Denomination/labels

Status
Not open for further replies.

Drdad

Puritan Board Freshman
When reading the non-denominational section got me to think about my situation a little more in detail. We are in a unique position in that we are a Baptist Church in the Northeast. Honestly, I know of very few Baptist churches who are conservative in my area. In fact, some are downright heretical (and I don't know of one in my area who holds to the doctrines of Grace).

The stigma in my area is a stigma. My church has talked about changing our name to try to get away from the liberal stigma, but we have not done so and probably will not for the forseeable future. A former staff member had trouble with a Christian institution because they thought we probably were liberal. The church supplied a doctrinal statement and other statements. Even the large Baptist Churches in this area have all kinds of liberal functions.

So, we are probably in the opposite part of this debate as some of you. Would you change your name? Why or why not? What would you change it to if you would change it to(and Pres. are real bad up here too, so no jokes like that)?

Just curious. I don't think we will change anytime soon, but it is worth considering for us.

Derick
 
Drdad

I would have to think about this some more, I think, but I'll just throw this out. Ordinarily, I am against dropping denominational names. In every instance I've known of that the name has been or has been considered to be dropped has been for the purpose of church growth and other pop-evangelical concerns. These are not reasons to throw away a name, and doing so for these reasons reflects Arminian thinking. Your name is who you are. People look at your church name and they know, fundamentally, what you believe. But this may be the very reason in your situation that your church should consider dropping the name. If the people in your area see the name "baptist" and immediately think "that church is liberal", that may be a legitimate reason. I would not want my church to be viewed as holding to doctrines (or lack thereof) that do not reflect true Biblical Christianity. But then again, there are probably ways you can build a positive reputation for your church and distinquish it from the typical baptist churches in your area.

Just some thoughts.

I'm tempted to make a Presbyterian joke, but I will relinquish:P

Blessings,

LOTW

[Edited on 4-3-2003 by luvroftheWord]
 
I don't think there would be anything wrong with changing your name in order to distance yourselves from the liberals in your area. However, I think the real issue is how you all are working to impact your area for Christ. What do people see about you? That you love God, one another and them? That you truly believe that you have been called to live a holy life by God, and that they are called to turn from their selfish ways and to trust Christ alone for salvation?

To put myself into your shoes, as best as I think I could, I imagine myself being the pastor of a church plant. Personally, I wouldn't use the name "Baptist." But, that's just me.
 
When we planted our church we prayed for several weeks about what we would call ourselves and what identity that would create for us in the area in which we live.

We decided that the name Baptist was not necessary because it would identify us with the other Baptist churches in the area, all but 2 of which are liberal, deny the innerancy of Scripture, ordain women, and one even ordaines homosexuals.

Hence the name -
Maranatha - even so come, Lord Jesus
Community - a family of faith
Church - called out ones

We are those called out by God as a family of faith that is eagerly awaiting the return of our Lord.

Our motto, if you will, is "To know Christ and make Him known" taken from John 17:3.

We are a Reformed Baptist Church and do identify ourselves as such - but not immediately by name!

I understand your dilemma DrDad.

Remember that whenever God got a hold of a person to use him or her in the Scriptures, He often changed their name to match their calling!

Phillip

[Edited on 4-4-03 by pastorway]
 
hey Pastor Phil,

Nice to see your face by your post. <grin>

I think your question Derick is a good one I'll ask Grant, about it.

Pastor Phil, Maranatha, means to
Come in judgment as well?

I guess we ought to be praying that the Lord would judge His church.

Off the top of my head, the churches in the NT were called by the name of their city, for there was not to be many Denoms....but one true Church meeting in many places.

Lord willing I'll be back to post on the morrow,

good nite,

blessings,

~Cathie~
 
Maranatha vs Anathema

hi Cathie - glad to see you!!

And no...maranatha is a combination of two Aramaic words.

Marana - tha

It means Our Lord, Come.

It was a one word prayer offered at the end of communion in the early church. A prayer for the soon return of Christ.

The word anathema is Greek and means judgment or more specifically damnation. Paul uses the two words back to back to make a play on words in 1 Cor 16:22. There Paul writes, "If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema. Maranatha!"

If you do not love Jesus you will be judged. Our Lord, Come!

We did have an old Sovereign Grace Baptist preacher who asked us why we named our church "Damned Community Church"!!:o

When I showed him the verse he caught his error and actually blushed! We had a good laugh!

More Later,
Phillip



[Edited on 4-5-03 by pastorway]
 
Pastorway,

Can the word "Maranatha" be divided as "Marana Tha" instead of "Maran Atha?" Seems like I saw a study Bible once that suggested that word might mean something slightly different depending on how it's divided. But, I can't really remember what they said.

Sorry that doesn't have much of anything to do with the original topic of the thread, but I just thought of it, and figured I'd ask.
 
