A Flag in the Sand - Non Denominational

  • Thread starter Thread starter Little_Mary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Little_Mary

Guest
undefined

I seem to be running into a lot of people lately who are “non-denominational” . It seems to be the latest fad. They love and follow Jesus but don’t care for what they call “organized religion”. They like to describe themselves as more “spiritual” then “religious”. As one firmly told me, “I’m not going to stick a flag in the sand (i.e. any certain denomination) and say ‘this is it, this is the way to heaven’”.

Catholicism is not a denomination. It is the Universal Church founded by Christ. However, how can these “flag in the sand” mentalities ignore what the Catholic church teaches without firmly planting that flag in the sand? The ones I know don’t want to hear about it; and they don’t want anything to do with it (Catholic teaching). Unless they have already studied it in depth (at least the ones I know have NOT), how can they shun it? Isn’t their flag, then, firmly in the sand? :confused:
 
Non-denominationalism is rampant individualism. The pastor is the only authority on the doctrine, morals and practices taught in his “church” – or conversely, the congregation decides what they want to believe and hires a preacher who conforms to their views.

Each “church” is adamant that what they believe is absolutely true – even though they compete and conflict with every other “church.” But they are also relativists – all other (Protestant) churches are equally true and sure paths to heaven. “But I like this one.” They belong to the school of “The only thing that matters is that we all believe in Jesus.” :whacky:
They’re long on the personality and preaching ability of the pastor and fellowshipping – and short on theology.

But they all agree on one thing: The Catholic Church is wrong.😛

JMJ Jay
 
Hogwash there is no such thing as a non-denom

Ask them about infant baptism is it allowed does baptism regenerate ro is it merely sumbolic the non denom usually beleive in believers baptism only and its symbolic guess where they got that one?
The Baptist.
Ask the non-denom doe they beleive in the rapture?
Most do so where did they get that one?
Plymouth Brethren.
etc etc
Of course they beleive in Faith alone and Sola Scriptura they got that from the Lutherans.
What non-denoms are comes down to pick and choose from the protestant denominations
So truth is relative and doctrine comes from a varitety of protestant sources their is no one source of truth but rather good opinions of truth which they choose from.
Ultiamtely the pastor pick and chooses and worse yet the lay person pick and chooses from what the pastor already cherry picked from somewhere else.
The Christianit that Christ founded and the apostles started was always organized look at acts they had the power to bind and loose to excommunicate etc etc.
A non-denom would never have the authority to organize a Bible for instance its a binding authoratative document only a binding authoratative institution would have the power to canonize it. It did fall out of the sky.
Read the early creeds heck read the Bible the early christian church always believed in one church ie one faith, one Lord, one baptism, this church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.
THis idea of all churches are the same any christian church is true is non denom invention. This is not the church of history not the church of the apostles not the church that Christ founded.
 
One major problem with nondenominational church is the simple fact that when the pastor becomes ill, or dies the church usually folds and the property is sold off to the next person who wants to be their own pope.

Without succession these non denoms. move usually as a counter culture movment to the big evil of the day. For example many of these churches are big into the pro life movement (at least the ones around this area.) because it’s the “thing” to do- twenty years later the focus will be whatever is the cultural evil at that time.

These churches cannot offer any substantive authority because they have no history and tradition (Early Church Fathers, The Saints, Martyrs, The councils, encylicals, the Papacy, and so on to fall back on.) (Those who do not remember history are destined to repeat it.)

Non denoms when encountering a disagreement are left with the a problem: since everyone will use the Bible to back up their side who has the authority to decide who is right ---- NOBODY!
 
40.png
Katholikos:
But they all agree on one thing: The Catholic Church is wrong.😛

JMJ Jay
Click to expand...
Oh boy, don’t I know it!!
:rotfl:
 
40.png
Maccabees:
What non-denoms are comes down to pick and choose from the protestant denominations
So truth is relative and doctrine comes from a varitety of protestant sources their is no one source of truth but rather good opinions of truth which they choose from.
Ultiamtely the pastor pick and chooses and worse yet the lay person pick and chooses from what the pastor already cherry picked from somewhere else.
Click to expand...
What I am experiencing right now is that they don’t want to hear anything else other than what they have (individually) decided to believe and they CERTAINLY don’t want to hear it from a Catholic.

Just yesterday one of my non-denom “friends” explained very patiently and carefully to me that only Jesus was conceived immaculately and that is what the immaculate conception was all about. When I tried to correct him I was cut off - you know “talk to the hand”.

Frusturanting as that was, it proves my point - you can’t call yourself a “non-denom” and not at least consider and be knowledgable about ALL teachings. If you don’t, then you have constructed and organized your own personal church and your “flag is stuck in the sand.” :yup:
 
…and FURTHERMORE…

How to handle it when I get that “talk to the hand” attitude.

