A question for Non-denominationals

[Greg57]

Never been non-denominational myself, but an old friend goes to a non-denominational church. We actually had this conversation last week, and he told me that they only consider the actual Reformation churches to be Protestant. Lutherans, Reformed Churches/Presbyterians, and Anglicans (and perhaps Methodists) are what he and his church declare to be Protestant. Maybe they were looking more at denominational lineage and history than theological similarity? There do seem to be two schools of thought: the “we are non-Catholic and non-Orthodox” camp vs. the “we actually engaged in the Reformation” camp. Still trying to sort through this one myself.

I think that point is rather irrelevent because they are still protesting against the Catholic Church which makes them automatically ‘protestant’ by nature. So, no matter how much they consider themselves “non-protestant,” by the very fact that they are not in union with the Catholic Church makes them separated, and if they are against the Catholic Church they are, for all intents and purposes, ‘protestant.’

 

[Jon_Hus]

What is ‘pre-mil’ … if not pre-millennialist ?

There are Pre-Mil Dispensationalist and Covenant Pre-
Mil that are not dispensationalist

 

[Jon_Hus]

I think that point is rather irrelevent because they are still protesting against the Catholic Church which makes them automatically ‘protestant’ by nature. So, no matter how much they consider themselves “non-protestant,” by the very fact that they are not in union with the Catholic Church makes them separated, and if they are against the Catholic Church they are, for all intents and purposes, ‘protestant.’

Sir, with all due respect,

The truth of the matter is that there are “non-protestant” evangelicals. That is a fact but if for some reason it makes you feel better to deny this then by all means indulge yourself. Trust me on this, very few if any “protestants” or “non-denominationals” spend very much time worrying about what others (nice as they may be) think about their reasons for being non-catholic.

Take care,
Jon

 

[Sharon125]

There are a few things such as the eucharist, purgatory, and Catholic Bible that one can’t be neutral on. Most protestants don’t think about those issues when they say they’re not protestant. At the same time, in non-denominational Bible studies, they usually don’t focus on those differences, either. Sometimes an issue will come up and the protestants will just forget there is a difference.

An example is Beth Moore. Even though she belongs to a Southern Baptist church, she tries to make her Bible Studies nondenominational. She had a group of Catholics on state with her during one session of Daniel. Most of the time, she doesn’t say anything about purgatory one way or another, but in her study on Revelation, she said that you either go to Heaven or Hell. She said there’s no place else in the scripture. She forgot about Purgatory and the book of Maccabees.

 

[CWBetts]

Sir, with all due respect,

The truth of the matter is that there are “non-protestant” evangelicals. That is a fact but if for some reason it makes you feel better to deny this then by all means indulge yourself. Trust me on this, very few if any “protestants” or “non-denominationals” spend very much time worrying about what others (nice as they may be) think about their reasons for being non-catholic.

Take care,
Jon

You. my friend. are wrong. Show me an evangelical that accepts the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. The rejection of this truth is one aspect where all protestants are united. Show me a n evangelical that does not cling to Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. These are the pillars of the reformation. Non-denominationals who reject the “Protestant” label are simple self-deluding themselves.

 

[1beleevr]

I am not going to argue this with you. You won’t accept Tradition, and Sola Scriptura is a self-refuting heresy.

That is probably awise decision on your part; in light of our not agreeing on so many issues! I have stated my case for why I don’t believe certain things, and you have provided empty verses, which do not support your point of view! I don’t need a crucifix, because I imagine what so many saw on that Sunday morning; an EMPTY Cross! And Mary Magdelene, wow, the first to see Jesus after He rose from the dead:thumbsup: Other tha John 17:11, you have failed to show other verses which mention Holy Father! Even former catholics told me that they couldn’t call a MORTAL man holy father anymore! and confession is between a man/woman and their God(1John 1:9) But, I have found that confessing my sins to fellow Christians, is very cleansing, and liberating! God bless you, my brother!

