Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by LanceHaverkamp, Oct 2, 2007.
Is there a "denomination" that is:
Because one of the items on your list is "Baptist", I don't think you will find a whole denomination that universally believes the other two. Why do I say that? Because baptist church order is based on the local church, not on a denomination. Each local baptist church has its own statement of faith. Some baptist churches are Arminian, others are not. Some are preterist, others are not. If you are looking for a church that meets those specifications, you would need to check with that local church.
However, as you mcan see, I am a long way from Alabama. Perhaps there is someone else nearer to you who could point you to a church that is baptist, Arminian and preterist.
As aforementioned the first two shouldn't be too hard. I'd say the American Baptist Convention might line up here...definitely on the first and depends on the person for the second.
Keep in mind that a major tennant of being a Baptist is that we have something called "autonomy of the local church" in our doctrinal system that basically means no major denominational (national) figure or board can tell your church what to do on a local level.
The third is going to be hard. Preterists are small in number. You won't find too many full preterists but probably plenty of partial preterists.
Here is a link:
I'd recommend finding a church that embraces the bulk of your theological leanings and ask God to allow you know if that is the place for you.
I would suggest not making your eschatological view a test for church membership. In my church, which is Baptist and Calvnist, there are those who are amill, premill, et. and nomill. I am a nomill, meaning I have no idea. :laugh:
I do have some idea and my brethren are convinced I am an unkowning amill guy. The preterists think I am a partial preterist. Oh well...
You might be able to find a Southern Baptist Church that is those.
Thanks, I needed that!
If you're "nomill", read Revelation Four Views, a parallel comentary by Steve Gregg
If you think you're "CalMinian" (or Calvinist for that matter), read Arminian Theology, Myths & Realities by Roger Olson
I actually thinks it's more healthy for a church to have a variety of representative viewpoints on disputable issues.
I think we modern christians have gone a bit overboard trying to find the perfect church in terms of theology. When we do this we assume that our own theological view is fullproof and all the hundreds of others are fatally flawed. This usually leads to division and self-righteousness, which are most of the time bigger problems than the issues that separated you from the other churches in the first place.
I think we're better off seeking out a local body of Christians with whom we share beliefs in the essentials of the faith and who are hungry to learn more about God and grow in their faith. As we build relationships with other believers in this context, we can discuss our minor differences and allow the Lord to give us His revelation as He sees fit. In the meantime we will learn how to practice more important things such as patience, humility, love, unity and faith in God to work out all of these differences in His time.
Good council, I generally agree; except in my case...I'm the guy with the D.Min. who doesn't want to get stoned by a Futurist, Calvinist board of Elders! :tonofbricks:
Come to think of it...anyone looking for an Executive Pastor with a Doctorate in Practical Mininistry?
Churches are getting stoned now? :laugh:
I would never want to join a church that would have me as a member:laugh:
Hows that for an orginal statement:thumbs:
Uhmmmm....anybody know of a church here in the Buffalo Rochester area that adhere to the Doctrine of Grace as understood by Primitive Baptists ? That's an important essential of the faith for me....
There's a good one down here in Houston.:thumbs:
Sorry, I just won't be happy until you move here, brother.:wavey:
Just out of curiosity, what is the Doctrine of Grace as understood by Primitive Baptists and how does it differ from what other Baptists believe?
This will probably not be a satisfying answer, so I ask my brothers PB's on this board for help.
The Doctrine of Grace as we understand it is that eternal salvation is all of God, from God, and by God. He planned the salvation of His people, He chose His people before the foundation of the world, He wrote their names in the Book of Life, He sent His Son for them and only for them, His Son's blood was shed for them and only for them and is efficacious, from the beginning, only for them, as opposed to the argument by some Calvinists that the blood of Christ is efficacious to all mankind but shed only for the elect.
That God's people have existed in all ages, in all nations, even those nations that have never been mentioned in the Bible, such as China, Japan, the Aleutians, my own country, the Old World, the New World, in other words, they were scattered in all points of the compass, before, during, and after Christ's time, and that when Christ came to redeem them, He did successfully redeem them, here in time, but none would ever have been lost eternally even before Christ and the cross for the simple reason that Christ is the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world.
And that after the cross, the work of regenerating God's people is purely and solely the Holy Spirit's, apart from any human means, human tactics, and human equipment.
Contrast that with the doctrine of Grace that says God's elect must first hear the gospel in order to be saved, or in order for the Holy Spirit to be able to work His regenerating power.
God does not change.
He did not need anyone's help in creating this universe, He certainly has no need for anyone's help in reaching His elect.
So, now you see, I asked that one little question because the point is it is hard to come to church and worship and hear things from the pulpit that you cannot agree with in truth and in conscience, and in your heart.
Doctrinal, theological, and practical differences will continue to exist for as long as we are in this fallen, imperfect world.
It is not healthy for a church to "have a variety of representative viewpoints on disputable issues," to quote you. That is divisive, and unfair to those holding views that conflict with what is preached from the pulpit, as well as unfair for the one standing behind the pulpit.
A church must be doctrinally united. One in thought, one in spirit, one in mind.
I think the OP is right.
He is looking for a church that is in line with what he, as a believer, holds to.
I hope he finds one.