Pastor Phil,

Thanks for the greeting.

so to the meaning of the passage in
1Cor16:22, you would disagree with Calvin's comments? I've understood that the term *Marantha* was commonly used prior to Paul's day...as part of a statement of judgment or excommunication....

paste:>>>>

22. If any man love not the Lord Jesus. The close of the Epistle consists of three parts. He entreats the grace of Christ in behalf of the Corinthians: he makes a declaration of his love towards them, and, with the severest threatening, he inveighs against those that falsely took upon themselves the Lordâ€(tm)s name, while not loving him from the heart. For he is not speaking of strangers, who avowedly hated the Christian name, but of pretenders and hypocrites, who troubled the Churches for the sake of their own belly, or from empty boasting. f965 On such persons he denounces an anathema, and he also pronounces a curse upon them. It is not certain, however, whether he desires their destruction in the presence of God, or whether he wishes to render them odious â€" nay, even execrable, in the view of believers. Thus in <480108>Galatians 1:8, when pronouncing one who corrupts the Gospel to.be accursed, f966 he does not mean that he was rejected or condemned by God, but he declares that he is to be abhorred by us. I expound it in a simple way as follows: “Let them perish and be cut off, as being the pests of the Church.†And truly, there is nothing that is more pernicious, than that class of persons, who prostitute a profession of piety to their own depraved affections. Now he points out the origin of this evil, when he says, that they do not love Christ, for a sincere and earnest love to Christ will not suffer us to give occasion of offense to brethren. f967

What he immediately adds â€" Maranatha, is somewhat more difficult. Almost all of the ancients are agreed, that they are Syriac terms. f968 Jerome, however, explains it: The Lord cometh; while others render it, At the coming of the Lord, or, Until the Lord comes. Every one, however, I think, must see how silly and puerile is the idea, that the Apostle spoke to Greeks in the Syriac tongue, when meaning to say â€" The Lord has come. Those who translate it, at the coming of the Lord, do so on mere conjecture; and besides, there is not much plausibility in that interpretation. How much more likely it is, that this was a customary form of expression among the Hebrews, when they wished to excommunicate any one. For the Apostles never speak in foreign tongues, except when they repeat anything in the person of another, as for example, Eli, Eli, lammah sabathani, (<402746>Matthew 27:46,) Talitha cumi, (<410541>Mark 5:41,) and Ephphata, (<410734>Mark 7:34,) or when they make use of a word that has come into common use, as Amen â€" Hosanna. Let us see, then, whether Maranatha suits with excommunication. Now Bullinger, f969 on the authority of Theodore Bibliander, has affirmed, that, in the Chaldee dialect, Maharamata has the same meaning as the Hebrew term µrj, cherem, (accursed,) f970 and I was myself at one time assured of the same thing by Wolfgang Capito, f971 a man of blessed memory. It is nothing unusual, however, for the Apostles to write such terms differently from the way in which they are pronounced in the language from which they are derived; as may be seen even from the instances brought forward above. Paul, then, after pronouncing an anathema on those who do not love Christ, f972 deeply affected with the seriousness of the matter, as if he reckoned that he had not said enough, added a term that was in common use among the Jews, and which they made use of in pronouncing a sentence of anathema â€" just as if, speaking in Latin, I should say, “I excommunicate thee,†but if I add â€" “and pronounce thee an anathema,†this would be an expression of more intense feeling. f973

~cis~
 
The word can be divided Maran-Atha or Marana-Tha...in 1 Cor 16:22 it is Marana- Tha. If we use it as Marana-Tha, it means "our Lord, Come!" and is an exclamation of expectation. If we take it as Maran - Atha it means "our Lord has come!" as an exclamation of fact.

The word as used conveys the idea that there is judgment coming for those who do not love the Lord and it will be finalized upon His return. But the word is also used for the believer to convey the hope and expectation of His return which for us is a glorious thing. His coming, for the lost means doom, for the believer means joy unspeakable. Just as earlier in this same letter (1 Corinthians 1:18) Paul tells us that the gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

The inevitable fact is that He is coming - and His return means different things to those expecting Him and those who do not know or love Him.

We must also take into account the extensive extra-Biblical manuscript evidence that points to this phrase being used as part of the liturgy of the Lord's Supper! ( see Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich [i:109d2dd360]Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature[/i:109d2dd360] ) These documents make it clear that the phrase was used as a one word exclamation or prayer of expectation uttered by believers in unison at the end of Communion observances. It was a cry - "Our Lord, Come!"

From this understanding we have taken this name for our church. Expecting, yearning for His return!

Look at 2 Timothy 4:8 and the promise to those who "have loved His appearing." (see also James 1:12; Gal 5:5; Rom 8:23-25; Titus 2:13).
 
