Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

What? No authority needed to pass the sacrament?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

It is surely relevant because the purpose of the OP was to show that there 3 Nephi 18 is scriptural evidence that those who pass the sacrament must be ordained to do it. There is nothing to suggest that unauthorized members can pass the sacrament. Passing is a part of administering as the instructions in the Handbook explicitly confirm. It equates give with pass. We will have to agree to disagree.

 

 

Yes, I think it’s time to agree to disagree. I see nothing in the verses in question that plainly says that we have to use an ordained intermediary between the priest and the congregation.  😊

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

And what do you really believe. What exactly is GOD? Who is Jesus? What must one do to be saved? Tell me this using only your BOOK of MORMON.

No.

I’ve had enough conversations with you to know that these questions aren’t sincere. You are only asking so you can argue that I’m wrong. 

Thats not a good use of my time. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

You're describing the book, one of the scriptures that we read.  The church is called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints because it's His church,  He started it He is at the head of it. He will be disappointed that you don't recognize the work that he has done for you.

I'm sorry, but My Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the CHURCH (the body of ALL believers). I recognize HIS work that HE accomplished on the cross and then arose from the dead. I do not accept the organization that Mr. Joseph Smith established as Christ's church.

Edited by LittleNipper
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No.

I’ve had enough conversations with you to know that these questions aren’t sincere. You are only asking so you can argue that I’m wrong. 

That's not a good use of my time. 

What you want is someone who will not rattle your ivory tower. As I Christian I don't give up quite so easy. I believe your soul hangs in the balance and the Christ you accept is not the one the Bible portrays.

Isaiah 53:2 
New International Version
He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
Edited by LittleNipper
Link to comment
54 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

What you want is someone who will not rattle your ivory tower. As I Christian I don't give up quite so easy. I believe your soul hangs in the balance and the Christ you accept is not the one the Bible portrays.

Isaiah 53:2 
New International Version
He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

You make me laugh. I have chewed up and spit out more knowledgeable Baptists than you will ever. That is not a brag, just a fact. You never completely answer questions before you jump to another subject. You make it clear you are not interested in discussing anything; you want to tell us what you think is right, but cannot explain, cannot back up or support.  

Rattle, friend, you have no clue what it means to rattle someone. I am amazed at the patience others have dealt with you and your diatribes. I already know you will kick back in your chair and think you really showed those Mormons. Please, do so. You and I both know that we have a single judge; let him judge between us. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I'm sorry, but My Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the CHURCH (the body of ALL believers). I recognize HIS work that HE accomplished on the cross and then arose from the dead. I do not accept the organization that Mr. Joseph Smith established as Christ's church.

    Yes Christ Jesus The Vice Monarch, Lord Of Life, Lord, Redeemer, Savior, God, King, Master is the head of The Church Restored here on the earth and all other honest and sincere individuals who are following him as there Disciple in there walk and talk [that goes for on line message board postings as well] from whatever non LDS christian faith/church they attend. And I do accept Joseph Smith Jr. as the child and tool that God chose to restor the Church to the earth again. Have A true grace empowered evening.

The Atonement It is the Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood

In His Eternal debt/Grace Anakin7

LDS, saint, Christian, Sentinel, Son Of Thunder, Kryptonian, Warrior

Link to comment

    LittleNipper - from a Southern Baptist Minister regarding protestant doctrines within The Book Of Mormon- http://www.centerplace.org/library/bofm/baptistversionofbofm.htm 

The Atonement It is The Central doctrine

Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS, Saint, Christian, Sentinel, Son of Thunder, Kryptonian, Warrior

Edited by Anakin7
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

You make me laugh. I have chewed up and spit out more knowledgeable Baptists than you will ever. That is not a brag, just a fact. You never completely answer questions before you jump to another subject. You make it clear you are not interested in discussing anything; you want to tell us what you think is right, but cannot explain, cannot back up or support.  

Rattle, friend, you have no clue what it means to rattle someone. I am amazed at the patience others have dealt with you and your diatribes. I already know you will kick back in your chair and think you really showed those Mormons. Please, do so. You and I both know that we have a single judge; let him judge between us. 

