Church Attendance

General Christian Theology
haithabu
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:11 pm
Location: Calgary
Affiliation: Missionary Church

Re: Church Attendance

Post by haithabu »

For me the zone of tolerance differs according to whether there are children affected by the decision. When my wife and I were first married we attended the church that I had finished growing up in, the one in which I had been baptized. But it was more out of loyalty than from any real expectation of being fed.

But one thing I was sure of, that was not the church that I wanted to raise our children in. There was no real spiritual vibrancy and the theology was very wobbly. Setting the gay issue aside, the church as it was then would have fit very comfortably into the more liberal wing of MCUSA today; but that was in 1978!

But it was the only Mennonite Church in town and so we continued attending until we were able to move away and relocate to a district where there was more choice.

Now that the kids are grown we have more latitude as to where we attend, but I wouldn't support a church that I felt wasn't preaching a gospel of positive faith in Jesus Christ. If that criterion is met then I think I have a wide tolerance for theological differences.
0 x
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: Church Attendance

Post by silentreader »

Hats Off wrote:
Valerie wrote: It shouldn't, since the Apostles taught to baptize infants of Christian parents, and the Apostles were taught by Christ and the Holy Spirit- that isn't twisting Scripture or Apostasy to baptize infants- which is why Luther and others knew to continue to practice this- as well as weekly communion (which to not do that, would be considered a form of apostacy)
Sorry, Valerie but you are definitely wrong on this one! Infants cannot believe. Scripture does not tell us how often to take communion. You do not seem to be very teachable on this matter.
Its actually pretty simple, we can know that 'apostles' who abode in the truth didn't baptize incognizant infants.
Truth does not change, 'teaching' sometimes does.
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 »

silentreader wrote:
Hats Off wrote:
Valerie wrote: It shouldn't, since the Apostles taught to baptize infants of Christian parents, and the Apostles were taught by Christ and the Holy Spirit- that isn't twisting Scripture or Apostasy to baptize infants- which is why Luther and others knew to continue to practice this- as well as weekly communion (which to not do that, would be considered a form of apostacy)
Sorry, Valerie but you are definitely wrong on this one! Infants cannot believe. Scripture does not tell us how often to take communion. You do not seem to be very teachable on this matter.
Its actually pretty simple, we can know that 'apostles' who abode in the truth didn't baptize incognizant infants.
Truth does not change, 'teaching' sometimes does.
It is very simple, in every city, and country, where the Twelve Original Apostles took the Gospel, infants to this day, of Christian parents, are included in Baptism, and in membership of the Church, whether Jerusalem, Antioch, - to Spain to India- where His Twelve went, they practice this truth of infant baptism. This is probably why most of the Sola Scriptura Reformers maintained infant baptism. The first major council of Nicene, it wasn't even an issue, it was practiced well before that- true, there was some controversy over how many days old the infant should be- but not whether there to baptize infants & children of Christians and Converts- so there was "believers" baptism for adults & their children were not denied this- there is a lot of writing about it- I find it difficult to accept that people call these Christians liars.
I can accept people from the Reformation era being mistaken- but not calling those who know better, 'liars'. I'd be afraid to be accountable for that one-
There are many man made ordinances and practices within Anabaptism which over the years have led me to admire their steadfastness, but not to assume, as Sunbeam pointed out, they have the corner on 'all' truth. I still can glean much from their faith and love for the Lord, I realize anyone from the Reformation era simply wasn't there to know one way or another at the time of the original Apostles, whether within households baptized, they would have denied their young. It's a best guess based on Sola Scriptura which Protestantism has surely proved itself out to be confused and majorly sected/divided-
The falling away precedes the Lord's second advent- not the beginning of the early Church- and to this day- they do not change on these important issues.
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Valerie »

