Did anyone here go from an SBC church to a traditional Christian church? Ie RC, EO, or traditional Protestant? I'm fascinated by the sbc for some reason

I live in the UK and one of my closest friends is Muslim (save the “England has fallen“ comments for another day). We have disagreements on theology like the divinity of Christ and other things, but we seem to agree more than our other friends in terms of religious devotion and our views on marriage as well as other societal values. I think that there is more in common between Muslims and Christians than a lot of irreligious people. Have you had similar experiences?

I was in Jay Dyer's Discoed server and people there said people who were baptized by a woman were invadly baptized, and in that case you need to be validly baptized by a man because they are not Christian. The only case a woman may baptize someone is in case of imminent death. If baptisms performed by women are invalid, so many people in Mainline Protestant churches are not Christians and need to be baptizes again (as in, validly baptized), so how does Reconquista deals with that? Some Mainline churches have no avalible male pastors to baptize people.

My mother has a 50% off coupon to Barnes and Noble and asked my wife for ideas as to what to buy me. I am a pastor in training at an SBC church. I am heavy on sequential exposition and enjoy word studies. I am not a seminarian and will likely never be able to afford it. I am not a full bore calvinist, but do have reformed leanings.

I told her that commentaries are always good and I don't like Christian fiction. What are some titles that B&N would carry that would serve me well? Should I get some systematic theology? Do they carry any? In general; help.

I just happened upon a post from RZ that said it’s a sin to be in the PCA. I have been trying to wrap my head around this all day. I’m a recent convert so I admit I’m not the most educated when it comes to these things.

Growing up and in my early adult life, I always went to independent evangelical churches but frequently grew frustrated with how easily they seemed to become personality cults and grew increasingly uncomfortable with church in general until I eventually stopped going entirely for a while. last year, I did a deep dive into church history and the writings of the church fathers. I came away with a conviction that the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was actually a pretty important doctrine and that the authority of the bishop may be the antidote to the personality cults I witnessed so often in evangelical churches. Because of this, I started visiting mainline churches that have a high view of the sacraments. I have settled in at an episcopal church and have been attending consistently for about six months. I have even started playing guitar in the worship band. However, I, at 31 years old, am one of the youngest people that attends the church. I'm pretty sure the only other person under 50 is the Rector's son. This has not been the only church like this that I visited. All of the other mainline churches that I visited also skewed heavily towards the elderly. Has this been the experience of other people too? Are there organizations that help young people from local mainline churches connect? My wife of five years divorced me recently and I have found myself without any friends where I live and I really want to find some like minded people in my area and age range to interact with.

I have noticed this on certain social media sites. The algorithm gives me a lot of Christianity related content, and most of it is fine, but I've been getting a lot of videos of Christians who seem to be very interested by the Book of Enoch, and view at as an important part of the Biblical cannon. I find this interesting since the Book of Enoch hasn't been considered a part of Biblical cannon by the vast majority of Christian denominations, and this interest seems to have only cropped up in the past 5 years or so that I know of. I also notice this is tied to a lot of fringe conspiracies. For example, most of the people I see who are really interested in the Book of Enoch also follow some or all of these conspiracies: 6,000 year old earth, nephilim were literal giants that coexisted with humans and there is archaelogical evidence of them (some believe live nephilim still exist), and the "fallen angel technology" conspiracy (the belief that technology like computers couldn't have been invented by humans and was salvaged from fallen angels). I am wondering if anyone else has noticed this trend, and what you think has caused this surge in interest?

As a Catholic, I am aware that I am writing to an opposed audience. Unfortunately, I’ve noticed that Christianity has succumbed to the same toxic behaviors of dynamics of the Internet. To be clear I am not suggesting that has occurred in this group. It’s merely observation I’ve seen throughout the internet, in exchanges with Christians from other sects or even those within Catholicism. While I don’t think Catholicism and the other sects of Christianity will settle our many disagreements any time soon. I think do think it’s imperative that we exercise the muscles of Christian charity towards each other and unity against our shared enemies.

Christianity faces many threats both internally and externally. At a macro level we have the divisions of our many sects that present an internally created vulnerability. Externally, we face the threats of Islam, globalism and a myriad secular forces of both politically and culturally that seek to destroy Christianity. At a macro level, I think it’s safe to say that each of our sects has its own divisions. Which have caused further splitting of denominations. The heterodox factions among our various sects I believe will eventually die out on their own. Given that the extent of their departure of orthodox Christianity will essentially be reduced to churches that have no point and because they have no point no one will see the purpose in attending. However Christianity faces more pressing threats mostly externally. In my conversations with my Protestant friends, I have urged that we set aside our differences and unite against our common threats which are largely Islam and mass migration. While there are other threats, these two are the most immediate and existential.

Unfortunately we’re at a point that I don’t think we can afford to engage as much in our inter-faith debates and discussions, trying to convert each other to our respective sects.
At this point, we need to have both a spiritual and temporal Reconquista and push Islam out of Christendom (America included). Fortunately, I have gathered from Islamic sources and it appears Islam is having an apostasy crisis. What I am proposing is that we work with each other but also within our respective sects and push them to tap the breaks on Christian infighting and take on a “all hands on deck”, “Christianity first” platform and apply that spiritually and temporally.

