I don't know what Denomination I am (ritual, beliefs, choice)

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by Green Kepi

Mimi...confusing, isn't it? So was I at one time...still am on occasions. Sojourner gave some good advise; however, please take note that the Disciples of Christ and the Church of Christ are also different in their teachings. For example, the Disciples of Christ usually use instrumental music in their worship services. While most Churches of Christ do not...again, even some with the name Church of Christ have instrumental music. See how confusing "religious" people are? Is there any doubt why one such as you is confused?

Please study carefully the Scriptures in your own Bible. See whether these things are so. (Acts 17:11) and be fully persuaded in your own mind (Romans 14:5). Where you decide to attend, learn to decern if it fits the characteristics of the Church in the Bible or if it was built at later times and in other places. If the people do not worship as the pattern taught by Jesus and the Apostles...don't attend there. Consult a history book and see if the churches in your community began in Jerusalem in the years immediately following the resurrection of Jesus.

Become a member of the church you can read about in your own Bible. God's Word must authorize all that is done in Christian worship. Try to do Bible things in Bible ways. Find a group of Christians that have communion every week, just as they did in New Testament times. Go where the whole congregation sings acapella style, just as they did in New Testament times.

Remember...no group or place is going to be perfect. Everyone...has much to learn.

Thank you for saying that the church I attend (as well as many other manifestations of the Church) is not characteristic of the Biblical Church.

Your commentary on what does or does not constitute "Biblical" worship and "Biblical" Church is your opinion. Your opinion is not what Mini needs at this point.

Mini:
GK is correct. Most congregations that call themselves "Church of Christ" believe that the use of musical instruments in worship is not Biblical. However, their opinion does not mean that other congregations that do use musical instruments are not valid churches. I think GK is creating confusion for you that is not necessarily helpful.

Should you decide that musical instruments are not OK for use in worship, that's your decision and you might be very happy in the Church of Christ. But, I wouldn't make that particular issue the focal point of your search for the right place for you.

BTW, there are no churches that do things exactly as they were done in Bible times. One must consider, not only what the Bible says to us about worship, but what the tradition tells us about worship, as well.

[Green Kepi]

Now...Sojourner, you get down on me for "my opinion", then turn right around and give your "opinion". Who's confusing whom? What's your definition of an opinion? All I was attempting to say to Mini was that the beginning of the church is recorded in the Bible in Acts 2. In this chapter, the church is spoken of for the first time in the present tense (Acts 2:47). It was established with divine "power" as promised to the Apostles (Mark 9:1; Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2). No other church has ever been established with such power and under such remarkable conditions. My question to you or whomever, is...Why do we think we need another church than what Jesus heads and established? Oh, I've had many say, "Come on...we all worship the same God"! Well, true...but, do we worship Him as He wants to be worshipped? I think not. Why not attempt to worship Him as we find it in the Bible? Man has screwed things and confused things...not God.
For example: the Roman Catholics were founded by Boniface III in 606; Lutherans in 1520; Presbyterians in 1536; Baptists in 1607; Methodists in 1739; Mormons in 1830; Adventists in 1830; and Christian Scientists in 1866 (to name a few).

Why? Why can't we just be Christians in name only? Because man likes to have it like at Burger King. I want things my own way. We Christians are just like the Jews are and were...we can't agree on anything. Even the Muslims are split.

Satan's good at what he does...as long as he can keep the Christian Army "shooting their wounded"...he's winning. That's what we are doing...even this "so-called" same faith forum...is a joke to him. Why...? Because many will probably answer this post back with hostility and consider it an attack on their personal beliefs. It's not. It's more of a question...why can't we? Just be the type Christian that we find in the Bible? Okay...let me have it ....

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by Green Kepi

Now...Sojourner, you get down on me for "my opinion", then turn right around and give your "opinion". Who's confusing whom? What's your definition of an opinion? All I was attempting to say to Mini was that the beginning of the church is recorded in the Bible in Acts 2. In this chapter, the church is spoken of for the first time in the present tense (Acts 2:47). It was established with divine "power" as promised to the Apostles (Mark 9:1; Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2). No other church has ever been established with such power and under such remarkable conditions. My question to you or whomever, is...Why do we think we need another church than what Jesus heads and established? Oh, I've had many say, "Come on...we all worship the same God"! Well, true...but, do we worship Him as He wants to be worshipped? I think not. Why not attempt to worship Him as we find it in the Bible? Man has screwed things and confused things...not God.
For example: the Roman Catholics were founded by Boniface III in 606; Lutherans in 1520; Presbyterians in 1536; Baptists in 1607; Methodists in 1739; Mormons in 1830; Adventists in 1830; and Christian Scientists in 1866 (to name a few).

Why? Why can't we just be Christians in name only? Because man likes to have it like at Burger King. I want things my own way. We Christians are just like the Jews are and were...we can't agree on anything. Even the Muslims are split.

Satan's good at what he does...as long as he can keep the Christian Army "shooting their wounded"...he's winning. That's what we are doing...even this "so-called" same faith forum...is a joke to him. Why...? Because many will probably answer this post back with hostility and consider it an attack on their personal beliefs. It's not. It's more of a question...why can't we? Just be the type Christian that we find in the Bible? Okay...let me have it ....

There is no "other church." The Church is "essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one" as your founding forebear said in his "Declaration and Address."

I don't think we do...

We do as long as we "worship in Spirit and in Truth..."