It takes all my strength to keep my temper in check.

Is it better, sometimes, to just walk away, even if it means giving them the last word?? :banghead:
 
Little Mary:
What I am experiencing right now is that they don’t want to hear anything else other than what they have (individually) decided to believe and they CERTAINLY don’t want to hear it from a Catholic.

Just yesterday one of my non-denom “friends” explained very patiently and carefully to me that only Jesus was conceived immaculately and that is what the immaculate conception was all about. When I tried to correct him I was cut off - you know “talk to the hand”.

Frusturanting as that was, it proves my point - you can’t call yourself a “non-denom” and not at least consider and be knowledgable about ALL teachings. If you don’t, then you have constructed and organized your own personal church and your “flag is stuck in the sand.” :yup:
Click to expand...
These people don’t what the heck they are talking about first of all Jesus was not conceived Immaculate.
He was conceived by the Holy Spirit ergo Virgin Birth big difference.
Their was no favor to remove original sin thus no immaculate conception which is natural conception without original sin.
Jesus needeed no favor to remove original sin as his conception was not natural as Mary’s but supernatual as in the Holy Spirit ergo virgin birth.
If these people are going to argue they should at least get their terminology straight.
IT would help if they knew a creed or two like “conceived by the Holy Spirit born of the Virgin Mary” They don’t even know that much.
 
I do not know anything about non-denoms being especially anti-Catholic. Actually, as someone above posted, they are extremely relativist and this means that some are even willing to throw a polite nod of admiration to the Catholic Church.

But of course, when I talked to the non-denom, it was after my conversion – and they were the part of my family that cannot be told about my Catholicism. So they were already predisposed to being anti-Catholic.

Usually when a person tells me s/he is non-denominational, I say: “That’s a denomination, you know.” There is this look of complete shock on their face – like you just asked the bridge-keeper “African or European swallows?”

I will go on to show that by claiming to not belong to any denomination, they are standing IN CONTRAST all other churches who believe in denominations and thus are BY DEFAULT a denomination.

What they really wanted to call themselves was the UNIVERSAL Church, but that has been taken for quite some time now. Or maybe even Unitarian, but that’s been taken too.

If you think about it, this latest trend is a type of mini-Protestant revolution within the Protestant church. Protestants are so named because they are defined not by what they agree with the Catholic Church on but by what they disagree on.

Let’s compare Protestants churches with their Catholic counterpart.
Protestants generally less logical and more sentimental.
Protestants take pride in their “freer” form of worship.
P church architecture is generally less traditional, larger, more UFO-shaped.
Ps have a say in deciding what is “right” and “wrong”

Now, if you look at the non-denoms, they compare to the traditional Protestant churches in the same manner Protestant churches compare to the Catholic Church (ie, even more sentimental, free, relativistic, and UFO-ey).

Is this a natural trend? Will they continue having little antithetical revolutions until they come up with Non-Christian Denomination? Don’t laugh because you never know…
 
40.png
StubbleSpark:
…Is this a natural trend? Will they continue having little antithetical revolutions until they come up with Non-Christian Denomination? Don’t laugh because you never know…
Click to expand...
:rotfl:
 
40.png
StubbleSpark:
Let’s compare Protestants churches with their Catholic counterpart.
Protestants generally less logical and more sentimental.
Protestants take pride in their “freer” form of worship.
P church architecture is generally less traditional, larger, more UFO-shaped.
Ps have a say in deciding what is “right” and “wrong”

Now, if you look at the non-denoms, they compare to the traditional Protestant churches in the same manner Protestant churches compare to the Catholic Church (ie, even more sentimental, free, relativistic, and UFO-ey).
Click to expand...
Even more … UFO-ey??? That’s pretty colorful!

Good points, StubbleSpark. And colorfully stated!
 
Just remember that “nondenominational” is another term for “independent” – or “unaffiliated.” It just means that they are not affiliated with any denomination. That makes them a denomination of one – an authority unto themselves. Thus they have their own biblical interpretations, create their own doctrines, design their own practices – in short, they do as they please without any interference or authority whatsoever over them. The pastor is pope.

Recall James Jones, David Koresh, et al. Scary business, these independents. They are like a boat without an anchor, a ship without a rudder, a plane without a guidance system. Most of them will be okay, but with the wrong leader, they can run amok.

JMJ Jay
 
It has been my experience that non-denoms seem to feel a little smug - they may or may not be concious of this. But they feel smug and ‘free’ and very glad they broke loose from all those nasty ol’ backwards and binding mainline Prot denoms. They seem to look on the mainstreamers with an air of pity. Some of these non-denoms are known as Full Gospel churches as well. Admittedly, I’ve enjoyed some of those Full Gospel churches because they really seem to love the Word and all. But there is still that air of smugness. “WE preach the FULL Gospel.” The unspoken sentence left hanging in the air is “And everyone else has only PART of the gospel.”
 