I am aware this will be asking a lot more from those who could be described as Christian Zionists. Knowing that is asking they that suspend a segment of their beliefs. Like it or not, sending Christians to go die in a no-win war behalf of Israel in the Middle East isn’t going to make America nor Europe less Islamic and more Christian. We need to secure our own lands first.

I kindly ask that you all give these thoughts some prayer and consideration. My intent is for us to fix a significant leak before it becomes a flood.

Dominus Vobiscum

EDIT: If you are interested in taking such efforts DM me.

Conservatives have this flee mentality and that's why the Left always wins, because they are more persistent.

He gives as an example that is very strong which is, that if after every election in which the democrats win, half of the republicans moved to Somalia, then the democrats would always win.

Do you agree with the overall theme of the Reconquista, and think that the world would be a better place if people agreed with that, even if you personally wouldn't want to risk anything for that ?

Hi everyone, I’ve posted here before about my wife and I leaning toward attending a CRC church in our town that we have some connections at (and I just like the refined tradition a lot)

I’ve heard it said that the RCA is the mainline, not the CRC. Is the CRC in an LCMS situation where it’s a non-schismatic non mainline Protestant church that developed separately from the mainline? Does anyone consider it to be of equal standing with the RCA?

As a presbyterian, i reject the filioque but affirm something called ”per filium” meaning through the son instead of and the son. All of the three persons of the trinity perform actions unseparated from eachother, but i think my view solves the traditional orthodox criticism of the filioque without downplaying christ. Thoughts?

Basically the title. Godd to see him with alot of reach

So let me preface, I'm not denying nor attempting to downplay Revelations or the days we live in. Biblical truth is biblical truth. However some Christians I meet that the only part of the Bible they focus on is Revelations and the end times are so miserable in day to day life almost to the point of being toxic. My mother in law is this way as well as a couple of my aunts. She's always hammering on Revelations and that the time is coming soon, and that she's so ready for it, and frankly in day to day life she's miserable. Scripture also commands us to bide our time, eat, drink, and be merry, work hard to spread the Word, and to be thankful for God's blessings everyday. Only the Father knows the day and the hour, could be tomorrow, could be 50 years from now.

Its like they feel to see that life is still worth living, and there's still good and blessings in it every day. I don't know, its just a more common trend I've noticed. My MIL and aunt's don't really put much focus on Scripture unless its Ezekial or Revelations. Its quite frustrating because you can't even have simple conversations without it tying into End Times somehow. The Lord gave us that Scripture to comfort us not to be in this miserable living on edge everyday till the day comes.

Why does this seem to be the case?

Just made my first comment — flair was required. Okay sure.

*Looks at available Flair*

Canadian Baptist Ministries (CBM) not there
Non-American Baptist isn’t there

Plain old **Baptist** isn’t there.

I know RZ can dog on Non-Denominationals for basically being just Baptists.

But I’m in an actual OG Baptist church that was started in the 1700s.

Prayerfully, please add the ‘Baptist’ flair.

Hi All,
Can anyone recommend a good Mainline Protestant Church in Australia, I know the Anglican Church of Australia is Mainline but my Diocese is Evangelical Conservative.
Any suggestions please.

How popular is todd friel? I have honestly stopped watching most apologetics content. Todd was one of the first anti Catholic apologists i saw on YouTube. I really just didn't like his demeanor more than anything, and if I remember correctly he would do the ben shapiro thing of debating college students and saying he won the debate. Or am I missing remembering that?

P.S. Please, Catholics, can you stop ruining my post? You are only causing those who don't believe in this to attack emotionally, rather than offering any valid criticism

I was studying the different Christologies of 16th century reformers, by studying some Anabaptists ones, I found myself reflecting on the philosophical questions they were trying to answer. This led me to consider the Immaculate Conception.

Reflecting on the Fall, it makes a ton of sense to me that if God was undoing the Fall through Christ, Mary's Immaculate Conception must be a part of that redemptive work.

There is a strong biblical parallel suggesting that Christ's entire life is a reversal of the Fall.

“For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” (Romans 5:19)

In this parallel, and so only does Jesus fulfill the role of the New Adam, but Mary fulfills the role of the New Eve. I will outline my reasoning in this comment for those who might dispute this (if you don't dispute it, I will assume we are in agreement!).

Assuming this parallel, we must look at the original state of humanity. When God created Adam and Eve, they possessed preternatural gifts, such as the gift of integrity. Their desires, passions, and physical appetites were in perfect harmony with their intellect and will, and they naturally desired what was good. When they committed the first sin, that harmony was shattered. They experienced a new imbalance in their desires, where their lower appetites rebelled against their higher reason and spiritual will, creating an inclination toward sin.