You have chewed up and spit out Baptists? I find that a disturbing comment. I hope you have no authority over missionaries and no desire to win folks to your Church. Such an arrogant comment is so troubling to sincere seekers.

Link to comment
17 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I'm sorry, but My Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the CHURCH (the body of ALL believers). I recognize HIS work that HE accomplished on the cross and then arose from the dead. I do not accept the organization that Mr. Joseph Smith established as Christ's church.

What is it that those whom you recognize as belonging to "the CHURCH (the body of all believers)" believe that makes you reject members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as being part of?

In others words, why do you not consider members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as part of the body of all believers?

Edited by ksfisher
Link to comment
19 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I'm sorry, but My Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the CHURCH (the body of ALL believers). I recognize HIS work that HE accomplished on the cross and then arose from the dead. I do not accept the organization that Mr. Joseph Smith established as Christ's church.

Good morning - I think you are confusing "the organization" with being a Christian. As you know, Christ did not die for organizations. He died for individuals. As a strong faithful evangelical Christian I affirm that I have many Latter-day Saint friends who are indeed Christians based on their individual personal testimony of the atonement - Christ's entry into the world, his death, burial, and resurrection, and the efficacy and sufficiency of it all for salvation. I share with my Latter-day Saint friends a strong belief in an eternity with Christ. I don't quite agree with them on how that is going to come about, but that is ok with me. I also don't agree with amillenial Christians, but I don't ban them from the tree. I never was taught in any evangelical church, university, seminary, or graduate school that eschatology governs salvation. I agree with you that Christ is the head of the body of all believers - one by one; not denomination by denomination. I also am satisfied that a correct understanding of their soteriology is that it has nothing to do with works. Their exaltation is another thing, but again that is connected more to sanctification and eschatology. No need to ban them from Christianity for differences in those views. We all believe in revelation. Nothing there to ban them for. Their view of the Godhead has historical roots in a number of the early churches. They dislike anything creedal, but then so do I. I certainly don't agree with certain aspects of the Nicene Creed and no one has ever accused me of not being a Christian. So I guess you and I will simply have to disagree on some things. I have met five really Godly people in my life who inspired me: one Presbyterian, two members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, one Anglican and one Mennonite. They all were Godly and filled with the Holy Spirit in a special way. Oh, and they were all Christians! Maybe you could articulate for my sake, what beliefs you have been taught and believe are essential to be a Christian? Oh, and I think this is pretty far off-topic of the original post.

Edited by Navidad
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

You have chewed up and spit out Baptists? I find that a disturbing comment. I hope you have no authority over missionaries and no desire to win folks to your Church. Such an arrogant comment is so troubling to sincere seekers.

I think if you had followed that entire line of interchange between LittleNipper and me...and everyone else you may see that I was pretty done with his shenanigans. Baptists, specifically Southern Baptists, have a long history of abusing members of the Church in the south where I grew up. I still feel the sting of not being able to get several jobs, being shut out of Christian church leagues, the annual parade of instruction about the "beliefs of Mormons", etc., etc., etc. 

There was a time when I and others would engage in scripture bashing with these type of "Christians". Little Nipper appears to me to be of this same ilk - one where there is a rote learning of scripture but having no understanding of them. Their arrogance and pride often motivated them to "teach" a Mormon the true Jesus from scripture. To their dismay and anger, they did not succeed very often. I am sorry for engaging in such behavior because it served little purpose except to embarrass another human and satiate my own pride. 

I still have a rather strong distaste for such baptist and Evangelical behavior such as LittleNipper exhibits. Never in my over sixty years, I have ever set out to "teach" the Christians how wrong they were. Any missionary efforts I have ever engaged in were based on a belief that we had a message that may be of interest to them. If the Spirit moved them then it was between the Spirit and the individual. I and other missionaries with whom I served were simply instruments. 

Lastly, just to inform, I have no responsibilities over any missionaries. LittleNipper is not here to seek but to constantly attack and belittle. I am pretty done with that behavior. 