 

[1beleevr]

Among the things that those dnominational churches that I have had contact with, squabble over or argue about include, but are no limited to: Dress codes(yes, some churches try to enforce dress codes) how much to give what kind of chairs to use, music, how to worship, how to pray, parking and children’s programs! There are also issues involving serving God outside the church1 Don’t miss that at all!

 

[CWBetts]

That is probably awise decision on your part; in light of our not agreeing on so many issues! I have stated my case for why I don’t believe certain things, and you have provided empty verses, which do not support your point of view! I don’t need a crucifix, because I imagine what so many saw on that Sunday morning; an EMPTY Cross! And Mary Magdelene, wow, the first to see Jesus after He rose from the dead:thumbsup: Other tha John 17:11, you have failed to show other verses which mention Holy Father! Even former catholics told me that they couldn’t call a MORTAL man holy father anymore! and confession is between a man/woman and their God(1John 1:9) But, I have found that confessing my sins to fellow Christians, is very cleansing, and liberating! God bless you, my brother!

I see you refused to acknowledge John 20:23. And you obviously have not read Isa 22. I know you are harping on “call no man father” so I must ask you what do you call you biological father? Paul referred to himself as a father to those he was a shepherd of. And what of the references to Abraham as a father? You can choose to use your own interpretation of the Scriptures (which is erroneous) or the interpretation of the CHurch (which is infallible). It is your call.

 

[Maranatha33]

You. my friend. are wrong. Show me an evangelical that accepts the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. The rejection of this truth is one aspect where all protestants are united. Show me a n evangelical that does not cling to Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. These are the pillars of the reformation. Non-denominationals who reject the “Protestant” label are simple self-deluding themselves.

I would like to make a few observations: In my discussions with a well established Catholic contributor on this site, he told me that in Roman Catholicism, The priorities are:

1. The (Roman Catholic) Magisterium
2. The Sacraments
3. The Bible

Non-denominationalists priority is:

The Bible.

Being of a denomination holds that there are “church” rules, usually in a Magisterium. Those who live strictly by the Scriptures don’t adhere to these rules in their beliefs. This is Sola Scriptura, and it is literally in the Bible, just not in Roman Catholic dogma. (see 2Tim 3:16 and Rev. 22:18,19 for just a few examples.) Those who live by Sola Fide, faith alone, are just believing what the Bible literally says.
Romans 1:17…
“The just shall live by faith.”
Ephesians 2:7-9 is quite clear…
“in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.”

The reformation was really about the common man learning what is literally written in the Bible. Luther’s translation into German was just one of many. Wycliff translated the Latin Vulgate into English over a hundred years before Luther. William Tyndale, Luther’s peer, translated the original Greek and Hebrew versions into English as well. The Roman Catholic Church tried at all costs to stop these translations. In 1408-1409, laws were enacted that made possession of the Scriptures in English (even just a single verse) punishable by death by fire. This practice preceded Queen (Bloody) Mary and her 273 executions by many years. Sir Thomas More was cannonized in the 1930’s for his good works, putting many people on a bonfire because they possessed the Scriptures in English. So the real definition of the reformation, is that many people wanted the right to have and live by the Bible, without denominational doctrine.

I do not consider myself a protestant. I am not protesting against any denomination per se, even the RCC. I simply believe that The Bible is actually God’s Word, and that is all that my faith need be based upon. Not any particular denominational rules.

 

[CWBetts]

I would like to make a few observations: In my discussions with a well established Catholic contributor on this site, he told me that in Roman Catholicism, The priorities are:

1. The (Roman Catholic) Magisterium
2. The Sacraments
3. The Bible

Non-denominationalists priority is:

The Bible.

Being of a denomination holds that there are “church” rules, usually in a Magisterium. Those who live strictly by the Scriptures don’t adhere to these rules in their beliefs. This is Sola Scriptura, and it is literally in the Bible, just not in Roman Catholic dogma. (see 2Tim 3:16 and Rev. 22:18,19 for just a few examples.) Those who live by Sola Fide, faith alone, are just believing what the Bible literally says.
Romans 1:17…
“The just shall live by faith.”
Ephesians 2:7-9 is quite clear…
“in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.”

