Growing with different denominations

[Kaynil]

I think I brieftly mentioned before, but I am a bit of a mess when it comes to my spiritual beliefs. I grew up with different denominations influencing my way to perceive things.
My best friend was catholic so my mum was willing to let me do the First Communion. Around that time I had a relative and a neighbour that were Jehovah witnesses, so I would eat up the book about biblical stories that she gave me. We also were going to what i thinkw as a Protestantism church.

I ended up not doing the First Communion. I think catholicism was the weakest influence. Right now I am trying to unify a bit better my beliefs and make more sense of things.
Some of things I remember clashing:
Whether Jesus and God are the same
Whether we take or not in account some parts of the old and new testament.
Whether we can be in a church of a different denomination
Whether we will see the rapture, how the paradise and hell will work out.
etc.

I was wondering if any of the members here have also developed a mized set of beliefs based on their expusure to different denomination as you were growing up and how did you come to terms with it.
Did you eneded up turning to one of the faiths? What do you identify yourself as when someone asks you for your denomination?

And of course, if you have tips and advice, I'll be happy to hear them.

 

[NewCreation435]

I grew up Methodist, but switched when I turned 18 to Baptist and am now going to a Wesleyan church. I think the best advice I could give you is that you have to study the Bible for yourself and see what it says. Pastors and church leaders often just give you the denominational perspective and are sometimes wrong. I don't know of any denomination I completely agree with. I identify myself as christian not with a particular denomination. There aren't going to be any denominations in heaven. They are man made and will one day be no more. So, don't get too hung up on that.

I tend to use the www.blueletterbible.org or www.studylight.org because there are so many free commentaries and other material on there to study the Bible.

 

[MennoSota]

jsimms and I have similar thoughts. I grew up Mennonite, but I attended a Baptist Church in college. Turns out the church was reformed (particular Baptist) and their Sunday School classes were verse by verse studies. As we read scripture, I started looking at context of the passages rather than try to support teachings from my upbringing. Reading scripture brought questions. I learned about inductive bible study, which calls for observation of the text, questioning, interpreting and applying. One person here has called it "tedious." It can be. It also is very revealing. It reveals our dogma, taught to us by various church denominations. It reveals a much deeper look than what a simple peak would give us. An illustration used is that of a person trying to learn about a monarch butterfly. The longer you observe the butterfly, the more you learn. You may observe a live butterfly, but you may also have a dead butterfly where you start looking at it with a microscope. The deeper you look, the more complex the butterfly becomes. This is similar with studying God's word using inductive bible study. Such study will reveal areas in every denomination where people created dogma that is not well supported by scripture. The question is whether a person is willing to do the "tedious" work or whether a person just wants to accept what is being taught by the denomination. For example, your comment about the "rapture" is a teaching you have learned, but does scripture really support it or is it a dogma that is propped up by verses out of context? I'm still wrestling with this one so I don't have an easy answer. I hold that lightly as I observe scripture.
So, I agree with jsimms. Read the Bible. For reading purposes, I like the New Living Translation. There are some good, free apps you can find. For deeper study, I also read the English Standard Version and New American Standard Bible. Finally, because some concordances (Strong's and Young's) align with the King James Version, I will look at the KJV.
The key, for all believers, is to read God's word. It cuts through all the dogma and biases we hold. It reveals the persons of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit...the triune being we call God.
Enjoy your reading.

 

[Albion]

Hi, Kaynil. Many ordinary Christians have belonged to a variety of denominations. Whether or not they have, most of them have absorbed some of the thinking of denominations not their own. You seem to have been influenced by churches that are more on the extremes of the Christian line-up than most people, however. If that has left you wondering about some doctrinal issues that have not troubled the next person, I understand.

In any case, you are not alone.

What I would suggest, if you want to unravel some of this, would be to study the different beliefs of the various denominations--from a directory such as the Handbook of denominations in the USA--which is an easy reference guide. Then narrow down your choices, and then visit some of the more likely churches. All of them have instruction classes and you will be able to settle on the one that most closely fits what you have come to believe is the right way.

About the specific questions you aske--

Whether Jesus and God are the same -- Not the "same," but both are parts of God. The answer requires a little more than that, but almost all Christian churches agree on this (the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus). The JWs do not agree, I know.

Whether we take or not in account some parts of the old and new testament.-- Both are the word of God and are authoritative, the NT no less than the OT.

Whether we can be in a church of a different denomination -- Certainly. However, there are some limits. Almost all Christian denominations consider the JWs beyond the limit because of denying the identity and nature of Jesus.


Whether we will see the rapture, how the paradise and hell will work out.---There is a wide range of views about all of this.