 

Link to comment

I think this is a fascinating "conversation." I personally would prefer a greater emphasis not on form or mode or mechanics, but on worthiness. The Scriptures have some pretty harsh words for those who eat and drink unworthily. I would much prefer a conversation on how one is worthy in God's eyes. Authority does not indicate worthiness - I hope we can agree on that. You all, however have made me think. My wife and I, as non-members take the sacrament every week. Either she or I pass the elements to whoever is sitting next to us. Then we both hold hands, bow our heads and pray, remembering the covenants we made when we were baptized by immersion as older children. I believe the sacrament (communion) is first and foremost a Christian ordinance. Then it is often governed by certain sub-group (branch) norms. Certainly Christian groups vary in those norms, often based on differences in group hermeneutics. What I read on these nine pages is you all as Saints discussing your own norms for the sacrament and how you interpret various scriptures relating to it. Certainly any Christian group could have and do have similar discussions. I remember as a boy having closed communion. it would never offend me if the Latter-day Saint norms required that my wife and I refrain from partaking. From my own background I think that would be sad, but I fully recognize each group's right to establish its own norms.

I well remember an incidence about five years ago or so. I was attending an Antiochan Orthodox church with some friends. The elderly priest stood at the front as the faithful lined up to be served the wafer. I was sitting near the back. All of a sudden I heard arguing, yelling, and what appeared to be pushing and shoving in the line. All of a sudden a man and woman came running down the aisle and stormed out of the church. My friends whispered to me that the man was having an affair and the priest refused him communion. The man was angry and the wife was terribly embarrassed. I had never seen anything like that before. The congregation seemed to support the priest and although I don't understand Arabic, I am sure that is what the conversations were about at the post-service fellowship hour! The priest came up to me and apologized to me, as a guest for having to hear all that. He smiled and winked at me, telling me it was a "family squabble!"

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I think if you had followed that entire line of interchange between LittleNipper and me...and everyone else you may see that I was pretty done with his shenanigans. Baptists, specifically Southern Baptists, have a long history of abusing members of the Church in the south where I grew up. I still feel the sting of not being able to get several jobs, being shut out of Christian church leagues, the annual parade of instruction about the "beliefs of Mormons", etc., etc., etc. 

There was a time when I and others would engage in scripture bashing with these type of "Christians". Little Nipper appears to me to be of this same ilk - one where there is a rote learning of scripture but having no understanding of them. Their arrogance and pride often motivated them to "teach" a Mormon the true Jesus from scripture. To their dismay and anger, they did not succeed very often. I am sorry for engaging in such behavior because it served little purpose except to embarrass another human and satiate my own pride. 

I still have a rather strong distaste for such baptist and Evangelical behavior such as LittleNipper exhibits. Never in my over sixty years, I have ever set out to "teach" the Christians how wrong they were. Any missionary efforts I have ever engaged in were based on a belief that we had a message that may be of interest to them. If the Spirit moved them then it was between the Spirit and the individual. I and other missionaries with whom I served were simply instruments. 

Lastly, just to inform, I have no responsibilities over any missionaries. LittleNipper is not here to seek but to constantly attack and belittle. I am pretty done with that behavior. 

 

Hi Storm Rider: I understand your frustration. I did read every post on all nine pages, and I would have quit long before you did. In full disclosure I should tell you that I am a Mennonite who was trained as a Southern Baptist in the south. I went to college in Arkansas and seminary and graduate school in religion in Texas. I was also ordained a Southern Baptist minister and licensed as such by the Mennonites. Having said all that, I have nothing to say about what you have experienced except "I am sorry." I cannot speak for the millions of Baptists, but I know that some of them can be quite harsh, mean and mocking in advocating for their beliefs. Mennonites tend to be kinder in my experience and are more by in large evangelical - yet not Protestant.