The reformation was really about the common man learning what is literally written in the Bible. Luther’s translation into German was just one of many. Wycliff translated the Latin Vulgate into English over a hundred years before Luther. William Tyndale, Luther’s peer, translated the original Greek and Hebrew versions into English as well. The Roman Catholic Church tried at all costs to stop these translations. In 1408-1409, laws were enacted that made possession of the Scriptures in English (even just a single verse) punishable by death by fire. This practice preceded Queen (Bloody) Mary and her 273 executions by many years. Sir Thomas More was cannonized in the 1930’s for his good works, putting many people on a bonfire because they possessed the Scriptures in English. So the real definition of the reformation, is that many people wanted the right to have and live by the Bible, without denominational doctrine.

I do not consider myself a protestant. I am not protesting against any denomination per se, even the RCC. I simply believe that The Bible is actually God’s Word, and that is all that my faith need be based upon. Not any particular denominational rules.

FIRST: The “well established contributor” is wrong. But that is beside the point. Let us look at the Scripture you presented to defend Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. If you really believed the Bible, you would know that faith alone is not in there ANYWHERE. In fat the only time the phrase shows up is in James 2:24, just to clarify that we are NOT saved by faith alone! There are no scriptures that say we are to go by the Bible alone, so don’t even try.

 

[guanophore]

So, if we didn’t have to go to confession, wear crucifixes, call the pope holy father, and skip meat on Fridays, catholicism would be more attractive:thumbsup:

This is quite disingenuous 1beleevr. You have been on CAF for some time now, and you have been repeatedly told that Catholics are not required to wear a crucifix, call the Pope “Holy Father” or “skip meat on Fridays”. This litany represents nothing but baseless calumny on your part.

As for confession, we are not at liberty to jettison portions of the Apostolic Teaching just to accomondate those who want a more “attractive” faith- especially those who pander lies about that faith!

For you, we jettison this Apostolic teaching then to “attract” the next person who is uncomfortable we jettison some more until we have what? The watered down version of the Christian faith we find in the separated ecclesial communities. Jesus commanded us to teach “all that I have commanded”. We don’t have the freedom to avoid part of it.

2Tim.4

[3] For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings,
[4] and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

 

[guanophore]

I believe that the individual believer has a responsibility to seek out the Lord and his wisedom by tust and faith based on the teaching of the Bible and the leading of the Holy Spirit. In practical application,

What is the source of this belief?

To put it another way, my faith and my doctrine are mine and my responsibility.

And what is the source of this belief?

 I understand that you view it as an act of rebellion and that is your right.  It is also your right and privledge to place yourself under the authority of your church.

Yes, we do see it as an act of rebellion. The Scripture and the Teaching of the Apostles are clear that our faith and our doctrine do not come from us, nor do they belong to us. Catholic faith and doctrine comes from Christ, and is handed down through the paradosis. We don’t have the privilege to invent it for ourselves. On the contrary, we are to preserve that which was committed to us.

You have that same burden and responsibility that I have however. I choose to  base my faith on the Bible and it's teaching, you place yours in your church.

They are not separate, Thomas. The Church produced the NT, that is why there is nothing in it that is not consistent with Catholic Teaching.

The Bible is not the Source of our faith. Jesus is our Source.

So when the time comes to give an account for our lives, we will present a totally different defense. My defense will be the Scriptures, yours will be the Church.

No, I don’t think this is true in either case. I think we will be judged on the basis of our actions.

  In summery, while you believe that the RCC has a consistent rule of faith over the centuries, I believe that within that body there is a wide variety of divergent views not expressed and in my opinion the consistency you claim is not as important as many think.

Indeed there are many divergent “opinions”, views, and inconsistencies among the members of the Church. However, there is only one doctrine of the faith. To the extent that the members “diverge” from the One Faith that was passed on to us by the Apostles.they have departed from the unity. The difference between Catholic faith and those faiths extracted from scripture by individuals is that the One Faith exists outside all of us. It is a reality that was revealed to mankind by God, and the HS preserves this revelation in the Church. It is also reflected in the Scritpure, which was produced by that Church.

