often had light hearted "discussions" about it. He had come to understand the need for being born again after that initial introduction into the kingdom and was not into the baptismal regeneration of most Lutherans. Do the folks at your present church believe in baptismal regeneration?

What Lutheran church body did you attend?

My Lutheran church (Wisconsin Synod) does believe in baptismal regeneration as noted in their official statement:

The Bible and Lutherans teach that baptism is a holy act. It is instituted by God. Using water and God’s Word it offers and gives the forgiveness of sins, spiritual life, and eternal salvation. It is meant for young and old, including children. Infants also are sinful and therefore need the spiritual rebirth brought about through baptism.

SOURCE: https://wels.net/about-wels/what-we-bel ... ggle-id-20

This statement caused me much confusion over the years. I was born again in the fall of 1984 and baptized in the winter of 1985. But then over the years I wondered what did baptism do for me if it offers "forgiveness of sins, spiritual life, and eternal salvation" and "spiritual rebirth," all of which I experienced before I was baptized.

In my pondering of how baptism could save an infant, and considering that it is the Blood of Jesus that cleanses us of sin, I wondered if in fact the Blood was present in, with, and under (Lutheran terminology for real presence in communion) the water of baptism, but I could never get a Lutheran pastor to say that is it.

Now, with the ACCA's position on baptism being that of the believer's baptism (a covenant of faithfulness following a testimony of faith and conversion), I can see how baptism relates to me personally. Before, I felt detached from it.

There are other Lutheran doctrines that cause me confusion and puzzlement, which are cleared up by a correct understanding of the Scriptures.

[gcdonner]

What Lutheran church body did you attend?
We attended an AALC congregation with a pastor who was not staunchly "Lutheran" in a few things. He was closer to the Lutheran Brethren group.

My Lutheran church (Wisconsin Synod) does believe in baptismal regeneration as noted in their official statement:

The Bible and Lutherans teach that baptism is a holy act. It is instituted by God. Using water and God’s Word it offers and gives the forgiveness of sins, spiritual life, and eternal salvation. It is meant for young and old, including children. Infants also are sinful and therefore need the spiritual rebirth brought about through baptism.

SOURCE: https://wels.net/about-wels/what-we-bel ... ggle-id-20
The Lutherans are right, except that they ignore and redefine faith and therefore can inject it into the infant being sprinkled.
This statement caused me much confusion over the years. I was born again in the fall of 1984 and baptized in the winter of 1985. But then over the years I wondered what did baptism do for me if it offers "forgiveness of sins, spiritual life, and eternal salvation" and "spiritual rebirth," all of which I experienced before I was baptized.
My surrender to Christ happened about the same time as yours, as well as my immersion.
In my pondering of how baptism could save an infant, and considering that it is the Blood of Jesus that cleanses us of sin, I wondered if in fact the Blood was present in, with, and under (Lutheran terminology for real presence in communion) the water of baptism, but I could never get a Lutheran pastor to say that is it.

Now, with the ACCA's position on baptism being that of the believer's baptism (a covenant of faithfulness following a testimony of faith and conversion), I can see how baptism relates to me personally. Before, I felt detached from it.
I concur and also believe that there is something "real" about it when received in faith.
There are other Lutheran doctrines that cause me confusion and puzzlement, which are cleared up by a correct understanding of the Scriptures.

I concur with the view of Lutherans on the concept of communion, in the "real presence", but only if received in faith, that is, believing that I am communing with Christ himself as well as his Body. If the real presence is not true and communion is "Just a symbol", then how do we explain the words of the Apostle Paul:

1Co 11:29  For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 
30  For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 

There must be something "real" happening when partaking communion and indeed it being spiritual can and does have even physical ramifications. The forgiveness of sin as well as the healing/preservation of the body is truly present when we take it in faith. For those who don't believe, there is no benefit. There is much more I could say on this subject (and already have in the past on this forum).

[Fidelio]

I concur with the view of Lutherans on the concept of communion, in the "real presence", but only if received in faith, that is, believing that I am communing with Christ himself as well as his Body. If the real presence is not true and communion is "Just a symbol", then how do we explain the words of the Apostle Paul:

1Co 11:29  For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 
30  For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 

There must be something "real" happening when partaking communion and indeed it being spiritual can and does have even physical ramifications. The forgiveness of sin as well as the healing/preservation of the body is truly present when we take it in faith. For those who don't believe, there is no benefit. There is much more I could say on this subject (and already have in the past on this forum).

My only point in mentioning communion was to show where I got the terminology I used regarding my question regarding the water of baptism.

[Fidelio]

Ran out of editing time, but to your inserted color text notes:

We attended an AALC congregation with a pastor who was not staunchly "Lutheran" in a few things. He was closer to the Lutheran Brethren group.

I never heard of either of those two groups. I once checked out the Association of Free Lutheran Churches (one visit and some online searching).

The Lutherans are right, except that they ignore and redefine faith and therefore can inject it into the infant being sprinkled.