I would simply suggest that there are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who can be equally as harsh, mean, and mocking. As you have, I have felt that sting. The meanness and the mocking are indeed a taste I would prefer to spit out as well. I would only ask you to consider that many of the Southern Baptists in the south are not evangelicals but are fundamentalists. They represent a branch of Baptist tradition, but not the whole. I ministered in Southern Baptist churches from Arkansas to Texas to Virginia and even to Southern California. We never taught the bashing of anyone. Yes, we handed out tracks, and witnessed, but as you say we were instruments. I guess my response to you was because you were chewing up and spitting out the people, not the meanness and mockery. Many of us have worked very hard to facilitate inter-faith dialogue. That can sometimes be a lonely walk because sometimes the faiths themselves don't value dialogue over being the one who is right. As I have said before on this forum, I think that sometimes makes God cry. Blessings, Phil

Link to comment
Quote

I would only ask you to consider that many of the Southern Baptists in the south are not evangelicals but are fundamentalists

I mentioned before that Saints likely call fundamentalists "evangelicals" because in our experience that is how they label themselves.  I couldn't pull up past examples because the board's search by author function is very limited these days (search only works for the past year).

Little Nipper is apparently an example of this (hopefully he will correct me if he doesn't see himself as a fundamentalist Evangelical as I have assumed based on posts like these below) and is currently posting so the search function can help pinpoint relevant posts, so I thought I back up my previous comment at least with one example when I saw you mention this again.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71073-so-why-get-baptized-for-dead-people/?do=findComment&comment=1209866657

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70437-how-many-times-can-you-be-sealed-in-temple/?do=findComment&comment=1209813117

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69834-jospeh-the-con-man/?do=findComment&comment=1209772539

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Calm said:

I mentioned before that Saints likely call fundamentalists "evangelicals" because in our experience that is how they label themselves.  I couldn't pull up past examples because the board's search by author function is very limited these days (search only works for the past year).

Little Nipper is apparently an example of this (hopefully he will correct me if he doesn't see himself as a fundamentalist Evangelical as I have assumed based on posts like these below) and is currently posting so the search function can help pinpoint relevant posts, so I thought I back up my previous comment at least with one example when I saw you mention this again.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71073-so-why-get-baptized-for-dead-people/?do=findComment&comment=1209866657

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70437-how-many-times-can-you-be-sealed-in-temple/?do=findComment&comment=1209813117

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69834-jospeh-the-con-man/?do=findComment&comment=1209772539

 

Hi Calm: I remember those conversations. I guess I would still insist that they are not the same; in fact the evangelical movement came about as a reaction against the fundamentalists in the 1940's just as fundamentalism was a reaction to the mainstream Protestants in the 1920's. Virtually no one would term a fundamentalist as a mainstream group, even though their numbers have been growing. Neither is it "correct" to deem them as evangelicals. It seems to me Latter-day Saints believe strongly that someone is right and someone is wrong. Or someone's belief is correct and someone's is wrong. I would simply maintain that in this case the belief that a fundamentalist is an evangelical is "wrong." Fundamentalists may not like Latter-day Saints very much; but they also don't like evangelicals very much either! So it is a bit hard to see my LDS-Christian friends insist that they are one-in-the-same. I hope I don't offend if I say that belief is intellectual laziness? Have you ever seen how Billy Graham was roasted by fundamentalists?

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi Calm: I remember those conversations. I guess I would still insist that they are not the same; in fact the evangelical movement came about as a reaction against the fundamentalists in the 1940's just as fundamentalism was a reaction to the mainstream Protestants in the 1920's. Virtually no one would term a fundamentalist as a mainstream group, even though their numbers have been growing. Neither is it "correct" to deem them as evangelicals. It seems to me Latter-day Saints believe strongly that someone is right and someone is wrong. Or someone's belief is correct and someone's is wrong. I would simply maintain that in this case the belief that a fundamentalist is an evangelical is "wrong." Fundamentalists may not like Latter-day Saints very much; but they also don't like evangelicals very much either! So it is a bit hard to see my LDS-Christian friends insist that they are one-in-the-same. I hope I don't offend if I say that belief is intellectual laziness? Have you ever seen how Billy Graham was roasted by fundamentalists?

I would not say it is intellectual laziness to believe a person who tells you he is a "Fundamentalist Evangelical".   What is the appropriate response to LittleNipper in this case?  Should we call him a liar, intellectually laze, or simply confused (I vote for this one based on his interactions here), or all of the above? 

