Difference non-denominational Church vs other "reborns"?

[CopticChristian]

I do accept some (possibly most) Protestant thought. I wouldn’t self-identify as Protestant, because I don’t feel that word describes me very well, but you are welcome to call me that if you wish.

I have followed your suggestion, and read some of that Google throws up against those search terms.

Who says we aren’t telling people? If we are honest about what we believe, including being open about our origins, which we are, who is fooled? We don’t pretend to have a long tradition of our own. We are standing on the shoulders of giants, only there at all because of the saints who have gone before us, passing on the faith though history until now. And yes, many of those people were Catholic. No-one I know would deny that, because it’s historical fact.

Try using the following search engine “Dogpile” as opposed to google for interest. Here is what you have said:

I guess you could say that we are Protestant, in the sense that we are neither Orthodox nor Catholic. That is only one definition of the word Protestant, though.

Personally, I don’t like the name Protestant, and wouldn’t usually apply it to myself, because I’m not protesting against anything.

Obviously Protestant churches teach Protestant theology. What else would they do?

Who says we aren’t telling people? If we are honest about what we believe, including being open about our origins, which we are, who is fooled? We don’t pretend to have a long tradition of our own. We are standing on the shoulders of giants, only there at all because of the saints who have gone before us, passing on the faith though history until now. And yes, many of those people were Catholic.

I am pleased that you realize that your origins are Catholic in a sense. Your stream of Protestant thought emanates from Anglican, to Methodist, to Holiness movement, to Pentacostal. The offspring of the Holiness include Vineyard, Calvary Chapel and other Protestant types.

I found the following at a Protestant website reviewing the Vineyard. Are they wrong?

1. The VM is a major participant in the Spiritual Warfare Movement.
2. The VM believes in “power evangelism” vs. “program evangelism.” Program evangelism is the presentation of the gospel message to a lost sinner. While not anti-program evangelism, the VM believes that it is an anemic way of bringing people to Christ, especially people in the Third World
3. The VM is highly ecumenical. Just as with charismatics, it is experience rather than doctrine that draws people to the Vineyard. Therefore, the VM people can work with anyone who claims to be a Christian, no matter what they believe. The VM actively encourages reunification with the Catholic church, and claim that the Pope is an evangelical Christian. We can see why the Promise Keepers, with its strong VM leadership, is so ecumenical and encourages the participation of Catholics even in leadership.
4. The VM has dominionist leanings. Dominion theology teaches that dominion over every area of life has been restored by the first coming of Christ. It is now the church’s obligation to redeem not only individuals, but society as well, in order to usher in the kingdom of God. The VM, following the teachings of George Ladd, believe that “the kingdom is, but not yet.”

Thank you :idea::newidea::ehh:

 

[ltwin]

Try using the following search engine “Dogpile” as opposed to google for interest. Here is what you have said:

I am pleased that you realize that your origins are Catholic in a sense. Your stream of Protestant thought emanates from Anglican, to Methodist, to Holiness movement, to Pentacostal. The offspring of the Holiness include Vineyard, Calvary Chapel and other Protestant types.

I found the following at a Protestant website reviewing the Vineyard. Are they wrong?

1. The VM is a major participant in the Spiritual Warfare Movement.
2. The VM believes in “power evangelism” vs. “program evangelism.” Program evangelism is the presentation of the gospel message to a lost sinner. While not anti-program evangelism, the VM believes that it is an anemic way of bringing people to Christ, especially people in the Third World
3. The VM is highly ecumenical. Just as with charismatics, it is experience rather than doctrine that draws people to the Vineyard. Therefore, the VM people can work with anyone who claims to be a Christian, no matter what they believe. The VM actively encourages reunification with the Catholic church, and claim that the Pope is an evangelical Christian. We can see why the Promise Keepers, with its strong VM leadership, is so ecumenical and encourages the participation of Catholics even in leadership.
4. The VM has dominionist leanings. Dominion theology teaches that dominion over every area of life has been restored by the first coming of Christ. It is now the church’s obligation to redeem not only individuals, but society as well, in order to usher in the kingdom of God. The VM, following the teachings of George Ladd, believe that “the kingdom is, but not yet.”

Thank you :idea::newidea::ehh:

I can’t speak to the ecumenical stuff, but someone seems to be confusing the kingdom theology of George Ladd with the dominionist Kingdom Now theology. They are not the same.

Kingdom theology simply says that the present age is caught between the** present age of evil** brought about by the Fall of Man and the** age to come** which was inaugurated with Jesus’ life on earth. So, the Kingdom is now but not yet.

