Christian Denomination Selector

[sanantone]

Thank you for the offer. I haven't done much research on the Mennonites yet, but I did just finish researching the Baptists. There are two major issues I have with Baptists.

1.Closed communions. Only members of the church are offered communion.
2. "Once saved, always saved." They don't believe people can fall from grace.

The Methodists don't hold these stances, but I think I wasn't matched with them because I'm strongly opposed to a hierarchical system. Methodists have the Episcopal system of centralization while Baptists have an independent, congregationalist system.

[topdog98]

Thank you for the offer. I haven't done much research on the Mennonites yet, but I did just finish researching the Baptists. There are two major issues I have with Baptists.

1.Closed communions. Only members of the church are offered communion.
2. "Once saved, always saved." They don't believe people can fall from grace.

The Methodists don't hold these stances, but I think I wasn't matched with them because I'm strongly opposed to a hierarchical system. Methodists have the Episcopal system of centralization while Baptists have an independent, congregationalist system.

The Churches of Christ do not believe in closed communions and do not believe in "once saved always saved." They also have independent congregations and don't even have a convention such as some of the Baptists do. Each individual church is autonomous.

[sanantone]

The Churches of Christ do not believe in closed communions and do not believe in "once saved always saved." They also have independent congregations and don't even have a convention such as some of the Baptists do. Each individual church is autonomous.

That's nice to know; and from my understanding, the Churches of Christ are really non-denominational.

[topdog98]

That's nice to know; and from my understanding, the Churches of Christ are really non-denominational.

That is correct.

[EI2HCB]

Interesting comments about Baptist beliefs, The discussion of once saved always saved was addressed in the Canons of Dordt as being a sound doctrine. These once saved always saved views were held by Jonathan Edwards and other major theologians for hundreds of years of protestant church history Those who disagreed or formed variants do include the Church of the Nazarene and other followers of Charles Wesley (along with Anabaptist sects which would include followers of Menno) who believed that holiness is attainable here on earth and that if you were born again you could loose your salvation.
The restricted communion varies from church to church, however the main fear is that non believers of Jesus Christ would take communion and so bring destruction on themselves. Therefore a level of orthodoxy is required in order to participate in order to preserve someone from sinning in this way. This is established through church membership which I don't actually agree with either but I thought I'd share some of the reasoning behind it. I just downloaded a book called "Christless Christianity the captivity of the American Church by Michael S Horton today which is worth reading and would address some of your T.V preachers you mentioned earlier it's available for under $4.00 on Amazon right now on a special which is why I downloaded it.

[UptonSinclair]

Even non-denominational becomes a denomination in many cases. The Mennonites would also believe one can forsake Christ. We would have called it backsliding in the Pentecostal faith. My time with the Mennonites was amazing. I have rarely found more dedicated people. I appreciated their simple approach to the Bible. There is far too much theological gymnastics people go through when the simple teachings of Jesus don't align with their human nature. The sermon on the mount should be the foundation of Christianity, but it is easier to twist Paul,s teachings or fall back on the Old Testament when Jesus, teachings require dying to self.

[ejcompere]

Lol... funny to take a quiz on this!
1) I "predicted" I was a Reformed Baptist on the first one... I was!!! It works pretty well (imo) if you know your theology.
2) I matched 100 on Anglican, Baptist, and Methodist... very strange. that should really not happen. Those groups have a lot of big differences. Even in some of the questions asked.
3) Hmm... Anabaptist/Pietist... not quite :p I didnt like Q9. I'm between Traditional and Contemporary. I have big disagreements with both the statements, but I ended up choosing Contemporary. Whatever.... it was funny

[ShotoJuku]

I took the quiz.....Roman Catholic Church (100%) - dogma and all!!!! eeya:

[IrishJohn]

I'm sort of a Lutheran Catholic in real life (long story), mostly favoring the latter but still fond of the former. Not too surprising but my results came up for the Top 5 as follows:

Episcopal/Anglican Church (100%)
Evangelical Lutheran Church (100%)
Eastern Orthodox Church (88%)
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (88%)
Roman Catholic Church (88%)

[Maniac Craniac]

You're doing it backwards if you're looking for a church that conforms to your beliefs. The Bible is incredibly explicitly clear what to look for in THE true religion and the onus is on the individual to conform to it.

I feel a life story coming on- run!!!! I grew up in a non-religious household and was one of those skeptic types. When I was very young, the adults in my life failed to convince me that there existed a Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy, etc. At times I *kinda* believed in God but was more agnostic than anything until I started studying the Bible out of curiosity. What I found was an invitation to be skeptical and draw a rational conclusion based upon the facts (1 John 4:1; Hebrews 11:1; 1 Thes 5:1; Prov 14:15), not some hokey "what's in your heart" or "leap of faith" nonsense that you get from most religious types.

From that invitation, the Bible does something amazing- it presents internal evidence from which to draw that conclusion. How about a book thousands of years old that is rife with acurate scientific observations, presents detailed histories that were written BEFORE the events occured and is harmonious in its depiction of God and his purpose- despite how unpopular its teachings often were and how fickle the religious and social climate were throughout the centuries.

When I gather all the facts (observations of the physical world around me, observations of life and the existence of the Bible), the vast majority I've left off for the purpose of brevity, I conclude that to deny is to be in denial. Or solipsism, which is the level of logical regression necessary to discount the conclusion I've drawn