As Calm noted, LittleNipper identifies as a Fundamentalis Evangelical, so you can understand our confusion.

From LittleNipper:

Quote

I attend a Bible Believing Fundamentalist Evangelical Bible Church that was started in the later 19th century through the Sunday School Bible Union (of which John Wanamaker was involved) in an effort to teach reading to children and adults through Bible study. It's located in the "South" Jersey area, not far from Philly

Quote

 ...Just in a short way explaining where Fundamentalists/Evangelical are coming from. 

Quote

I do know what  Bible Believing, Born-again, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Christians accept.


 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi Calm: I remember those conversations. I guess I would still insist that they are not the same; in fact the evangelical movement came about as a reaction against the fundamentalists in the 1940's just as fundamentalism was a reaction to the mainstream Protestants in the 1920's. Virtually no one would term a fundamentalist as a mainstream group, even though their numbers have been growing. Neither is it "correct" to deem them as evangelicals. It seems to me Latter-day Saints believe strongly that someone is right and someone is wrong. Or someone's belief is correct and someone's is wrong. I would simply maintain that in this case the belief that a fundamentalist is an evangelical is "wrong." Fundamentalists may not like Latter-day Saints very much; but they also don't like evangelicals very much either! So it is a bit hard to see my LDS-Christian friends insist that they are one-in-the-same. I hope I don't offend if I say that belief is intellectual laziness? Have you ever seen how Billy Graham was roasted by fundamentalists?

Maybe Nipper would be willing to share his POV on this.

I don't think it is inherently intellectual laziness to be willing to call someone by the label they call themselves.  I believe many of us understand what it is like to be refused such a label (Christian) and one of our responses is to not do that to others.  (And some of us extend that to the label "Mormon"; I personally will not challenge anyone who sees themselves as such, though if from another restoration branch I may encourage them to add that clarification to avoid confusion just as I choose when it is likely confusing to clarify I am a Christian who is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

I am not saying every Saint that calls fundamentalists Evangelical has thought about the distinction you have discussed and decided to still accept the label of Evangelical for those fundamentalists who claim it as a choice of civility, I am just saying there are enough of it happening that laziness shouldn't be assumed.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, pogi said:

I would not say it is intellectual laziness to believe a person who tells you he is a "Fundamentalist Evangelical".   What is the appropriate response to LittleNipper in this case?  Should we call him a liar, intellectually laze, or simply confused (I vote for this one based on his interactions here), or all of the above? 

As Calm noted, LittleNipper identifies as a Fundamentalis Evangelical, so you can understand our confusion.

From LittleNipper:


 

 

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

I would not say it is intellectual laziness to believe a person who tells you he is a "Fundamentalist Evangelical".   What is the appropriate response to LittleNipper in this case?  Should we call him a liar, intellectually laze, or simply confused (I vote for this one based on his interactions here), or all of the above? 

As Calm noted, LittleNipper identifies as a Fundamentalis Evangelical, so you can understand our confusion.

From LittleNipper:


 

 

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

I would not say it is intellectual laziness to believe a person who tells you he is a "Fundamentalist Evangelical".   What is the appropriate response to LittleNipper in this case?  Should we call him a liar, intellectually laze, or simply confused (I vote for this one based on his interactions here), or all of the above? 

As Calm noted, LittleNipper identifies as a Fundamentalis Evangelical, so you can understand our confusion.

From LittleNipper:


 

Hi: I tried to respond to his message where he indicated where he goes to church. For some reason I couldn't reply or quote what he said. I would like to ask him a few questions and get some clarification from him before I say more. Not sure why I can' t respond to his original post?

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Maybe Nipper would be willing to share his POV on this.

