Church Attendance

General Christian Theology
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Valerie »

ohio jones wrote:
Valerie wrote:I had read that 'some' delayed their baptism- but by and large, they took Jesus' words about children literally...
A literal reading of Jesus' words about children would conclude that he said nothing at all about baptizing them. Or am I missing something?
I am not here to argue about it-
Yet here you are, arguing about it. :)
Neil & I have been seekers of Truth about this, and for very good reasons- we had to know where God was leading us, and we believed for awhile, it was with the Anabaptists-and indeed, I wished they were right about this particular doctrine, it would have made some of our decisions easier- especially last 2 years when my marriage was not an issue-
I not only consider the history of the Church on this, but you bring up Jesus words- about children- although He didn't specifically say to baptize them, He did hold a 'little child' in His arms, and even said they believe in Him-

from Matthew 18, I see how Jesus views children, and their 'faith'

18 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.


Jesus came to save the 'little ones'! He didn't exclude them until they were older!
From Mark's account of this, this 'little one' Jesus faith, He used as an example, was small enough to take in his arms:

36 And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them,

37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.

The child must have been pretty small-

Luke also felt it was important enough to mention it in his Gospel:
chapter 9
47 And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him,
48 And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.

It is not difficult for me to see from Jesus' very words, that when whole households were baptized (as we have a mere example of 5 'whole households' in the New Testament, mentioned among the thousands of households that were baptized, that the APostles would have taught to include the children- because Jesus said the little one in His arms believed in Him, and used the little child's faith as an example, and warned not to 'refuse' them-
As an Apostle baptizing, I'm sure they took this very serious, because your baptism was your admittance to the Church- I can appreciate that they didn't ignore Jesus' words and make them grow up first- because Jesus never said to do that- and yes, Jesus said 'they believe in Him' and 'have faith'.

We sincerely needed to know, who has the truth about this- not here to argue, anymore than the Anabaptists were 'arguing' against this practice from the beginning- with all the best intentions, and for important reasons- when we say we 'know' something, I could never, now, say I know that they left infants and children 'out' of the baptizing of households- we simply don't read that, we know how Jesus felt about little ones, and we have the history of the Church in areas that exist today where Chritianity had it's roots, that have always baptized their young and it's a blessing that they take Jesus' words serious about including them as part of the Church because He never said to wait until they grow up to believe.

As implied earlier, does that make me/us look unfavorably on the Anabaptists? not at all- I look favorably on the Anabaptists for many reasons- but I really, now, believe I had been wrong against infant baptism all my life, and those who teach against it, I feel with the best intentions, got this incorrect as well-

May God heal the schisms of the Churches-
0 x
GaryK
Posts: 2280
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Georgia
Affiliation: Unaffiliated

Re: Church Attendance

Post by GaryK »

Valerie wrote:
ohio jones wrote:
Valerie wrote:I had read that 'some' delayed their baptism- but by and large, they took Jesus' words about children literally...
A literal reading of Jesus' words about children would conclude that he said nothing at all about baptizing them. Or am I missing something?
I am not here to argue about it-
Yet here you are, arguing about it. :)
Neil & I have been seekers of Truth about this, and for very good reasons- we had to know where God was leading us, and we believed for awhile, it was with the Anabaptists-and indeed, I wished they were right about this particular doctrine, it would have made some of our decisions easier- especially last 2 years when my marriage was not an issue-
I not only consider the history of the Church on this, but you bring up Jesus words- about children- although He didn't specifically say to baptize them, He did hold a 'little child' in His arms, and even said they believe in Him-

from Matthew 18, I see how Jesus views children, and their 'faith'

18 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.


Jesus came to save the 'little ones'! He didn't exclude them until they were older!
From Mark's account of this, this 'little one' Jesus faith, He used as an example, was small enough to take in his arms:

36 And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them,

37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.

The child must have been pretty small-

Luke also felt it was important enough to mention it in his Gospel:
chapter 9
47 And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him,
48 And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.