Drdad wrote:

"So, we are probably in the opposite part of this debate as some of you. Would you change your name? Why or why not? What would you change it to if you would change it to(and Pres. are real bad up here too, so no jokes like that)? "

Yeah, we know what you mean about Presbyterian churches... most are really bad up here in Canada as well...

Originally my church up here was meeting at Edmonton, and was becoming more Presbyterian by reforming so the initial name was changed from Puritan to Puritan Reformed to eventually a Presbytery being formed and the name Reformed Presbytery in North America came about August 5, 2000.

http://freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/prce/books/prsbdeed/prsbdeed.htm
 
The church I attended in Indiana was able to distinguish itself with a simple phrase.

The name of the church is "Edgewood Baptist" and underneath it says "reformed in preaching and practice".

It's simple, but it definitely communicates who the church is.

Now I go to an Orthodox Presbyterian Church...I'm not sure I like the name, it doesn't really distinguish itself from the liberal Presbyterians around town, it's cally "Community Presbyterian". Not that the name has to be profound or anything, even if someone drives by thinking it's a liberal church, they couldn't walk out of a church service still thinking that.

I love the name of the church my brother and sister in law attend: "Christ the Word" 3 little words, but perfect! I'm a little prejudiced, however, John's Gospel is my favorite book of the Bible.

Craig

[Edited on 4-7-2003 by Craig]

[Edited on 4-7-2003 by Craig]
 
What's in a Name?

There are two problems caused by a name of church, depending on what it "identifies" you with.

We are Grace Presbyterian Church, a PCA church. There are some who would associate us with the mainline Presbyterian churches because of that and wonder if we ordain women, marry homosexuals, etc.

But that problem is not solved by instead being Grace Church or (in my opinion, worse yet) Grace Community Church. Why? Because then we would associated with every other non-denominational, dispensational, non doctrinal community church. This can be as much of a problem or worse.

[b:4462bf0ddb]By the way, Craig, does your brother's family worship in Toledo, Ohio?[/b:4462bf0ddb] I have never heard of a "Christ the Word Church" except for the PCA work there. The story behind the name is very interesting.
 
[quote:e1696007be]
By the way, Craig, does your brother's family worship in Toledo, Ohio?
[/quote:e1696007be]
That would be the one. I think they've formally been accepted into the PCA now because my brother and sister-in-law are members.


[quote:e1696007be]
The story behind the name is very interesting.
[/quote:e1696007be]

Would you mind relaying the story? I assume it has to do with that church's stand that one must place faith in Christ alone for salvation v.s. what Huntington College was allowing to be taught by Sanders.

Craig

[Edited on 4-8-2003 by Craig]
 
Christ the Word

[size=1:8725fb777f]
Craig,

I had the pleasure of being involved with David and Gary (both of whom are now close friends) and their Session (a [b:8725fb777f]great[/b:8725fb777f] bunch of guys!).

I was not able due to time constraints to form the actual corporation for the church, but did work a bit with Matt on the organization. The name originally was a bit of a "placeholder" in that the church needed a name immediately to form the corporation by a certain date.

But later, almost everyone involved thought how great and how appropriate the name was. I am frankly surprised that there are not more churches with that name. It is excellent!



[/size:8725fb777f]
 
Hey Fred,
you're not joking when you say they're a bunch of great guys. I know several people in that church and have worshipped there. What's most amazing to me is seeing a church that vital in the city of Toledo! For anyone who doesn't know it's not a bastion of Reformed orthodoxy!

Craig
 
You are absolutely correct about Toledo Craig. And yet I can't think of a better church in the area than Christ the Word. David Bayly is a dear friend, a man of strong convictions with a pastor's heart. His brother Tim (a PCA pastor of an independent church in Bloominton, IN) is also a fine man.

I was present for the particularization service for Christ the Word (when the church becomes an actual PCA congregation, and was blessed to give the charge to the elders. What a wonderful evening!
:D:D:D:D
 
I was at a service where Tim Bayly baptized David's children....I love his bow tie! (seriously....my brother has even taken to wearing bow ties)

If you were present for when Christ the Word became officially part of the PCA, you may know Steve Altman....he's great. He was my Sunday school teacher back when we were both attending Holland Free Methodist.
 
Sorry to say that I don't know Steve. He was probably present but I don't remember seeing him.
 
yes, names and labels are important. I know of a reformed charistmatic church that is associatied with reconstructionist named Tampa Covenant Church and another one named Grace Community Church. Of course, I know many on this board who object to someone calling themselves a reformed charismatic. But, how else would someone call themselves who holds to calvinism, covenantalism, and postmillenialism who is also a non-cessationalist. This really irkes me when my fellow brethren try to take this name away from me because they equate cessationalism with sola scriptura.
 
