John was actually John the Baptizer. ;o) It was more of a verb describing what he did - - he preached the baptism of repentance & baptized. It doesn't translate the same into English. That's why the first name that came about for the early believers wasn't "Baptists" but "Christians," (which they were first called at Antioch...meaning, "little Christs," and as such, it was actually a derogatory term at the time). Of course they embraced it with gladness. :) It was true!

There were divisions in the body, in that sense, where Paul chastises them for that (I am of Paul, I am of Cephas, etc.). Yet the divisions hadn't developed into the fruition of what we now call denominations. They were identifying with individuals, whereas today's denominations not only at times identify (or did in their early history) with a certain individual, they also actually represent significant doctrinal and theological and ecclesiastical differences. These massive differences didn't exist on the same scale at the time. Though they certainly rapidly developed, human nature being what it is. ;o)

When studied carefully and precisely, it is fascinating and faith-building to see that indeed, there have been faithful Christians down through the ages, just as Jesus said - - I will build my church, and the gates of h - l l will not prevail against it. There were Christians besides the Catholics and the Protestants, Christians who never had need to "protest" and "leave" Romanism as they were never part of it to begin with. They don't get much press, hiding in caves and valleys and on the run and being burned half the time as they were - - "...of whom the world was not worthy." This aspect of church history doesn't get covered well. :)




Mommy4Jesus

I wasn't raised in any church. Funny thing is that after I grew up and left (last of 4 kids) my parents became Christians.

I'd been in the Espiscopal church for 10 years until our church broke off from them and became Anglican for the last 2+ years.

We left our church a couple months ago and are now in search of a new church. We're leaning towards a Presbyterian church we've found but still haven't made a final decision. Sigh.

Carrie

Mommy4Jesus, thank you for adding the part about 'first called Christians' at Antioch. I left that one out, in my haste.

I do know that John was called so because he baptized after repentence. It was, however, where the term "Baptist" or "Baptists" originated from, and also came as a label. Of the 15 times that Baptist is in the Bible, it is in reference to John the Baptist. Two of those fifteen times, the "the" was left out when people were referring to him as "John Baptist", a name or label of what he believed. Just like today's "denominations" being a name or label or what we believe. I also realize that the references to followers of Cephas, Paul, etc. were divisions in the church, but we still have followers of Paul today. It is probably because it never stopped when Paul was speaking to the church at Corinth. People probably disagreed, maybe even got mad, like they do nowadays and left the church, starting their own, these churches, in turn, turned into "denominations". That's what a lot of "denominations" are afterall . . . splits from the original beliefs or teachings of something. That's why we have "reformed" this, and "reformed" that.

It is really neat to hear everyone's background and story. It makes me wonder why people left (or stayed) with what they believe. Maybe I'll start a different thread on that:)

Spent part of childhood in a non-denominational church, then, when that church's pastor left, they couldn't find a pastor. They decided to close their doors. After that, I grew up in an American Baptist church through part of high school, then attended a Christian church.

We are currently looking for a new church home. (Long story mainly due to the long drawn out divorce.) I feel most comfortable in Baptist churches, but I've also visited some other denominational churches and felt "fed" there too. It'll be where we all feel like we can call it home.

Was... a UCC minister's daughter

Now... Eastern Orthodox

Was... a UCC minister's daughter

Now... Eastern Orthodox

Aahhhh -- I can't wait for heaven. :)

I agree with starbucklover -- the denominational differences feel so divisive. I understand why they're there, but I still cringe at them.

Have just finished reading a book by Juan Carlos Ortiz (Living with Jesus Today) and found the book online free at this link:

http://www.calledtobefree.org/article.cfm?id=71

Chapters 14 and 15 are wonderful - easy reading - check it out....if you can only read one chapter, read chapter 15. I think you'll find what he says very interesting. Maybe some won't agree. Warning - he has some strong things to say about all of our denominations. :)

Here's an excerpt: "The church is formed of all those who have the Son within them. Whether they are Anglicans, Seventh Day Adventists, or Roman Catholics - if they have the Son, they are in the kingdom. They belong to the family of God. It's not by philosophical approach, but by the life they have. Jesus said, 'I am the way, the truth and the life.' Our system of religion tells us that if we believe that Jesus is the way, that's okay. That's enough to be saved. But it's not okay. Jesus is not the way just so that we can believe that He is the way. He is the way so that we can walk with Him. He is the truth not just so that I might believe that He is the truth, but that I may trust Him. And He is the life not just so that I can believe that He is the life, but that I might LIVE THAT LIFE (caps for emphasis). We cannot just have a doctrine or a concept, we must have the reality. The primitive Christians were called those of 'the way.' Is the Anglican Church the way? Are the Methodists or the Baptists the way? No, the way is Jesus. It doesn't matter whether you are a member of a denomination or of an independent congregation. To be in 'the way' is to have Him who is 'the way.' If you are in Jesus, you are in the same way that I am. If you have the Son within you, you have the life of God. It doesn't matter whether you believe in the millennium, or you don't believe in the millennium; whether you believe in the coming of Christ before or after the tribulation. Those things divide the people of God and have no value for living. They are just an intellectual approach to the philosophy of the Bible. They may be interesting, but they have nothing to do with whether or not we are brothers (or sisters).......Today, the issue might be whether a brother is immersed or sprinkled in baptism, or whether he speaks in tongues or not. But all of these divisions are because we are more centered in doctrine and concepts than in life (Jesus' life)...when He lives within us and we are led by His Spirit, we will accept each other as members of His body not because of doctrines, but simply because He accepted us. We will be one church because we all share common life - the life of Christ in us."

So, sorry for that long post....it's just stuff that's been on my mind and especially so after reading this book.

My answer to the question in the title would be that I have been born again by the Spirit of God and I visit a building on Sunday mornings (since we are really the church, not the building!) that is labeled as Presbyterian. ;) Almost from day one of my new life, though, my heart's desire has been to meet in a house church. Just haven't been led to one as of yet.