It is not difficult for me to see from Jesus' very words, that when whole households were baptized (as we have a mere example of 5 'whole households' in the New Testament, mentioned among the thousands of households that were baptized, that the APostles would have taught to include the children- because Jesus said the little one in His arms believed in Him, and used the little child's faith as an example, and warned not to 'refuse' them-
As an Apostle baptizing, I'm sure they took this very serious, because your baptism was your admittance to the Church- I can appreciate that they didn't ignore Jesus' words and make them grow up first- because Jesus never said to do that- and yes, Jesus said 'they believe in Him' and 'have faith'.

We sincerely needed to know, who has the truth about this- not here to argue, anymore than the Anabaptists were 'arguing' against this practice from the beginning- with all the best intentions, and for important reasons- when we say we 'know' something, I could never, now, say I know that they left infants and children 'out' of the baptizing of households- we simply don't read that, we know how Jesus felt about little ones, and we have the history of the Church in areas that exist today where Chritianity had it's roots, that have always baptized their young and it's a blessing that they take Jesus' words serious about including them as part of the Church because He never said to wait until they grow up to believe.

As implied earlier, does that make me/us look unfavorably on the Anabaptists? not at all- I look favorably on the Anabaptists for many reasons- but I really, now, believe I had been wrong against infant baptism all my life, and those who teach against it, I feel with the best intentions, got this incorrect as well-

May God heal the schisms of the Churches-
Valerie, I'm wondering why you and Neil have not joined the EO? If they have the truth on this very important matter surely their truth is worth joining, no?
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Bootstrap »

Valerie wrote:May God heal the schisms of the Churches-
I think God has been healing these schisms. I see that wherever Christians are working together to serve others, building Habitat Houses, in soup kitchens, prison ministries, helping refugees, in ministry abroad, etc. I see that wherever Christians of all denominations come together in prayer. But I don't see a lot of healing from doctrinal debates like this, especially if one side feels forced to change the other side. I think healing has to start by seeing that the Kingdom of God spans denominations.

If we want healing across denominations, I think we have to look at our differences through this lens: "In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity". But even then, we may need to have charity where we disagree about what is essential. And I think the right place to look for unity is in Scripture and in Jesus Christ, not in any one institutional church. After all, the various one true churches can't all agree either. One of the really hopeful changes I see: a sea change in Orthodox and Catholic attitudes toward Scripture, and often toward Protestants.

We are facing new schisms now over gay marriage and biblical teaching on sex. I'm not sure we should keep focusing our energy on litigating the old schisms over and over again.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
ohio jones
Posts: 5222
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:23 pm
Location: undisclosed
Affiliation: Rosedale Network

Re: Church Attendance

Post by ohio jones »

Valerie wrote:
ohio jones wrote:
Valerie wrote:I had read that 'some' delayed their baptism- but by and large, they took Jesus' words about children literally...
A literal reading of Jesus' words about children would conclude that he said nothing at all about baptizing them. Or am I missing something?
I not only consider the history of the Church on this, but you bring up Jesus words- about children-
So now I'm the one who brought it up? :shock: :? :lol:
Valerie wrote:although He didn't specifically say to baptize them, He did hold a 'little child' in His arms, and even said they believe in Him-
Okay, so Jesus' words about children did not say to baptize them. Taking his words about children literally does not require baptizing them. Many of us value children highly and include them as an important part of church life, baptizing them when they are able to choose for themselves to become a disciple, an approach which takes both Jesus' words about children and his words about baptism literally.

