Funky theology

[R7ehr]

Neither the Bruderhof or Amish claim OTC, and I am not accusing either of that.

If we think of a OTC doctrine as having two parts, the Amish and the Bruderhof only fit one part.
First part of OTC doctrine we could say, is that everyone must be part of their church in order to be saved.
Second part of OTC doctrine we could say, is that if you leave/break your vow, you are lost.

The Amish and Bruderhof both seem to have the second part. So while not OTC, it still has a tiny bit of that flavor if you think about it logically. Which is to say, if you aren’t OTC, why is it such a requirement to make the vow and to stay there for life?

[ken_sylvania]

Neither the Bruderhof or Amish claim OTC, and I am not accusing either of that.

If we think of a OTC doctrine as having two parts, the Amish and the Bruderhof only fit one part.
First part of OTC doctrine we could say, is that everyone must be part of their church in order to be saved.
Second part of OTC doctrine we could say, is that if you leave/break your vow, you are lost.

The Amish and Bruderhof both seem to have the second part. So while not OTC, it still has a tiny bit of that flavor if you think about it logically. Which is to say, if you aren’t OTC, why is it such a requirement to make the vow and to stay there for life?

I don't suppose you are of the OTS mindset, but I suspect that you see the value in having made a vow with the requirement to stay true to your chosen spouse for life.
I'm not advocating for asking people to vow to remain with their church for life, but at the same time I'm concerned how some people switch churches more often than they switch cell phone providers - they're more loyal to their chosen vehicle brand than they are to their local church.

[R7ehr]

Neither the Bruderhof or Amish claim OTC, and I am not accusing either of that.

If we think of a OTC doctrine as having two parts, the Amish and the Bruderhof only fit one part.
First part of OTC doctrine we could say, is that everyone must be part of their church in order to be saved.
Second part of OTC doctrine we could say, is that if you leave/break your vow, you are lost.

The Amish and Bruderhof both seem to have the second part. So while not OTC, it still has a tiny bit of that flavor if you think about it logically. Which is to say, if you aren’t OTC, why is it such a requirement to make the vow and to stay there for life?

I don't suppose you are of the OTS mindset, but I suspect that you see the value in having made a vow with the requirement to stay true to your chosen spouse for life.
I'm not advocating for asking people to vow to remain with their church for life, but at the same time I'm concerned how some people switch churches more often than they switch cell phone providers - they're more loyal to their chosen vehicle brand than they are to their local church.

Certainly.

[JoyE]

I don't suppose you are of the OTS mindset, but I suspect that you see the value in having made a vow with the requirement to stay true to your chosen spouse for life.

My view is that instead of making vows, the minister reminds everyone that if either does not stay true to their spouse, they will answer to God for their sin. Not taking vows does not exempt anyone, Christian or otherwise, from the guilt and consequences of adultery or not staying true to the duties of marriage.