The injection into the infant, and based on the testimony of parents or sponsors, makes no sense to me. Yet at one time I did it to my own children (1990s).

My surrender to Christ happened about the same time as yours, as well as my immersion.

I was sprinkled.

I concur and also believe that there is something "real" about it when received in faith.

I guess we should take these things as given and not box God in with too tight a definition. Would hate to despise a gift of God.

For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Surely there are some taking communion unworthily today, but not sure how we would check to see if they become weak or sickly. Or is it a general effect on the congregation as a whole.

[gcdonner]

Ran out of editing time, but to your inserted color text notes:

For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Surely there are some taking communion unworthily today, but not sure how we would check to see if they become weak or sickly. Or is it a general effect on the congregation as a whole.

It would require the gift of discerning of spirits to know who is sick or died as a result of taking communion in an "unworthy" manner. The misinterpretation of this passage has caused many hurts in the church over the years from one extreme to the other. The term "unworthily" doesn't mean that we are to make ourselves worthy of the sacrifice of Jesus, we cannot. What it is referring to as some translations use it is "in a wrong spirit" (BBE), "irreverently" (CAV), "in an improper way" (GW), give a better understanding of what the apostle was here saying. We can never be worthy of the body and blood of Jesus and just for that reason we ought always to partake it in a manner that is worthy of his sacrifice, that is to say in a reverent manner, not taking it lightly. It is more than "just a symbol" as some suggest. The Corinthians were guilty of taking no reverence in partaking of the covenant meal, treating it as like us sitting down to eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, with a glass of milk. It was instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ to remember his sacrifice and to receive it with faith believing that his sacrifice is worthy of our entire life, not just a silly tradition of men. His sacrifice was real, our association with him in partaking it again "new in the kingdom of God" is also real.

Mat 26:29  But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

 
I believe that Jesus is partaking with us, just as truly today, as he did with the disciples after his resurrection. It is our marriage covenant meal, the "marriage supper of the Lamb".
Something to think about, eh?

[Ms. Izzie]

It would require the gift of discerning of spirits to know who is sick or died as a result of taking communion in an "unworthy" manner. The misinterpretation of this passage has caused many hurts in the church over the years from one extreme to the other. The term "unworthily" doesn't mean that we are to make ourselves worthy of the sacrifice of Jesus, we cannot. What it is referring to as some translations use it is "in a wrong spirit" (BBE), "irreverently" (CAV), "in an improper way" (GW), give a better understanding of what the apostle was here saying. We can never be worthy of the body and blood of Jesus and just for that reason we ought always to partake it in a manner that is worthy of his sacrifice, that is to say in a reverent manner, not taking it lightly. It is more than "just a symbol" as some suggest. The Corinthians were guilty of taking no reverence in partaking of the covenant meal, treating it as like us sitting down to eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, with a glass of milk. It was instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ to remember his sacrifice and to receive it with faith believing that his sacrifice is worthy of our entire life, not just a silly tradition of men. His sacrifice was real, our association with him in partaking it again "new in the kingdom of God" is also real.

Would you say that treating communion as "just a symbol" is taking it lightly and irreverent and a person who views it this way is eating and drinking "unworthily"? This is something I have wondered before I read what you wrote.

[gcdonner]

It would require the gift of discerning of spirits to know who is sick or died as a result of taking communion in an "unworthy" manner. The misinterpretation of this passage has caused many hurts in the church over the years from one extreme to the other. The term "unworthily" doesn't mean that we are to make ourselves worthy of the sacrifice of Jesus, we cannot. What it is referring to as some translations use it is "in a wrong spirit" (BBE), "irreverently" (CAV), "in an improper way" (GW), give a better understanding of what the apostle was here saying. We can never be worthy of the body and blood of Jesus and just for that reason we ought always to partake it in a manner that is worthy of his sacrifice, that is to say in a reverent manner, not taking it lightly. It is more than "just a symbol" as some suggest. The Corinthians were guilty of taking no reverence in partaking of the covenant meal, treating it as like us sitting down to eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, with a glass of milk. It was instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ to remember his sacrifice and to receive it with faith believing that his sacrifice is worthy of our entire life, not just a silly tradition of men. His sacrifice was real, our association with him in partaking it again "new in the kingdom of God" is also real.

Would you say that treating communion as "just a symbol" is taking it lightly and irreverent and a person who views it this way is eating and drinking "unworthily"? This is something I have wondered before I read what you wrote.

I would certainly say that it could be, but won't condemn those who don't know the difference. I grew up with the teaching that it is "just a symbol", but once I seriously looked into what the passage that Paul teaches in 1Cor 11, I found so much more than "just a symbol". I am sure that that concept was a reaction to the RC teaching of the priest's performing a miracle and the bread and wine literally becoming the body and blood of Christ. The idea of "real presence" involves the active participation of the recipient with the risen Christ by faith. There is NO benefit if we don't have faith, then it isn't really even a symbol, is it?
Think about it.