Bootstrap wrote:I don't find infant baptism biblical. Before I joined, I was clear with the pastors about the places that my theology is not the same as theirs. They mentioned that there are quite a few people in the church that see it the same way I do. But it's hard when they baptize an infant, I find that awkward. Quietly and respectfully.
I have to do the same where we attend now- our pastor was raised Presbyterian in Scotland- and they baptize their infants- our pastor changed to not do this as he became a pastor himself- based on his own interpretations- I don't know if your pastor shared anything about the topic with you or not but I had saved these some time ago and if you care to read them, they are from Presbyterians, one which converted to believe in infant baptism- I know of many former Mennonites who have also converted to believe in this- it does take a willingness to learn- you can read these if you like or ignore them but maybe it will help in the church God led you to- I don't know why He would lead you to a Church who teaches false doctrine-


http://opc.org/cce/tracts/WhyInfantBaptism.html

http://www.tenth.org/resource-library/a ... nt-baptism
0 x
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: Church Attendance

Post by silentreader »

Valerie wrote:
silentreader wrote:
Hats Off wrote: Sorry, Valerie but you are definitely wrong on this one! Infants cannot believe. Scripture does not tell us how often to take communion. You do not seem to be very teachable on this matter.
Its actually pretty simple, we can know that 'apostles' who abode in the truth didn't baptize incognizant infants.
Truth does not change, 'teaching' sometimes does.
It is very simple, in every city, and country, where the Twelve Original Apostles took the Gospel, infants to this day, of Christian parents, are included in Baptism, and in membership of the Church, whether Jerusalem, Antioch, - to Spain to India- where His Twelve went, they practice this truth of infant baptism. This is probably why most of the Sola Scriptura Reformers maintained infant baptism. The first major council of Nicene, it wasn't even an issue, it was practiced well before that- true, there was some controversy over how many days old the infant should be- but not whether there to baptize infants & children of Christians and Converts- so there was "believers" baptism for adults & their children were not denied this- there is a lot of writing about it- I find it difficult to accept that people call these Christians liars.
I can accept people from the Reformation era being mistaken- but not calling those who know better, 'liars'. I'd be afraid to be accountable for that one-
There are many man made ordinances and practices within Anabaptism which over the years have led me to admire their steadfastness, but not to assume, as Sunbeam pointed out, they have the corner on 'all' truth. I still can glean much from their faith and love for the Lord, I realize anyone from the Reformation era simply wasn't there to know one way or another at the time of the original Apostles, whether within households baptized, they would have denied their young. It's a best guess based on Sola Scriptura which Protestantism has surely proved itself out to be confused and majorly sected/divided-
The falling away precedes the Lord's second advent- not the beginning of the early Church- and to this day- they do not change on these important issues.
We've gone through this before, nothing has changed, there is clear evidence in Scripture that there was apostasy even in NT times.
One of the most important foundational doctrines of Anabaptism is believer's baptism, if you deny that, it becomes difficult to believe that you look favorably on Anabaptism.
How the NT speaks of baptism does not leave room for anything other than the supplicant being aware of the need for, and significance of, baptism.
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
Judas Maccabeus
Posts: 3881
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:13 am
Location: Maryland
Affiliation: Con. Menno.

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Judas Maccabeus »

Valerie wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:I don't find infant baptism biblical. Before I joined, I was clear with the pastors about the places that my theology is not the same as theirs. They mentioned that there are quite a few people in the church that see it the same way I do. But it's hard when they baptize an infant, I find that awkward. Quietly and respectfully.
I have to do the same where we attend now- our pastor was raised Presbyterian in Scotland- and they baptize their infants- our pastor changed to not do this as he became a pastor himself- based on his own interpretations- I don't know if your pastor shared anything about the topic with you or not but I had saved these some time ago and if you care to read them, they are from Presbyterians, one which converted to believe in infant baptism- I know of many former Mennonites who have also converted to believe in this- it does take a willingness to learn- you can read these if you like or ignore them but maybe it will help in the church God led you to- I don't know why He would lead you to a Church who teaches false doctrine-


http://opc.org/cce/tracts/WhyInfantBaptism.html

http://www.tenth.org/resource-library/a ... nt-baptism
""It is clear enough for him who has eyes to see it, but it is not expressed in so many words, literally: ‘do not baptize infants’. May one then baptize them? To that I answer: ‘if so I may baptize my dog or my donkey, or I may circumcise girls… bring infants to the Lord’s Supper…sell the Mass for an offering. For it is nowhere said in express words that we must not do these things.""

