A Christian denomination without a name?

[andrewstx]

My understanding is that the Roman Catholic Bible contains books not found in the King James version? So presumably scripture relating to our judgement and life after death are to be found in the larger Roman Catholic Bible with which I am not familiar and that is why I was asking for chapter and verse. Your help would be appreciated, thanks.

.

The original KJV contianed all the books (trust me I used to be Anglicans and the KJV is and was an Anglican book) but some books of the OT were removed in the 1800s.

There are verses about praying for the departed in the Maccabees, but I have not memorised BCV.

Others can say, but I have had a stroke and can’t remember

 

[andrewstx]

I agree on the sillyness of “non-denominational” denominations. To be truly non-denominational a religious body would have no teachings, dogma, and no opinion.

I think the “non-denominational” bodies have dogma, and in fact they tend to be baptist or charismatic. What happens and I have seen it over and over is that a congregation changes it’s name to non-demon and keeps the teaching and dogmas of the church they came from.

Locally a church moved from the city and changed it’s name from Temple Baptist to Mid city. They still are Baptist, still believe in “getting saved”, baptising beleivers only by submerssion only. Built a church with ramped auditorium chairs, and got skits and rock music. Other than that they changed nothing.

 

[174a]

I agree on the sillyness of “non-denominational” denominations. To be truly non-denominational a religious body would have no teachings, dogma, and no opinion.

I think the “non-denominational” bodies have dogma, and in fact they tend to be baptist or charismatic. What happens and I have seen it over and over is that a congregation changes it’s name to non-demon and keeps the teaching and dogmas of the church they came from.

Locally a church moved from the city and changed it’s name from Temple Baptist to Mid city. They still are Baptist, still believe in “getting saved”, baptising beleivers only by submerssion only. Built a church with ramped auditorium chairs, and got skits and rock music. Other than that they changed nothing.

Perhaps doctrinally they do not need to change anything, after all salvation through faith and not by works is Biblical and so is baptism by full immersion.

Why should anyone do anything different to what the Bible says?

.

 

[andrewstx]

Perhaps doctrinally they do not need to change anything, after all salvation through faith and not by works is Biblical and so is baptism by full immersion.

Why should anyone do anything different to what the Bible says?

.

We don’t believe in salvation by just works, works naturally follow genuine faith. Read the book of James.

I was raised by protestants and I was believer-baptised by dunking as well. The bible does not say you must be submerged to be baptised at all, the bible also mentions entire families being baptised, not just adults.

The reason I dislike so called non-denominational churches that changed nothing but the name is that it is dishonest.

The ecclesial group I was dunked in claimed to be “undenominational” so I have been there and done that. They claimed that the name they call themselves the “church of Christ” made them the only church and everyone else went to hell. They were invented in 1906 everyone born before that is in trouble.

They were hugely into solo-scriptura, to the extent that anything not ordered to be done in the bible was forbidden, even music is a no-no!

Problem is bible only is not taught or mentioned in the bible. I know the verse that says the scripture are inspired, and usefull etc. That verse says only usefull, itdoes not teach solo-sriptura. The author of that verse is talking about the OT only, the NT was not written yet.

They said Catholics and Orthodox are idolators, but it is they who are idolators, they worship their own idol, the part of the bible they still use. Every week I heard “god says”, calling the bible “God” from the pulpit.

I worship God, not an inspired but not dictated by God book.

 

[174a]

We don’t believe in salvation by just works, works naturally follow genuine faith. Read the book of James.

I was raised by protestants and I was believer-baptised by dunking as well. The bible does not say you must be submerged to be baptised at all, the bible also mentions entire families being baptised, not just adults.

The reason I dislike so called non-denominational churches that changed nothing but the name is that it is dishonest.

The ecclesial group I was dunked in claimed to be “undenominational” so I have been there and done that. They claimed that the name they call themselves the “church of Christ” made them the only church and everyone else went to hell. They were invented in 1906 everyone born before that is in trouble.

They were hugely into solo-scriptura, to the extent that anything not ordered to be done in the bible was forbidden, even music is a no-no!

Problem is bible only is not taught or mentioned in the bible. I know the verse that says the scripture are inspired, and usefull etc. That verse says only usefull, itdoes not teach solo-sriptura. The author of that verse is talking about the OT only, the NT was not written yet.

They said Catholics and Orthodox are idolators, but it is they who are idolators, they worship their own idol, the part of the bible they still use. Every week I heard “god says”, calling the bible “God” from the pulpit.

I worship God, not an inspired but not dictated by God book.

Does it matter what other people do?