 

[guanophore]

Ah yes, but free from weekly confession, calling the pope holy father, crucifixes, and purgatory! And the most grievious error that catholics make, is assuming that ALL noncatholics believe that OSAS means free to continue a life of sin once saved! What a crock! Why bother coming to Christ if you are going to mock Him by sinning! And infant baptism is a catholic interpretation of some Bible verse

Here is another rather bigoted statement, 1beleevr.

I do concede that some Catholics who are uneducated about the plethora of soteriological views among our separated brethren do erroneously thing that all non-catholics believe OSAS, but this is not the case for most of the educated Catholics here.

I think you also know that infant baptism was being practiced before any of the NT was written. You also know that none of our doctrines come from interpretation of bible verses.

Have you considered that your tour here at CAF has come to a completion?

 

[Sharon125]

I am confused. I thought we were discussing attending nondenominational Bible Studies. It appears that someone who is not Catholic is here trying to tell us we should leave the Catholic Church and join a nondenominational one? Why would he do that?

 

[jlhargus]

That is probably awise decision on your part; in light of our not agreeing on so many issues! I have stated my case for why I don’t believe certain things, and you have provided empty verses, which do not support your point of view! I don’t need a crucifix, because I imagine what so many saw on that Sunday morning; an EMPTY Cross! And Mary Magdelene, wow, the first to see Jesus after He rose from the dead:thumbsup: Other tha John 17:11, you have failed to show other verses which mention Holy Father! Even former catholics told me that they couldn’t call a MORTAL man holy father anymore! and confession is between a man/woman and their God(1John 1:9) But, I have found that confessing my sins to fellow Christians, is very cleansing, and liberating! God bless you, my brother!

Among the things that those dnominational churches that I have had contact with, squabble over or argue about include, but are no limited to: Dress codes(yes, some churches try to enforce dress codes) how much to give what kind of chairs to use, music, how to worship, how to pray, parking and children’s programs! There are also issues involving serving God outside the church1 Don’t miss that at all!

JL: I have noticed your posts lately, passing thru the lines, it seem arguing over petty non-sense seems to be what you are all about. I don’t see how you can get anymore childish.

 

[guanophore]

You know, I was reading this thread, and came to this comment:

According to the Scriptures, Baptism DOES cleanse you! Sheesh! Why don’t you actually rea the entire Bible, and not just the parts that support your preconceived notions.

I thought Carl was speaking in an exasperated manner, and perhaps perfunctory. Then I went back to see the original:

Where in my post, did you read that? [SIGN]I said that baptism dos not wash away your sins![/SIGN] We are cleansed from sin by the Blood of Christ! When you get saved, you die to your old self, when you go under the water, you are buried with Christ! And when you come up out of the water, you are resurrected with Christ! Passion Play?

Then I realized that Carl was right, and you just disregard the Scriptures that do not fit into your preconcevied notions, for example:

Acts.22
[16] And now why do you wait?[SIGN] Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins[/SIGN], calling on his name.’

You see, 1beleevr, the Apostles did not separate the physical from the Spiritual. Baptism is the circumcision made without hands, the spiritual event during which God applies the blood of Christ to the individual. I am confused about your post above, because it seems that you understand baptism to be how the person is joined with Christ in His death and resurrection. If you understand this, then why do you think the spiritual event is separated from the physical?

 

[guanophore]

Crucifixes: Paul teaches crucifixion, and resurrection; and Jesus was remove from the Cross, so there's no need to display a likeness of Him on it:confused: He is seated at the right hand of God!

The Apostles thought differently, 1beleevr:

Gal.3
[1] O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?

They carried the crucifix with them during their evangelization to illustrate the gospel message.That is why so many of the early artworks of them contain a crucifix. Clearly scripture shows that there is a “need to display a likeness of Him” on it, because this is the public portrayal of Him as crucified.

Of course He is at the right hand of God, but He calls upon us to take up our cross, and follow Him. We are to be crucified with Christ. Many Christians wear this sign to remind themselves of this fact.

