Going To Trinity Churches ?

[MissBrattified]

The thing is, each of us have lines. At least, I think we do. There are some things that are okay, and some that aren't. Doctrinal issues are those lines for me. There are certain black and white issues that I don't want to dilute, and I don't want someone else diluting them for my children.

The fact that they aren't black or white to other people on this forum, or that other people see a different black and white is completely irrelevant. I have to stand firm on my beliefs, and some things aren't compromisable for me.

It horrifies me to think that my children might someday stumble back into the doctrinal darkness that has shrouded much of the church for the last few hundred years. I will do everything in my power to make sure they stay walking in the light of truth and clarity. (On many issues--and this is one of them!)

My husband was saved FROM trinitarian beliefs. He's more dogmatic than I am, believing that trinitarian doctrine is idolatry. He doesn't like to go to trinitarian churches even for special occasions.

He wrote a song shortly after being converted about coming out of darkness, realizing that the "Fullness of the Godhead was...complete in the One Who died for me." It meant a lot to him to finally understand scriptures he had found contradictory for years. My mother was converted from being a "hardshell" Baptist. The scripture that clicked for her was I Timothy 3:16. My Grandfather was an altar boy in the Catholic church. He later became an Apostolic preacher.

All other matters aside, I wouldn't attend a trinitarian church simply because it would be a huge stumbling block for my husband.

So for the sake of our family, our collective integrity, and the spiritual futures of our children, we won't attend a trinity church. We would have church in our home (and invite all the neighbors) before we would go to an assembly that taught false doctrine, or even one that refused to acknowledge truth.

On another note, I don't appreciate churches that ride fences. There are absolutes in scripture. I think it's lame when people refuse to stand for anything at all. I'm not accusing anyone on THIS thread of doing that, but that's kind of how I see "non-denominational" churches. They're trying so hard to be inclusive of people, that they forget to include God's Word in every matter. I'm of the opinion that nearly every problem can be answered with scripture and that the Word should be consulted on a regular basis.

I'm all for finding the "purpose" of the church, for preaching the cross, and keeping the main thing the main thing. On the other hand, it can get so diluted that people aren't actually being saved--they're just experiencing a church service. JMO (and just my ramblings) Salvation still requires faith and obedience. It's not enough to be a hearer of the Word, and even a believer of the Word. You must also be a DOER.

When we hear the Word, it shows us who we are, and who we need to be in Christ, but if we don't obey what we hear, we walk away unchanged. (James 1:21-25)

[Fiyahstarter]

I don't see non-denominational churches as a riding-the-fence thing at all. Actually, I prefer attending a NON-denominational, spirit filled church that helps people BUILD a relationship with Jesus ... that doesn't condemn people for their hairstyles or beards ... that equips and encourages saints to get involved and matures them to their callings and giftings ... and that has LOVE and compassion for people.

I think denominations can instill a PRIDEFUL spirit. (My-team-is-better-than-yours-type thing.) I wish we could all be on the same team... Do we not all love the same Jesus?

[Fiyahstarter]

I would fellowship with ANYBODY and be glad of the opportunity to DISCUSS (not condemn) our doctrinal differences. "I am baptized in Jesus name, filled with the Holy Ghost. What is the Holy Ghost? Well, I'm glad you asked." "Why in Jesus name, rather than the titles? Let me show you the scripture..." It's at these moments that the Holy Ghost takes over, and man, aint that great!

Let's love them to God, not hate them to hell.

[OnTheFritz]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

On another note, I don't appreciate churches that ride fences. There are absolutes in scripture. I think it's lame when people refuse to stand for anything at all. I'm not accusing anyone on THIS thread of doing that, but that's kind of how I see "non-denominational" churches. They're trying so hard to be inclusive of people, that they forget to include God's Word in every matter.

I don't think the non-denominational tag necessarily has anything to do with riding fences. Sure, it happens. But more often then not, churches that are financially independent have no reason to be associated a denomination, or more specifically, an organization.

I'm all for standing for something, but unless it is something of value, it does nothing but cause division. The act of "standing" isn't worth much if the principle you stand for is either wrong or irrelevant (oh no - I sorta used the work "relevant") I think it's lame when people feel like they score points by standing for things that don't really matter in the long run (just for the sake of "standing").

But, I do concede the point, MissB, that I don't want my children in a church that doesn't know who they are. While I like to debate the finer points (and sometimes the larger points) of doctrine and salvation, I want my children to be taught solidly and consistently from a coherent set of doctrinal principles.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by OnTheFritz

Thanks for the response.