Personally I follow the teaching of Jesus first and foremost and the apostles like Paul and James give extra guidance and explanation, and that teaching hasn’t changed in 2000 years.

.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I see in the rules we are not supposed to quote lengthy posts so forgive me if I do not use the quote facility, but we can refer back.

Just to say that none of the scriptures you posted give a time scale, they certainly do not say we shall be judged immediately after death.

The only verse, and it is from Jesus, is when he says to the repentant thief, “Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.” A moments thought will tell you that both men that day were in the grave. The Greek word paradise means a park and the sepulchre where Jesus was placed may well be considered to be a park.

G3857 παράδεισος paradeisos (par-ad’-ei-sos) n.

1. a park
2. (specially), an Eden (place of future happiness, “paradise”)

I do not for one moment think that Heaven is the grave, but paradise for Jesus and the thief at that moment in time was. However paradise does mean a place of future happiness, but even so the verse does not answer the question which was “Where does the Bible say we are judged immediately after death?”

.

You ignored the experience of Lazarus among other things such as the Transfiguration, where Moses and Elijah appeared, alive and well.

 

[andrewstx]

Does it matter what other people do?

Personally I follow the teaching of Jesus first and foremost and the apostles like Paul and James give extra guidance and explanation, and that teaching hasn’t changed in 2000 years.

.

I follow the teacchings of Our Lord Jesus as well, all the teachings and not cherry picked proof texts chosen to back up Proteestant theology arrived at after the fact to back up their theology.

I really beleive that many evangelicals do what they do to be the opposite of Catholics and Orthodox, they ignore scriptures that clearly teach that baptism forgives sin, another example of sacrificing scripture when it does not agree with already decided theology. They teach that you “get saved” and are forgiven already and then if if you want you can be baptised. The opposite of scriptural teaching.

You will not get me back to Protestantiism try as you may. In fact the rules here say that proseletyzing is forbidden, and you could possibly be turned in for it and banned after posting only a short time. I won’t but others read your words and they could.

 

[174a]

You ignored the experience of Lazarus among other things such as the Transfiguration, where Moses and Elijah appeared, alive and well.

The parable about Lazarus in Luke 16 is about storing up riches in Heaven and not on earth. The rich man was self reliant and trusted in his own worldly wealth instead of trusting in God, he was unrepentant and even though he heard the truth he rejected it, he was cruel, he feasted while a sick and starving man lay at his gate, and unlike Abraham he was not a man of faith.

It does not answer my question which was where in the Bible do we read that we are judged immediately after death and I don’t think you and I will be translated to heaven like Jesus, Moses and Elijah except perhaps at the second coming but that doesn’t answer my original question.

.

 

[174a]

I follow the teacchings of Our Lord Jesus as well, all the teachings and not cherry picked proof texts chosen to back up Proteestant theology arrived at after the fact to back up their theology.

I really beleive that many evangelicals do what they do to be the opposite of Catholics and Orthodox, they ignore scriptures that clearly teach that baptism forgives sin, another example of sacrificing scripture when it does not agree with already decided theology. They teach that you “get saved” and are forgiven already and then if if you want you can be baptised. The opposite of scriptural teaching.

You will not get me back to Protestantiism try as you may. In fact the rules here say that proseletyzing is forbidden, and you could possibly be turned in for it and banned after posting only a short time. I won’t but others read your words and they could.

You mention “proof texts” and I get that all the time from the Calvinists, Lots of denominations are in error and they are led and taught by men whether it is Calvin or the founder of the Jehovah Witnesses and there are many more which is why I stay with scripture. I am sorry but I am not proselytizing, I thought we had entered into a discussion.

Cheers.

.

 

[pismopal]

Perhaps doctrinally they do not need to change anything, after all salvation through faith and not by works is Biblical and so is baptism by full immersion.

Why should anyone do anything different to what the Bible says?

.

The issue between most Christian gatherings and the Church is…what is the Bible saying? Such as your first sentence for example. I thought there was a clear admonition in the Bible that faith without works is dead. You would disagree with that it seems…so what the Bible says to an individual might be a problem when seeking validation and not truth.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Return to the topic of the OP please

 

[174a]

The issue between most Christian gatherings and the Church is…what is the Bible saying? Such as your first sentence for example. I thought there was a clear admonition in the Bible that faith without works is dead. You would disagree with that it seems…so what the Bible says to an individual might be a problem when seeking validation and not truth.

If you are going to misunderstand me then there seems little chance of agreeing on what the Bible says.

My interpretation of James is what you and what James says which is that faith without works is dead and that works are evidence of our salvation. I do not believe that works save, Salvation is through faith in God.

.