Balthasar Hubmaier, early Anabaptist

J.M.
0 x
:hug:
Ernie
Posts: 5454
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:48 pm
Location: Central PA
Affiliation: Anabaptist Umbrella
Contact:

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Ernie »

Judas Maccabeus wrote: ""It is clear enough for him who has eyes to see it, but it is not expressed in so many words, literally: ‘do not baptize infants’. May one then baptize them? To that I answer: ‘if so I may baptize my dog or my donkey, or I may circumcise girls… bring infants to the Lord’s Supper…sell the Mass for an offering. For it is nowhere said in express words that we must not do these things.""
Balthasar Hubmaier, early Anabaptist
J.M.
Different historians of early Anabaptists have observed this distinct difference...

The reformers typically used the scriptures with a focus on what was forbidden.
The Anabaptists typically read the NT with the goal of seeing what was being promoted as the right way or the right belief.
0 x
The old woodcutter spoke again. “It is impossible to talk with you. You always draw conclusions. Life is so vast, yet you judge all of life with one page or one word. You see only a fragment. Unless you know the whole story, how can you judge?"
Sudsy
Posts: 5859
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Sudsy »

Bootstrap wrote:I don't find infant baptism biblical. Before I joined, I was clear with the pastors about the places that my theology is not the same as theirs. They mentioned that there are quite a few people in the church that see it the same way I do. But it's hard when they baptize an infant, I find that awkward. Quietly and respectfully.
I spent some time in the Salvation Army who do not baptise in water, period. When I saw the way they lived out their Christianity and many the depth of their relationship with the Lord, I had no trouble fitting into fellowship with them. I do not believe water baptism has regenerating properties although I think if one is to obey being baptised in water, then the word means immerse so aside from being immersed it isn't really a water baptism, imo.

I also have joined with folks who believe in eternal security but they don't use this belief as a license to sin so I have found good fellowship with them also. And those who believe one must speak in unknown tongues to be filled with the Spirit. And those opposed to women in ministry leading roles. And on and on.

If a church basically believes in what Paul called the Gospel that saves us and spells out what is of first importance, I can have fellowship with them. If God has included them into His family by believing the important basics of the Gospel, who am I to draw lines on who I will or will not have fellowship with. Paul didn't tell the Corinthians to break up into groups that believed identically the same and followed the same man's teachings. He said we are all one in Christ, so knock it off (paraphrase mine :) ).
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
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:It is very simple, in every city, and country, where the Twelve Original Apostles took the Gospel, infants to this day, of Christian parents, are included in Baptism, and in membership of the Church, whether Jerusalem, Antioch, - to Spain to India- where His Twelve went, they practice this truth of infant baptism.
Menno Simons wrote:We have here given you the principal reasons why we oppose infant baptism, not only in doctrine, but also to the sacrifice of our lives and possessions. For we well know, by the grace of God, that there is not one word in the Scriptures in its support. We tell you the truth and lie not. Is there one under the canopy of heaven who can show us, by divine truth, that Jesus Christ, the Son of Almighty God, the Eternal Wisdom and Truth, whom alone we acknowledge as the Lawgiver, and Teacher of the New Testament, has given a single command that children should be baptized; or that his holy apostles ever so taught, or practiced?

What need then to urge this upon us by tyranny and punishment? Only show it to us in the word of God, and the difficulty is removed.
It is evident that there are two completely different hermeneutics here. The question is not just infant baptism, but what is the basis of authority, tradition or scripture?
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
KingdomBuilder
Posts: 1482
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:00 pm
Affiliation: church of Christ

Re: Church Attendance

Post by KingdomBuilder »

I was "baptized" very young; even that bothered me to the point of pursuing an adult, believer's baptism.
Needless to say, I think infant baptism is unscriptural idolatry.
0 x
Ponder anew what the Almighty can do
Post Reply