40.png
Katholikos:
Thus they have their own biblical interpretations, create their own doctrines, design their own practices – in short, they do as they please without any interference or authority whatsoever over them. The pastor is pope.
Click to expand...
It isn’t really fair to say that the pastor is pope in those churches. In all that I’ve seen, the pastor says “Check it in the Bible. If what I’m saying doesn’t agree with the word, you follow the word.” They don’t consider their authority to be anywhere near the authority of the Bible.

Also, for what it’s worth, a church can’t survive unless there’s something of a consensus regarding beliefs. That acts as a check on doctrinal wandering. Despite some of the weirdness that issues from some nondenominational churches, most of them profess agreement with the fundamental doctrines of Protestant Christianity.
 
clarity on a few points from a non denominational.

Non denominational does not neccesarily equal Anti denominational. I don’t think other denominations are wrong. In fact, to be honest, i have to go evaluate them based on their doctorine, and how they use the bible. But i don’t “Hate” the idea of orgranized religion. Does it not allow for some of the freedoms that are found in an independant church? sure. But you’ll also find that you’re on your own as far as things like funds, preachers, programs, help with teachings. In short, a non denominational church is independant. The main goal by many non-denominational church is to avoid any corruption that may be passed down through denominations.
As for those who say non denominational is a denomination… it’s not. i don’t intend to be rude, but this belief comes from poor understanding of a non denominational church. just because non denominational churches use the same name to classify themselves, doesn’t meant that they are anything alike. You can’t call individual churches one denomination. Not that it really matters in light of the first paragraph.

In a sense, opposition is the same structure that was put in place to keep the government. If any one party becomes too extreme, it will be reforemd by the other side. Could a similar situation be appropriate for our faith? I know, as catholics that you believe that your faith was divinely inspired, and was likewise kept pure by God throughout the ages. But isn’t it possible that somewhere along the line, you lost something. I mean, this is where God gives us free will. If someon chooses to do evil, it isn’t in God’s nature to stop them. No offense, but from my observations, the Catholic faith is a lot like my personality. Dead set, very hard to change once a decision has been made. Is it possible that this same attitude could have had a negative affect on the catholic faith?

Last point. You speak quite negatively of Non-denominational churches. I would ask you to look at thier fruit. If they are far from God’s will, then they will not recieve his blessing, and things won’t happen. However, if they are right, then you should see life changes, and spiritual power. check
 
40.png
Kevan:
It isn’t really fair to say that the pastor is pope in those churches. In all that I’ve seen, the pastor says “Check it in the Bible. If what I’m saying doesn’t agree with the word, you follow the word.” They don’t consider their authority to be anywhere near the authority of the Bible.
Click to expand...
Just a small point, the pope cannot trump the Bible in our faith either. It’s Scripture AND Tradition working together.

As for the possibility that our Church has erred along the way, I would like to remind our non-denom poster that Judaism has ALWAYS had interpretive, oral tradition – just like her very Jewish Church, Catholicism. All Protestants take it for granted that this tradition gave us extra-biblical concepts like the Trinity without proper regard for the process of that lead to this understanding. In this respect, Protestantism is anti-progressive. It eschews the gift of Christ’s Church to humankind as being unnecessary. They take whatever teachings they like, but in the end are divided and lost without the inspired process of interpretative tradition.

Our government has interpretative tradition. It is practiced in the courts. A law cannot be taken to mean one thing one day and another the next (unless you are a pro-choice Supreme Court judge). All lawyers must understand not only the laws of the land, but also the manner in which those laws have historically been interpreted. Without this tradition, we would have lawlessness – with the courts arbitrarily deciding cases depending on the convenience of the situation. This is a recipe for anarchy and tyranny.

A parallel for this lawlessness exists in Protestantism. Until the 1930’s, ALL CHRISTIANS were against birth control. But suddenly the Anglicans changed their minds and birth control became “right.” And because the procreative act was no longer conceived as something two people do when they are open to life, the masses of American “Christians” needed a way to undo “accidental” procreation. Despite the fact we were a nation of Christians, we became a nation that supports abortion. Their selfish desire for fleeting pleasure has fueled a mindset that has left millions dead – immorality IS tyranny. Tyranny is an arbitrary type of cruel lawlessness.

If these non-denoms were true Christians and truly pro-life, then they would only engage in the procreative act when they are open to life and consecrated to God (married). But no non-denom preacher would ever publicly make such a demand on his tiny church. He would lose his entire flock. And his job.

So much for the narrow path.
 