 

[174a]

Return to the topic of the OP please

Sorry, we must have been posting at the same time.

 

[andrewstx]

You mention “proof texts” and I get that all the time from the Calvinists, Lots of denominations are in error and they are led and taught by men whether it is Calvin or the founder of the Jehovah Witnesses and there are many more which is why I stay with scripture. I am sorry but I am not proselytizing, I thought we had entered into a discussion.

Cheers.

.

A discussion where you ingore my words continually. Some discussion, more like a monolog from you. A disscusion would be where we interact with each other words, so far I am the only one discussing and you preach and proseletise for evangelicalism.

Truly that is no disscusion.

But back to the topic, I believe that no-name groups are dishonest. They try to pass themsleves off as the only chruches with the only Christians.

 

[pablope]

You mention “proof texts” and I get that all the time from the Calvinists, Lots of denominations are in error and they are led and taught by men whether it is Calvin or the founder of the Jehovah Witnesses and there are many more which is why I stay with scripture. I am sorry but I am not proselytizing, I thought we had entered into a discussion.

Cheers.

.

If you actually do an indept examination…each one follows their own interpretation that is colored by their tradition…or where they learned it from.

Why don’t you read this…and see if it describes you accurately…calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

From this article…this is what you are doing, isn;t it?

He adopts a pick-and-choose approach. This approach attempts to avoid the dilemma raised above by methodologically, though not explicitly, counting as ‘traditional’ [as in “traditional Christian orthodoxy”] only whatever the Church said and did that agrees with or is at least compatible with one’s own interpretation of Scripture.** ‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology.**

This pick-and-choose approach to the tradition shows that it is not the fact that an Ecumenical Council declared something definitively that makes it ‘authoritative’ for (Mohler) **174 ** . What makes it ‘authoritative’ for (Mohler) 174 is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

 

[petitfleur]

Back to the OP: the group in question is almost certainly the “Two-By-Twos” or “Cooneyites,” although there certainly are a number of radical Protestant groups who hold to some of the ideas/practices mentioned. Note in the Wikipedia article to which I linked the denial of a church name.

The one pair of “Two-By-Twos” I’ve talked to said that they didn’t deny the Trinity so much as reject non-Biblical language speaking of it. From what I understand, their founder did deny it outright, but they seem to have a very poor sense of history, claiming simply to be following the teachings of Jesus, so it’s hard to have a conversation with them even about their own history.

In many ways I admire them, because they really follow through on radical Protestant principles and live lives of great dedication. Not, of course, that I could ever join them…

  I think this is it. Thank you very much

Edwin

 

[petitfleur]

Ooops I did not make it all the way down quoting you

 

[psr13]

Guys you are seriously derailing this.

Anyways, I always thought the idea of “non-denominational” was funny. It’s like pointing to a section of a pie chart and saying “And this part, is not a category.” Really it’s just a less rational way of saying “other”.

No. I grew up in a non-denominational family. Typically it really means non-denominational. Most that I know will go to a church of almost any denomination. Churches that call themselves non-denominational do not answer to any particular group or anything. The churches are almost always completely separate from any other church, and the beliefs from one to another can be very different.

 

[174a]

If you actually do an indept examination…each one follows their own interpretation that is colored by their tradition…or where they learned it from.

Why don’t you read this…and see if it describes you accurately…calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

From this article…this is what you are doing, isn;t it?

He adopts a pick-and-choose approach. This approach attempts to avoid the dilemma raised above by methodologically, though not explicitly, counting as ‘traditional’ [as in “traditional Christian orthodoxy”] only whatever the Church said and did that agrees with or is at least compatible with one’s own interpretation of Scripture.** ‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology.**

This pick-and-choose approach to the tradition shows that it is not the fact that an Ecumenical Council declared something definitively that makes it ‘authoritative’ for (Mohler) **174 ** . What makes it ‘authoritative’ for (Mohler) 174 is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

The mod is saying this is off topic, otherwise I would reply, sorry.

 

[christosdavid]

No. I grew up in a non-denominational family. Typically it really means non-denominational. Most that I know will go to a church of almost any denomination. Churches that call themselves non-denominational do not answer to any particular group or anything. The churches are almost always completely separate from any other church, and the beliefs from one to another can be very different.

Its a form of congregationalism which has risen in reaction to overbearing umbrella denominations who have ‘denied’ key Christian beliefs such as miracles, the virgin birth, the atonement, the physical resurrection of Jesus and the inerrancy of the Scriptures (cf. the Presbyterians c.1910 or the methodists).

This ecclesial view allows each congregation to determine what they believe rather than an authority who have corrupted most denominations in many believers views