The teachings of Jesus include not just his words but also his example. He was baptized as an adult ready to begin ministry, not as an infant. If anyone was capable of childlike faith, surely it was him; yet he did not find fault with his parents for not having him baptized. He also neglected the opportunity to say something like this:
Jesus never wrote:Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt baptize upon confession of faith: But I say unto you, That children should be baptized promptly after birth.
Valerie wrote:May God heal the schisms of the Churches-
May he unite us as we follow him, "faithfully stitched together."
0 x
I grew up around Indiana, You grew up around Galilee; And if I ever really do grow up, I wanna grow up to be just like You -- Rich Mullins

I am a Christian and my name is Pilgram; I'm on a journey, but I'm not alone -- NewSong, slightly edited
Once Again
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:38 am
Location: Oklahoma
Affiliation: church of Christ

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Once Again »

How did this thread turn into a discussion of infant baptism?
1 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Bootstrap »

Once Again wrote:How did this thread turn into a discussion of infant baptism?
I said that I am a member of a church that practices infant baptism, even though I strongly believe in adult believer baptism. That's a hard one for me. That sparked a debate. But I'd love to let it be ...
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: Church Attendance

Post by silentreader »

Bootstrap wrote:
Once Again wrote:How did this thread turn into a discussion of infant baptism?
I said that I am a member of a church that practices infant baptism, even though I strongly believe in adult believer baptism. That's a hard one for me. That sparked a debate. But I'd love to let it be ...
Likewise.
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Valerie »

GaryK wrote:
Valerie wrote:
ohio jones wrote: A literal reading of Jesus' words about children would conclude that he said nothing at all about baptizing them. Or am I missing something?


Yet here you are, arguing about it. :)
Neil & I have been seekers of Truth about this, and for very good reasons- we had to know where God was leading us, and we believed for awhile, it was with the Anabaptists-and indeed, I wished they were right about this particular doctrine, it would have made some of our decisions easier- especially last 2 years when my marriage was not an issue-
I not only consider the history of the Church on this, but you bring up Jesus words- about children- although He didn't specifically say to baptize them, He did hold a 'little child' in His arms, and even said they believe in Him-

from Matthew 18, I see how Jesus views children, and their 'faith'

18 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.


Jesus came to save the 'little ones'! He didn't exclude them until they were older!
From Mark's account of this, this 'little one' Jesus faith, He used as an example, was small enough to take in his arms:

36 And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them,

37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.

The child must have been pretty small-

Luke also felt it was important enough to mention it in his Gospel:
chapter 9
47 And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him,
48 And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.

It is not difficult for me to see from Jesus' very words, that when whole households were baptized (as we have a mere example of 5 'whole households' in the New Testament, mentioned among the thousands of households that were baptized, that the APostles would have taught to include the children- because Jesus said the little one in His arms believed in Him, and used the little child's faith as an example, and warned not to 'refuse' them-
As an Apostle baptizing, I'm sure they took this very serious, because your baptism was your admittance to the Church- I can appreciate that they didn't ignore Jesus' words and make them grow up first- because Jesus never said to do that- and yes, Jesus said 'they believe in Him' and 'have faith'.

We sincerely needed to know, who has the truth about this- not here to argue, anymore than the Anabaptists were 'arguing' against this practice from the beginning- with all the best intentions, and for important reasons- when we say we 'know' something, I could never, now, say I know that they left infants and children 'out' of the baptizing of households- we simply don't read that, we know how Jesus felt about little ones, and we have the history of the Church in areas that exist today where Chritianity had it's roots, that have always baptized their young and it's a blessing that they take Jesus' words serious about including them as part of the Church because He never said to wait until they grow up to believe.

As implied earlier, does that make me/us look unfavorably on the Anabaptists? not at all- I look favorably on the Anabaptists for many reasons- but I really, now, believe I had been wrong against infant baptism all my life, and those who teach against it, I feel with the best intentions, got this incorrect as well-