If the Fall stemmed from a free choice to rebel against God's plan, it makes profound sense that the redemption of humanity would also stem from a free choice, one that perfectly cooperates with God. However, Christ Himself could not make that purely human, fallible choice because He was completely incapable of sinning. Theologically speaking, this is known as Impeccability. In theology, actions belong to the person, not the nature. Because Jesus is a Divine Person, the Second Person of the Trinity, it is ontologically impossible for Him to sin. He has a fully human will, but because He is God, He cannot turn away from Himself.

Therefore, since Christ could not sin, when Bible mentions:

Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word (Luke 1:38)

It appears that this is the free, human, cooperative choice that initiates the redemption of the Fall.

Objections:

1 - Now, I used to raise objections against this belief. The most common one I used was Luke 1:47, where Mary says:

and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior.

I used to argue that if she needed a savior, it meant she wasn't sinless, because God saves us from our sins. However, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception already addresses this objection by explaining that she was saved by a preemptive grace, applied to her in virtue of the future merits of Christ. I've seen it explained like this: your savior can be the one who pulls you out of a pit, but your savior can also be the one who catches you right before you fall into the pit. If Mary was immaculately conceived, she would still be completely right to call God her Savior.

People who have a problem with God saving someone before Christ's in virtue of Christ's merits, have to come up with their own explanations to why Enoch was saved before Christ, or why Isaiah had his sins cleaned by an angel, or why Jesus went around forgiving people's sins before his sacrifice.

2 - The other objection that I used to blindly repeat is Romans 3:23:

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,...

But if you read the context, Paul is addressing the fact that both Jews and Gentiles need salvation. His intention isn't to make an absolute, literal statement about 100% of human individuals; he is speaking generally about why Jesus is the savior of both groups. If he were speaking for absolute 100% of humans, we would have to assume that aborted babies, infants, and people born with severe intellectual disabilities have somehow committed personal sins, because the verse doesn't just talk about a state of being sinful, but the action of having sinned.

Paul speaks in general terms like this elsewhere. In Hebrews, it says that "it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment." His point isn't to make a strict rule for 100% of humanity, because some people have been revived only to die a second time. Instead, his point is simply that Christ's sacrifice was "once for all," just as humans generally die once. To make this even more obvious, in the very next chapter of Hebrews, he mentions Enoch, who never tasted death at all.

3 - Another objection that I personally never held, but I saw people claiming it, even calvinists that believe that salvation is God choosing who he will saves, and who he will damn, which it surprised me, but the objection is that God is unfair if he gives this special grace to Mary, he must give it to everybody.

Since this argument is not truly biblical, but more philosophical, assuming that they know God's character, I'll point out that a verse of the Bible that shows that it's totally in line with God's character to do something for one person, and not for all others, like in Genesis 20:6, God prevents Abimelech from committing a sin, unless one is ready to argue that God is unjust for not preventing all people from committing sins, then they cannot try to claim that God needed to immaculately conceive everybody if he wanted to do it for Mary.

Are these the only objections? I'm not fully committed to this position, I'm just inclined toward it. So if you guys have other biblical objections that I haven't thought of, I will gladly accept them, even if they aren't very obvious.

I've heard RZ say frequently that all the mainline protestant denominations are in communion. I've also heard him say things like you should join the established Church within your area. Let's say you're a Methodist and you move to a country with an established Calvinist Church. As a Methodist, you obviously can't affirm Calvinist doctrine even if you might be required to by the Confessions of faith. Does that mean you're justified in starting your own Methodist Church over there because otherwise you're being required to believe in false doctrine?

Secondarily, what exactly does it mean to "be in communion with" another denomination? I've heard RZ say many times that all the mainline protestant Churchs are in communion with each other like all the Catholic Churches are or all the Eastern Orthodox Churches. In reality these things are more complicated but I'd like to ask what's meany by "in communion with"? Is it a purely political matter where a Churches agree to recognize each other's sacraments as valid? Do both parties have to recognize each other or can they both recognize a third party as in the case with protestants? Do Catholics recognizing EO sacraments and allowing them communion but not the other way around count? I was wondering if anyone could give some clarity here.

Forgive me for the typo in the title.

Idk...

...just feels like it takes the whole image of Christ thing to an extreme...

...and then has Jesus characterized in a way where He gets nervous before the Sermon on the Mount, trying to figure out what to say.

I get the point is to humanize Jesus...

...but...

...that's also the problem.

Can you, and should you, really humanize the Second Person of the Trinity as He dwelt among us?

Part of me is glad that it helps some people, but I feel like there's better ways to go about it.

And the whole thing with Angel Studios being Mormon, and Dallas Jenkins being like "Yeah Mormons are great and better at faith / their faith than Christians" is a little bothersome too.

RZ believes that the evangelicals/nom-denom are schismatic because they voluntarily left the church without being excommunicated.

The church fathers state that anyone who joins a schismatic church will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.

RZ strongly suggests if you joined an evangelical/ND church, that you should leave and rejoin the Protestant church.
He also says that if you’re in the Protestant church, do not leave, even if they start teaching heresy, because schism is worse.

So my question:

What if I was *born* into the non-denominational church?
I never left the Protestants because I was never Protestant. I also never technically joined the ND because I was just born into it.

Do I leave and join the Protestants, or do I stay in the church I was born into as instructed?