Originally posted by bigheavyq
yes, names and labels are important. I know of a reformed charistmatic church that is associatied with reconstructionist named Tampa Covenant Church and another one named Grace Community Church. Of course, I know many on this board who object to someone calling themselves a reformed charismatic. But, how else would someone call themselves who holds to calvinism, covenantalism, and postmillenialism who is also a non-cessationalist. This really irkes me when my fellow brethren try to take this name away from me because they equate cessationalism with sola scriptura.

No, every Reformed Confession does that.
 
Ours is Community Bible Church...I admit I steered clear at first just from rumours (that were WAAAYY off the mark) and Community didn't help. We were coming from another Bible church that was Dispensational and traveling out of town to a PCA. CBC ended up being VERY reformed. But they actually started out Dispensational and baptist. The church split (from what I've been told) when the elders stated that they had been studying the "free-will" situation and decided that it was a wrong position (should I say heresy?)
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by bigheavyq
yes, names and labels are important. I know of a reformed charistmatic church that is associatied with reconstructionist named Tampa Covenant Church and another one named Grace Community Church. Of course, I know many on this board who object to someone calling themselves a reformed charismatic. But, how else would someone call themselves who holds to calvinism, covenantalism, and postmillenialism who is also a non-cessationalist. This really irkes me when my fellow brethren try to take this name away from me because they equate cessationalism with sola scriptura.

No, every Reformed Confession does that.


Fred, this is my point, I don't think you and the rest of the people on this board should say that someone cannot call themselves reformed if they hold to a non-cessationist view.
Please show me where they do because many of the people who wrote these confessions were not strict cessationists. It is my opinion that this view comes from the enlightenment which rejected miraculous events in the name of science.
The real point is labels mean something, how do I label myself in such a way as to distinguish myself from most of the charismatic world. There are many like me who now hold to the reformed doctrines who came from charismatic and pentecostal churches who still hold to non-cessationist views.
Many of my charismatic brothers think I am a heretic or have fallen into a cult because I hold to things like calvinism, paedobaptism, covenantalism and postmillenialism. On the other hand my reformed brothers think I'm a heretic because I hold to a non-cessationist position.
There should be more inclusion on the board for people like me and we should be labeled reformed charismatic or experential calvinist or something. We are being reformed in our life and our theology and our worldview. We should be welcomed with open arms into the reformed camp. But, unfortunately, that is not the case.
 
Jonathan,

The word "Reformed" means something. I don't have time right now, but I could produce (and will later) quotes from Calvin, the Puritans, the Dutch Reformed, the Savoy, 1689, et al that all say basically the same thing the WCF does:

which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased. (WCF 1.1)

Now what part of "revealing" or "ceased" do you not get?

As I said in previous threads, if we are talking about some sort of non-binding, non-authoritative predictive speech that can be ignored with impunity and can be wrong (like the predictions of some Scots), then I guess that is ok - since that is basically the equivalent of a person talking and it happens to come to pass. But if we are talking about authoritative revelation, then the only option is to denigrate the sufficiency of Scripture - which is a CENTRAL tenet of sola Scriptura, and the Reformed faith.

Sorry, that is the way it is. That does not mean that you are not a Christian, profitable to others, a good guy, or right about many other things. But it does mean that I am under no obligation to tolerate such erroneous teaching that does great damage to God's people.
 
ok fred, for the sake of argument what should the label be? If I say just "charismatic" then I'm lumped with the word of faithers which I find totally heretical and the basic arminian Dispensational charismatics who really are anti creed/confession.
btw the EPC is wcf and noncessationist, however there are none in my area.
 
The EPC gutted the WCF and lives by a water down Gospel. They DO NOT hold tot he WCF. They say it, but do not live it.

As for your question:


If I say just "charismatic" then I'm lumped with the word of faithers which I find totally heretical and the basic arminian Dispensational charismatics who really are anti creed/confession.

[With a NY accent] - Hey, if the shoe fits, ya know.
 
Originally posted by bigheavyq
ok fred, for the sake of argument what should the label be? If I say just "charismatic" then I'm lumped with the word of faithers which I find totally heretical and the basic arminian Dispensational charismatics who really are anti creed/confession.
btw the EPC is wcf and noncessationist, however there are none in my area.

The EPC is non-cessationist because (as Matt said) the Confession really means nothing to them. They will "dedicate" babies too; does that make the Confession baptist?

I am not sure what label works. Maybe Calvinistic charismatic?

The problem is that non-cessationism is a huge issue, in my view. It is a very serious error (since I can't use the word heresy anymore to refer to non-damnable error) that leads to a mess in the Church. I have no tolerance for it on an officer level - to hold that view completely disqualifies a man from office in a WCF church. With laymen, patience is necessary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top