Little Mary:
I seem to be running into a lot of people lately who are “non-denominational” . It seems to be the latest fad. They love and follow Jesus but don’t care for what they call “organized religion”. They like to describe themselves as more “spiritual” then “religious”. As one firmly told me, “I’m not going to stick a flag in the sand (i.e. any certain denomination) and say ‘this is it, this is the way to heaven’”.
Click to expand...
I ascribed to similar thoughts to those mentioned above for a short while. As a child, my family jumped from Church to Church, and eventually stopped going altogether, so I didn’t see the importance of Church. Then, during my faith renewal, I read “Mere Christianity”, in which C.S. Lewis encourages you to pick a Church and get involved. I picked one and began attending regularly, and it has made a huge difference in my life 🙂
 
There has been some good chatter around these threads about people who want God “on their terms.” I suppose the whole “thy will be done” thing is out the window for them. With that said, the ultimate “non denominational” denomination is the Unitarian Universalist Church. Anyone who feels like being a UU can join: wiccan, Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Muslim, Buddist…

To me in my old fogey curmudgeon view this is kind of a Robert Fulghum “All I need to know about (church/God/life) I learned in Kindergarten.”
Just remember that “nondenominational” is another term for “independent” – or “unaffiliated.” It just means that they are not affiliated with any denomination. That makes them a denomination of one – an authority unto themselves. Thus they have their own biblical interpretations, create their own doctrines, design their own practices – in short, they do as they please without any interference or authority whatsoever over them. The pastor is pope.
Click to expand...
Katholikos is right. These “pastors” get their oridination from Ronco and start a Church. While many of them are truly good hearted people and self taught theologically, there are the David Koresh/Jim Jones dangerous kooks too. Then again you have the Benny Hinns of the world but that is a completely different thread
 
Egg4christ: Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Just a few questions:
You posted:

*Non denominational does not neccesarily equal Anti denominational. I don’t think other denominations are wrong. In fact, to be honest, i have to go evaluate them based on their doctorine, and how they use the bible. *

You say that you evaluate them based on their doctrine, and how they use the bible. That’s all I ask of the “non-denoms” that I am corresponding with, but they have not and will not. They don’t want to hear it. They have made their decision and closed the door on learning any more. That’s their “flag in the sand” - the very thing they told me at the onset that they didn’t want to do.

You posted:
But isn’t it possible that somewhere along the line, you lost something. I mean, this is where God gives us free will. If someon chooses to do evil, it isn’t in God’s nature to stop them. No offense, but from my observations, the Catholic faith is a lot like my personality. Dead set, very hard to change once a decision has been made. Is it possible that this same attitude could have had a negative affect on the catholic faith?

No, it is not possible that Catholic Faith has lost something along the way. Christ promised us that this would not happen. “Dead set, very hard to change” is what you called it - but remember this : PEOPLE change; God does not. We move away from Him; His teachings stay the same. The Catholic Church guards those teachings and takes this role very seriously. There is nothing that needs to be changed. PEOPLE need to change and come back to Him.

You posted:
Last point. You speak quite negatively of Non-denominational churches. I would ask you to look at thier fruit. If they are far from God’s will, then they will not recieve his blessing, and things won’t happen. However, if they are right, then you should see life changes, and spiritual power. check

Forgive me if I sound negative; it is not my intention. Non denominational believers, like all Christians, are very much in love with Jesus and His Word; however, IMO, they are turning their back on the very thing that Jesus set up for them - the Catholic faith. It would not subtract from their relationship with Christ, it would complete it.

But as I said above, the people I know don’t even want to consider it. Too busy mixing cement for their flags to set up in I guess. :nope:
 
Look at it like this (and this can apply to any non-Catholic religion):

Think of a small child playing at her toy kitchen. She copies everything she’s seen her mother do and it’s adorable. Her parents are watching her, smiling, as she tries to act sooo grown up.

I think that God might look at non-Catholics in much the same way. He watches lovingly as they read His Word and worship Him, and He smiles because He knows they love Him. But when worship and Sunday school are over, He says briskly “OK kids, that was nice, but now it’s time for Mass!!”

To continue the thought, non-Catholics may be bearing some good fruit and blessings, but there are so many buds left on the vine that are not being tended. Buds that, if nourished, would flourish and complete the growth process.

Go back to the small child, now at dinner, who only wants the cheesy potatoes and then to skip straight to dessert. But she must also have some meat and vegetables to complete her nourishment. Her parents are responsible for seeing to it that her diet is well rounded. So, too, does the Catholic Church watch over our souls. (this meat/potatoes/veg analogy is from an apologist but I don’t recall his name right now!). :o

Another analogy I posted in another thread: Think of what a wonderous thing the human body - God’s creation- is with all the systems working together to sustain life. Don’t you think Our Loving Father wants the same thing for our souls - a system in place to help us obtain eternal life?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top