I don't think it is inherently intellectual laziness to be willing to call someone by the label they call themselves.  I believe many of us understand what it is like to be refused such a label (Christian) and one of our responses is to not do that to others.  (And some of us extend that to the label "Mormon"; I personally will not challenge anyone who sees themselves as such, though if from another restoration branch I may encourage them to add that clarification to avoid confusion just as I choose when it is likely confusing to clarify I am a Christian who is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

I am not saying every Saint that calls fundamentalists Evangelical has thought about the distinction you have discussed and decided to still accept the label of Evangelical for those fundamentalists who claim it as a choice of civility, I am just saying there are enough of it happening that laziness shouldn't be assumed.

Ok. I will try and communicate with Nipper and find out more about him. What he said about his church is indeed confusing on several counts. I can't access his original post to reply to it. I understand what you are saying. It just doesn't help much not to become conversant in a difference that is so important. I would think the Church would even want its missionaries trained in the differences between Protestants. Certainly knowing the mindset of the person you are talking to would be very helpful.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Navidad said:

 

 

Hi: I tried to respond to his message where he indicated where he goes to church. For some reason I couldn't reply or quote what he said. I would like to ask him a few questions and get some clarification from him before I say more. Not sure why I can' t respond to his original post?

The thread was probably locked.

Perhaps start a new thread?  Personal ones are generally not allowed, but might be in a case of asking for clarification. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Ok. I will try and communicate with Nipper and find out more about him. What he said about his church is indeed confusing on several counts. I can't access his original post to reply to it. I understand what you are saying. It just doesn't help much not to become conversant in a difference that is so important. I would think the Church would even want its missionaries trained in the differences between Protestants. Certainly knowing the mindset of the person you are talking to would be very helpful.

As far as I know, there is little training in the religious beliefs of others for missionaries.  Since missionary work is primarily about presenting the gospel (simplified form usually, as understood by our faith...iirc, you have access to Preach My Gospel so you know what investigators are usually taught at least at the beginning) and then allowing the person to seek the Spirit for understanding, comprehending nuances of people's beliefs prior to engaging with them probably isn't seen as necessary.  Plus a lot of people vary on their interpretation of their faith's doctrine, so it may be more efficient just to allow them to explain if it matters to them.

And being educated in a set of beliefs prior to meeting someone and then assuming they believe those beliefs in a certain way may actually confuse the picture if there are nuances or major differences to the individual's actual belief, while the missionary is assuming he knows enough.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
20 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

And what do you really believe. What exactly is GOD? Who is Jesus? What must one do to be saved? Tell me this using only your BOOK of MORMON.

Hi LittleNipper: In a previous thread you indicted: "I attend a Bible Believing Fundamentalist Evangelical Bible Church that was started in the later 19th century through the Sunday School Bible Union (of which John Wanamaker was involved) in an effort to teach reading to children and adults through Bible study. It's located in the "South" Jersey area, not far from Philly."

You description of your church confuses me a bit and I am trying to understand it. I have never heard of the Sunday School Bible Union. I am very familiar with the American Sunday School Union which was located for years in Philly and in which Wanamaker was active. In fact, my dad worked in a senior capacity at ASSU in Philly when I was much younger. They were closing it down and trying to save all the archives. Did you mean the ASSU in your reply? I find the use of the term "fundamentalist evangelical" confusing as well. I understand conservative evangelical" or just plain Bible Believing Fundamentalist. I also understand a Bible Church to be an independent-type church maybe belonging to the IFCA? There many of those in the greater Philly/South Jersey area. That is where I grew up. I have preached in many churches all over New Jersey from back when I was the dean of Northeastern Bible College in northern New Jersey. I also pastored in New Jersey and my dad pastored in Asbury Park when I was little. Your church certainly might be Fundamentalist and Evangelistic - that is a great combination. It is hard for me to picture a church that self-identifies as Fundamentalist and Evangelical. As you know, fundamentalists and evangelicals often don't get along too well! Almost all Bible churches with which I am familiar (I grew up in one) is independent or affiliated with a group like IFCA and not a denomination per-se. Is that the situation of your church? I ask you these questions, because I think the folks here on this forum are trying to understand you. That is a good thing. Better understanding can only lead to better communication. I think your description of your church is confusing. I think the more you share about yourself and your own spiritual journey will help. I do my best to promote inter-faith dialogue. I don't always succeed, but I try! Best, Phil

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...