--

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

An interesting question! I was influenced many ways in my faith. My parents are Presbyterian, and I grew up in that deenomination. If I had not made a move to canada from the states, I would most likely still be a part of that church (PCUSA). There are things I disagree with there, but that also goes for my current church (Lutheran) - certain doctrines just don't make sense when studied. One example would be what's called 'Penal Substitutionary Atonement' - that Christ was our "substitute" for the judgment (wrath) of God on sin, and that he was "forsaken" (abandoned) by the Father on the cross. That's an extreme oversimplification, but the best I can do . I just don't see that lining up with scripture. Does it mean it's a deal-breaker for me? No.

I often visited my great-grandmother growing up who was baptist and we would have bible studies together out of the King James, so I learned to have an appreciation for it, as well as how to understand what was written. It was my 'go-to' for a long time. Menno mentioned the New Living Translation, which I love as a plain English version - it's poetic in parts and so direct. I also like the NASB and ESV.

I spent some time in a Pentecostal church that had everything you can imagine absolutely wrong. It's what you might call a "Oneness" church that denied God is a Trinity. Instead, God is 'One' who manifests Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - no distinct or unique 'Persons'. Their explanation of Christ as God and man was the Father coming to earth in the Person of Christ. What (imo) they got right, though (and what ruffles a few feathers here) is that baptism is regenerative - we "put on Christ" - and that is biblical. That's the only thing I took away from them as truth.

After I came to Canada I spent a short time attending a Mennonite church. They were very welcoming and supportive - I met some great people there and the Pastor and his wife are wonderful. But I didn't agree with much of the Mennonite doctrine, nor much of the modern evangelical understanding of scripture. I was still tied to a relatively historical/protestant understanding. I tried the local Presbyterian church, which didn't seem to have much life, then visited the local Lutheran church. I'd attended for a few weeks, then returned about a year later after doing some personal study and soul searching. I also looked at the Catholic church and talked with the local parish priest. He was very genuine and answered any questions I had, but I stopped at the Reformation! I'm happy with the Lutheran church now.

As I said, I don't agree with everything, and some things I'm still trying to understand. Lutherans like to leave certain things to "mystery", which drives me crazy If something can be found out, I will try to find it out, whether through study, observation, whatever. I leave little to mystery. And that's why I like CH - the differences of opinion can open one's mind to different ideas, different mindsets. We may not agree, but we get different perspectives. And those perspectives can help us on our journey

 

[Josiah]

An interesting question! I was influenced many ways in my faith. My parents are Presbyterian, and I grew up in that deenomination. If I had not made a move to canada from the states, I would most likely still be a part of that church (PCUSA). There are things I disagree with there, but that also goes for my current church (Lutheran) - certain doctrines just don't make sense when studied. One example would be what's called 'Penal Substitutionary Atonement' - that Christ was our "substitute" for the judgment (wrath) of God on sin, and that he was "forsaken" (abandoned) by the Father on the cross. That's an extreme oversimplification, but the best I can do . I just don't see that lining up with scripture. Does it mean it's a deal-breaker for me? No.

I affirm you post.... and respect it. And I don't want to hi-jack things...

But just to QUICKLY comment on this one thing (well, as briefly as I ever get, lol)....

I recall quite a bit of time taken on this in my doctrine class. So let me comment.

THIS SEEMS TRUE: Jesus is the Savior; Jesus does the saving. AND this obviously required and is accomplished via the Incarnation - Birth - Perfect life of Jesus, by His innocent Death and the shedding of blood, and by His resurrection (the last gets the majority of the focus in the Bible). ALL these are important. His life, death and resurrection.

HERE'S THE DEAL: While the Bible affirms all that, it never exactly says WHY. WHY all those things are needed. And so, beginning in the Early Church, various "explanations" arose. In theology, these are called "the Atonement Theories." I'm writing this at lunch and don't have my books in front of me, so I can't list them all off the top of my head (I can if you want to create a thread on this and I have time). It's important that the Lutheran Confessions, while alluding to some, does NOT endorse or dogmatize ANY of them! My theology teacher stressed to us that all of them are biblical as far as they go, but no ONE is an explanation, each one has problems. What we have here is mystery.

The one you seem to be alluding to is called "The Vicarious Atonement." It's very popular in Evangelical forms of Protestantism (often to the exclusion of the others). It works pretty well for the Incarnation and the Death but really falls short on the most important aspect, the Resurrection. Luther himself (and Calvin, too) often used the "Christus Victor" view, that Christ came to "whip the Devil", to "defeat sin, death and the power of Satan." It works well for the incatnation and Resurrection but not so much His death. I THINK there are 5 major theories.

But the Confessions - while alluding to several (maybe all) of these theories, NO ONE is endorsed or dogmatized by Lutherans (or any other denomination that I recall). THAT Jesus did it..... THAT it involved and required His life, death and resurrection - THAT we affirm. Exactly WHY..... we don't dogmatize any of the 5 (?) theories, indeed, all of them seem to fall short.

I


.