The RC's and many Church historians would disagree with you here.

And don't forget to add the Churches of Christ, which were founded in 1832, when Barton Stone's Disciples and Alenxander Campbell's Christians came together at Cane Ridge. And then later more narrowly defined themselves in the United States Census of, I believe, 1909, when the (mostly southern) church leaders of the Stone-Campbell movement parted ways with the other Christian churches and became known separately as the Churches of Christ.

What type of Christian would that be? It differs according to individual perspective.
You claim that you are that kind of Christian. The Mormons claim that they are that kind of Christian. The RC's claim that they are that kind of Christian. Why can't we express our differences in greater unity, instead of attempting the humanly impossible: uniformity?

[Green Kepi]

Sojourner...I'm trying to understand some of your comments. What do you mean, "...as your founding forebear said in his Declaration and address"...who's this?

When then was the name "Catholic" first used? No offense to the "RCs" and whoever the "historians" are.

Why did you want me to not forget to include the Churches of Christ? "Barton Stone" and "Alexander Campbell" mean nothing to me. I don't ever remember reading about them in the Bible nor do I follow their teachings. Why would you assume that I am Church of Chirst?

I don't agree with your statements that many "claim to be that type of Christians". No way. I've studied with Mormons...even at Brigham Young University. Last time I noticed, they had an additional book...anyway, I suspect that we'll continue chasing around in a circle with this discussion....

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by Green Kepi

Sojourner...I'm trying to understand some of your comments. What do you mean, "...as your founding forebear said in his Declaration and address"...who's this?

When then was the name "Catholic" first used? No offense to the "RCs" and whoever the "historians" are.

Why did you want me to not forget to include the Churches of Christ? "Barton Stone" and "Alexander Campbell" mean nothing to me. I don't ever remember reading about them in the Bible nor do I follow their teachings. Why would you assume that I am Church of Chirst?

I don't agree with your statements that many "claim to be that type of Christians". No way. I've studied with Mormons...even at Brigham Young University. Last time I noticed, they had an additional book...anyway, I suspect that we'll continue chasing around in a circle with this discussion....

Try in the 3rd century, with the Apostles' Creed: "I believe in one, holy, CATHOLIC, and apostolic Church."

Because you seek the following:

Become a member of the church you can read about in your own Bible. God's Word must authorize all that is done in Christian worship. Try to do Bible things in Bible ways. Find a group of Christians that have communion every week, just as they did in New Testament times. Go where the whole congregation sings acapella style, just as they did in New Testament times.

This is classic Church of Christ theology.

And Mormons claim to worship Biblically, just as Jesus himself intended. Ask any of them in this forum. Ask any Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican if they believe themselves to be Biblical Christians, with a direct line to the Apostles. Most Disciples of Christ will claim that their worship is Biblical, too.

I apologize if I assumed incorrectly -- but you do come off as quintessential Church of Christ.

[Green Kepi]

Interesting. All I claim to be is Christian. I am not a "Church of Christer"...but, if I was...what's so wrong with their "theology"? You seem to be ready to defend all others to include "historians"; but, not them. All I'm asking is, what is so wrong with "trying" to get as close to the way Jesus and the Apostle taught and worshipped? The way I view the Bible is that I could be a Church of God'er, a Bride of Christ'er, (I take my second sentence back...), I could even be called a "Church of Christ'er. Any way you look at it...what's so horrible with just wearing the name Christian? Even Martin Luther asked that no one would name a group after him...and what happened? We now have the Lutherians. Why Baptist? John the Baptizer was not Baptist.

Oh well, I might as well give up on this thread and go on to something else....thanks anyway. No hard feelings and God bless each and all...(until I get fired up about something else :0)....

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by Green Kepi

Interesting. All I claim to be is Christian. I am not a "Church of Christer"...but, if I was...what's so wrong with their "theology"? You seem to be ready to defend all others to include "historians"; but, not them. All I'm asking is, what is so wrong with "trying" to get as close to the way Jesus and the Apostle taught and worshipped? The way I view the Bible is that I could be a Church of God'er, a Bride of Christ'er, (I take my second sentence back...), I could even be called a "Church of Christ'er. Any way you look at it...what's so horrible with just wearing the name Christian? Even Martin Luther asked that no one would name a group after him...and what happened? We now have the Lutherians. Why Baptist? John the Baptizer was not Baptist.

Oh well, I might as well give up on this thread and go on to something else....thanks anyway. No hard feelings and God bless each and all...(until I get fired up about something else :0)....

Interesting. My denomination says that "we are not the only Christians, but Christians only." (Churches of Christ are "kissin' cousins to us). You really do come off as classic Church of Christ. And there's nothing wrong with that, at all!!! Don't get me wrong. But you need to realize that no tradition really practices things as they were in the beginning. No tradition is "correct" in that way. The Church, being organic in nature, must grow and change, just as we grow and change. None of us would wish to revert to the days when we were two years old!

We can revise our belief and worship and try to come close, but, respectfully, I don't think Biblical worship, as I believe you envision it, is possible. There just isn't enough information in the Bible to "flesh out" our worship. Isn't it enough to worship "in spirit and in truth?" Doesn't God really desire our heartfelt worship, and not "correct" worship?

In truth, I'm glad you want to be simply a Christian. My prayer is that, someday, we can all refer to ourselves simply as "Christian." You go!

[Green Kepi]

Okay...I'll accept that. Take care....