May God heal the schisms of the Churches-
Valerie, I'm wondering why you and Neil have not joined the EO? If they have the truth on this very important matter surely their truth is worth joining, no?
The reason is Gary, and thank you for your interest- is because I had to take a break from it. We have had many hurdles to overcome in Christianity the last 10 years- tearing down our former understandings (as Pentecost Christians)- being introduced to the Anabaptists, presented new challenges, I was led to read & study and question and seek truth- (which led me to start covering my head, which we both saw the light on this, and it affected other areas of where worldlieness seemed to have influenced us that we hadn't seen) - I was 'drawn' to the Anabaptists, along the way, seemed to have been intercepted by Orthodox- I had to consider why, what is God trying to show me/us? It has been a difficult journey- in a way, it has shaken me up to feel like all these decades of practicing Christianity had elements of deception in them (as Pentecost you are taught yours is the denomination that 'really' has the Holy Spirit) so with Orthodox- there were many 'new' hurdles to overcome. I got to the point, I felt my relationship with Christ was suffering from too much of this overcoming- I already had faith in Christ- and was not enjoying my walk anymore- I shared with Neil how I needed to take a break from all this and just enjoy Church again- God isn't finished with us, as He is not finished with any of us- but I hope that answers the question (there are still more 'hurdles' to overcome with Orthodox teaching, it takes a lot of faith and work and reading and praying! 2000 years of Christianity where I questioned this and that, these traditions, and why-) I told a former Mennonite man who I got to know a wee bit from a website (former Amish that it must have been very hard for him & his other former Mennonite brothers to become Orthodox, knowing the difference between them & Anabaptism- when he told me it wasn't difficult for him at all, I wondered 'what is wrong with me????'. So many share how they have 'arrived home' by becoming Orthodox, even from my former denomination where an entire Church in CA converted to Orthodox! Mr. Jim once told me, he thinks the problem was with 'him', why he was slow about it- maybe that's the same with me. 59 years of a western/Protestant mindset. In a lot of ways though this journey has been a blessing because I now know about so many saints that I didn't before- what happened to some of these people I read about in the New Testament, because the Orthodox have their history of what happened to them, what became of them, and even celebrate them- (example the woman at the well, was a very devout Christian, who ended up being martyred, along with many in her family, for their faith!) so there has been a lot of wonderful benefits along the way as well. Learning more about true worship- etc.
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23823
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Josh »

Bootstrap wrote:We are facing new schisms now over gay marriage and biblical teaching on sex. I'm not sure we should keep focusing our energy on litigating the old schisms over and over again.
I find myself in schism with other Christians who think Jesus taught that it's okay to kill people, either in personal self defence or as part of large, organised mass killing. And the simple fact is, most so called Christians believe such things are not only okay, but in fact one's sacred duty.

Obeying the plain message of the scriptures is, at the core, what being Mennonite or Anabaptist really is all about. It started with repent and be baptised - and then extended to, okay, we need to repent ("change our mind") of what? Jesus' words provide the answer.

He said to love our enemies, do good to those who persecute us, "resist not the evildoer", and ultimately the scriptures tell us to look for the fruits of the spirit.

For me that's not just being Mennonite, but it's also being a disciple of Jesus. And it hurts a great deal to realise so many others are in schism with me over that.

The best I can do is to "honour and respect all men" and let my light shine. I rarely get into doctrinal debates or discussions except with my closest brethren. For everyone else, what's important is that I be known as a disciple "by your love for one another".
0 x
temporal1
Posts: 16279
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: U.S. midwest and PNW
Affiliation: Christian other

Re: Church Attendance

Post by temporal1 »

2017 OP: Revisit
Once Again wrote: Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:44 pm What do you think?
If it is not possible to attend a Biblical church (by this I mean conservative Anabaptist/Kingdom christian), is one better off spiritually to worship at home? Or should a person worship at a church that mixes the truth with false teaching?

Is there a point where there is too much false teaching? Where would you draw the line?
Hats Off wrote: Wed Aug 09, 2017 8:00 pm We advised Lucy in Northern Ireland to attend a local church rather than attempt to worship alone.
We suggested a Gospel Hall which was less than 5 minutes walk from her home.

I would always recommend that you know what you believe so that you can leave those things which don't feel right.

We have no experience with this ourselves so can only express an opinion.
but I feel brotherhood and church fellowship are more important than many of the smaller details.
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.


”We’re all just walking each other home.”
UNKNOWN
Post Reply