Yes, but respectfully, just because you have made it simple in your mind doesn't mean it necessarily is simple. That's the problem I have with the "it's right there in black and white, just read it" mentality. It's not. We read it through whatever glasses we decide to put on. There is PLENTY of room for interpretation. People have dedicated their whole lives to the study and interpretation of the Word. Sometimes things don't just fit into a nice, neat box.

Do we often overcomplicate things? Sure. But by the same token, It seems that many people put a stake in the ground somewhere along the way and stop the journey. It's a "this sounds good to me, so it is now my foundation for everything" mentality. I think both are dangerous.

Fritz, with respect, your view here is a good bit of what many of us oppose with the Relevant/Journey/Emerging movement. It is that post-modern situational ethos that leads everyone down the path that there is no collective truth. That truth is spicific to the individual. It is eastern thought/relgion seeping in to the church.

And it just might be the irreconsilable difference between us. I reject that completlely. There is "a hill worth dying on" where Truth is concerned.

This is exactly that hill. I can respect your right to the choices youve made. But we wont agree on this. To me this view is a mixture of light and darkness. That is strange brew that leads folks back to what God callled them out of.

[OnTheFritz]

Originally Posted by Ferd

Fritz, with respect, your view here is a good bit of what many of us oppose with the Relevant/Journey/Emerging movement. It is that post-modern situational ethos that leads everyone down the path that there is no collective truth. That truth is spicific to the individual. It is eastern thought/relgion seeping in to the church.

And it just might be the irreconsilable difference between us. I reject that completlely. There is "a hill worth dying on" where Truth is concerned.

This is exactly that hill. I can respect your right to the choices youve made. But we wont agree on this. To me this view is a mixture of light and darkness. That is strange brew that leads folks back to what God callled them out of.

Fair enough. We agree to disagree. But for the record, I do believe there is one absolute truth. What I don't believe is that you (or I) know what it is yet from our limited perspective. It's like stating a fact without all the necessary information. As a result, we have hundreds of denominations with a bunch of people putting little stakes in the ground along the way so they can say they "stand for something." I am comfortable knowing that I don't (and can't) know the big picture. That does not make me any less committed to what I believe. But it does make me cautious of who I condemn to hell.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

So a sinner is intercepted by Jesus, has a life transforming conversion, repents calling on the name of the Lord, and determines to follow Jesus forever. He gets baptized... Jesus is preached and prayers are prayed in Jesus name. The baptism occurs - the pastor quotes Jesus (Matt. 28:19) word for word and the new convert goes under... He comes out of the water glorifying God and thanking Jesus for salvation.

Judgement day arrives. Will the LORD say, You prayed in my name - even at the baptismal service, yet my name was not spoken at the precise time of baptism... you are out on a technicality"???

Get real.

Bottom line - It is not as clear cut as many would like for it to be.

That's IF MAtt 28:19 is even original of which I doubt it is and many scholars would agree. Also the context of all things is the power of the one who saved you. How will it all shake out? I don't know but one thing is for sure I will love them no matter what but I will teach the truth and not accept the error of false baptism.

Because we don't know what God will consider critical or not does not give us the liberal stance to think it is ok to accept false teaching.

[OnTheFritz]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

That's IF MAtt 28:19 is even original of which I doubt it is and many scholars would agree. Also the context of all things is the power of the one who saved you. How will it all shake out? I don't know but one thing is for sure I will love them no matter what but I will teach the truth and not accept the error of false baptism.

Because we don't know what God will consider critical or not does not give us the liberal stance to think it is ok to accept false teaching.

So, you're stating as fact that Matt 28:19 is false teaching?

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by OnTheFritz

I can understand and appreciate this. I think that if you believe that truth has been revealed to you, and you don't follow it, then you are wrong.

That being said, none of us know the complete truth. And considering that we don't, do we avoid fellowship with those who have been revealed a "truth" different than ours IF it still leads people to the SAME God as described in the Bible that we read.

I say no.

There is nothing about the Trinitarian view that leads people to a different God. I have a problem with their view of three distinct persons of the same "essence", but I don't think it's going to send them to hell. If new converts in a trinitarian church develop a relationship with the same Jesus I know, the "truth" will be revealed to them as well - in much the same way it was to you.

Whether most can actually explain it or not, the trinitarian view holds that each entity is 100% God. So, is it the same Jesus we know. Yes it is.

Though I agree with much of what you said. The above in bold is a totaly incorrect. If you think such you lack much understanding!

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by OnTheFritz

So, you're stating as fact that Matt 28:19 is false teaching?

baptizing in the name of F,S,HS is false. Yes! Is it part of the original text? No, IMO!