The Top 50 Most Influential Churches in America

The Church Report ^ | 7/12/05 | staff

[ppaul]

Top 50 Most Influential Churches
The 2005 survey was sent to 2,000 church leaders with the goal of ranking the nation’s fastest growing churches and churches with more than 2,000 weekend attendance. The 127 churches nominated for the 50 Most Influential Churches survey were located in 32 states and represented 27 affiliation groups and/or denominations. The term affiliation is used to include networks of unaffiliated, independent churches.

[tutstar]

Bummer!! My church isn't on the list.

I see there are some "touchy feely get rich" preachers on the list.

[tutstar]

Churches receiving the highest number of recommendations tend to be churches that offer conferences that share leadership, organizational, staffing and ministry principles, priorities and procedures with other church leaders. Eighteen of the 20 most frequently listed churches have at least one annual conference. While some of the churches only share their own practices and procedures, others share their own while also allowing emerging churches to participate as contributors at their conferences.

One of the most influential churches that went unmentioned, even though it reaches thousands, is First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, FL. Led by Dr. Jerry Vines, this church averages more than 8,000 in attendance each weekend and is the second largest church in Florida.

[fortheDeclaration]

forthe, No one is forcing you to be baptized. If you want to join my church or, for that matter, most churches, you would have to be baptized. Perhaps you already are. I think the denial of the salvific nature of baptism is a classic example of the inroads Satan has had, with all respect. As to your "Nowhere in the Bible is any infant ever said to be Baptized" I would simply state that nowhere does the Scripture say children are not to be baptized; that children are not a part of the "all nations" our Lord commanded his disciples to baptize and make disciples. To me, the fact that Jesus did not add "except for children under X age" after "all nations" is a slam dunk, cased closed situation. To all who refuse to be baptized or refuse to baptize their children, why take the chance that you could be wrong. This is not the best argument, I know. Lastly, if one believes it is a person's decision or committment to God that saves and not Baptism, you can't view as Christians those who believe that Baptism is what God does for us and not what we do for Him, and that Baptism saves. The reverse is also true. If you believe that Baptism saves, you can't view as Christians those who reject Baptism's salvific nature.

Water Baptism is a figure of one's faith in the death, burial and Resurrection of Christ. (1Pe.3:21)

Water does nothing to save anyone.

The Baptism that saves is the spiritual baptism that is done by the Holy Ghost when He places a believer into the Body of Christ (1Cor.12:13)

Since a child cannot make a decision for Christ, pouring water over its head does nothing to save its soul.

A child is not in danger of being damned until he is old enough to reject the Gospel(Jn.16:9).

No child goes to hell for not being baptised, nor for that matter does any adult go to hell for not being water baptised.

The Baptism in Mark 16:16 is a spiritual one, not a water one.

[A2J]

If you are right then the Christian Church was wrong for about 1,600 years.

Uh, more like 1,800 years. Ever since Augustine, Ignatius, et al, started tinkering with it through the introduction of heavy-handed control structures.

This cancer has crippled both Catholic and Protestant churches.

[JockoManning]

Bookmarking again.

[JockoManning]

Did you see this thread?

JM