This is not required of Catholics, though, as you have repeatedly slandered us as saying.

pope: couldn’t glean anything from either book that justifies calling a mortal man, "holy father. John 17:11 however, Jesus does call God,“Holy Father!” H-m-m-m-m-!

You seem to have serious difficulty with the incarnational principle.

Purgatory: Verses used to support purgatory are vague at best!

I agree. It is a good thing that Catholic doctrine does not come from the bible.

What we see int NT is the reflection of our faith, not the Source of of it.

[SIGN] I tend to espouse the idea,[/SIGN] …

This is a good example of why there is so much splintering in the Body of Christ today. Instead of receiving the faith from the Apostles as Jesus intended, we have individuals attempting to extract the faith from the Holy Scriptures, dating, and espousing "ideas"that seem to suit themselves.

I don't understand completely what infant baptism accomplishes, since the child has no concept of what is going on! Ball's in your court!:thumbsup:

Actually, it is in God’s court, since He was the one who chose to bring infants into His covenant through circumcision. They have not concept of what is going on. It seemed good to Him to be brought into the covenant as an infant. Circumcision is the forshadowing of baptism.

 

[guanophore]

but baptism is also a public proclamation(even John the Baptist baptzed in public, including Jesus)

The fact that baptism was done in public does not make in a ‘proclamation". Indeed it was, especially for John’s disciples, but the Church went underground shortly after the death of Christ, where "public proclamation’ of anything related to Christianity became cause to be fed to the lions. The Church baptized in private for 300 years until Christianity was de-crimminalized. If baptism had to be a public proclmamation, then none of those baptisms would be considered valid.

Rather, this is a modern American evangelical innovation of the purpose of baptism.

And, if Jesus was baptized publicly and by full immersion, why shouldn’t we?

We can be, and should be. This is what the CC considered the most fullest sign of the sacrament.

Is the word eucharist in the Bible anywhere?

Of course?! Did you think Catholics made that up too?

It seems that you are revealing more and more of your anti-Catholic/anti-sacramental sentiments here on CAF.

 

[guanophore]

Sir, with all due respect,

The truth of the matter is that there are “non-protestant” evangelicals. That is a fact but if for some reason it makes you feel better to deny this then by all means indulge yourself. Trust me on this, very few if any “protestants” or “non-denominationals” spend very much time worrying about what others (nice as they may be) think about their reasons for being non-catholic.

Take care,
Jon

No, there are no “non-protestant” evangelicals. I will agree with you that there many evangelicals that not only do not “worry” about Catholic faith and doctrine, nor are they even aware that they are protesting with their theological views. Their lack of awareness, though, does not change the facts. They are non-catholic because they hold to protestant theology.

 

[mskejj]

The reformation was really about the common man learning what is literally written in the Bible. Luther’s translation into German was just one of many. Wycliff translated the Latin Vulgate into English over a hundred years before Luther. William Tyndale, Luther’s peer, translated the original Greek and Hebrew versions into English as well. The Roman Catholic Church tried at all costs to stop these translations. In 1408-1409, laws were enacted that made possession of the Scriptures in English (even just a single verse) punishable by death by fire. This practice preceded Queen (Bloody) Mary and her 273 executions by many years. Sir Thomas More was cannonized in the 1930’s for his good works, putting many people on a bonfire because they possessed the Scriptures in English. So the real definition of the reformation, is that many people wanted the right to have and live by the Bible, without denominational doctrine.

St. Thomas More was canonized for not denying the authority of Rome as the Head of the Church which Christ founded with the apostles. He was beheaded because he refused to sign a letter stating that he would follow the the King of England as the Head of the Church and not the Vicar of Christ (The Pope)…And of course the reason the King of England chose to make himself the Head of the Church is because the Church would not allow him to divorce his wife. History verifies this…you can even watch the secular TV show “The Tudors” and understand this. Please do some research (especially on Wycliff) do get a true representation as to what happened during that time…I suggest Henry Graham’s book,
(he was a Presbyterian…then converted) “Where We Got The Bible…Our Debt to the Catholic Church”.