The third possibility is that Jesus proclaimed a kingdom come and coming, both future and present at the same time. Here we are on dead center. Jesus believes in the reestablishment of God’s rightful reign in Israel and among the Gentile nations. His mission inaugurates that reign. While God’s kingdom is present in his ministry, it is not fully present. There is a future fulfillment when Satan, sin and death will be completely destroyed. At the same time, Jesus comes to manifest God’s direct rule here and now, healing the sick, casting out demons, bringing justice to the poor and defeating our enemies. This means that the future messianic kingdom has dawned; it has broken in upon us. Furthermore, it is God’s intention to spread this kingdom around the world (to the Gentiles) and down through history until its consummation .In sum, the kingdom is really here but it is not fully here. Believers, then, live in the tension between the kingdom come and coming, the “already and the not yet.”…

This illuminates our present experience. It explains both the reality of our triumph in Christ and the continuing spiritual warfare which we fight on many fronts. It explains the reality that we have died with Christ, and the flesh still wars against the spirit. It explains why some people are dramatically healed by the power of God and also continue to get sick and die. It explains why we have strength through weakness and life through death. If we break this tension we either end up in the resignation of “cessationism” (God doesn’t work miracles today), or the triumphalism of perfectionism (God always works miracles if we have the faith to believe him). The good news is that the future kingdom is now at work in the present. We are not waiting for the end; we are living in the end. By the power of the Spirit we are enabled to live between the times.

For us, the Christian life will always be lived in tension. All whom we evangelize will not be converted. All whom we pray for will not be healed. But some will as the kingdom breaks in. Jesus teaches us to pray, “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” This is not a magic prayer bringing the perfection of heaven down to earth, which would be dualistic Platonism. This is an eschatological prayer asking for the future kingdom to break in upon us in the present. It is also our prayer for the consummation of all things. Paradoxically, as we live in the end we wait and pray for the end to come. Paul writes, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ will all be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God, the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.” (I Corinthians 15:22-25)

(“The Kingdom Coming, Come or Both?” Courtesy of Vineyardusa.org)

And I’m not exactly sure what is meant by “spiritual warfare movement”. There are some exaggerated theologies on spiritual warfare out there now days. Can’t speak to the Vineyard, but in the Pentecostal circles I go to, spiritual warfare is usually just a synonym for prayer. Christians are strongest, my pastor says, when we are on our knees.

 

[CopticChristian]

I can’t speak to the ecumenical stuff, but someone seems to be confusing the kingdom theology of George Ladd with the dominionist Kingdom Now theology. They are not the same.

Kingdom theology simply says that the present age is caught between the** present age of evil** brought about by the Fall of Man and the** age to come** which was inaugurated with Jesus’ life on earth. So, the Kingdom is now but not yet.

And I’m not exactly sure what is meant by “spiritual warfare movement”. There are some exaggerated theologies on spiritual warfare out there now days. Can’t speak to the Vineyard, but in the Pentecostal circles I go to, spiritual warfare is usually just a synonym for prayer. Christians are strongest, my pastor says, when we are on our knees.

In my experience Protestants are correct in what they assert as is true here. Christians are strongest on their knees, in thanksgiving, receiving the body/blood Christ in the Eucharit giving thanks. Many are sick and weak for not doing so.

23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

  27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. 30For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.

So we agree, on our knees. What you say is true. What you omit is also true. The wedding supper of the lamb, the mass, is all that you are missing.

 

[Godith]

I am pleased that you realize that your origins are Catholic in a sense. Your stream of Protestant thought emanates from Anglican, to Methodist, to Holiness movement, to Pentacostal. The offspring of the Holiness include Vineyard, Calvary Chapel and other Protestant types.

This is quite true. The Catholic foundations on which much of the Western Church is built are important, and can’t be ignored, IMO.

I found the following at a Protestant website reviewing the Vineyard. Are they wrong?

1. The VM is a major participant in the Spiritual Warfare Movement.

1. The VM believes in “power evangelism” vs. “program evangelism.” Program evangelism is the presentation of the gospel message to a lost sinner. While not anti-program evangelism, the VM believes that it is an anemic way of bringing people to Christ, especially people in the Third World

1. The VM is highly ecumenical. Just as with charismatics, it is experience rather than doctrine that draws people to the Vineyard. Therefore, the VM people can work with anyone who claims to be a Christian, no matter what they believe. The VM actively encourages reunification with the Catholic church, and claim that the Pope is an evangelical Christian. We can see why the Promise Keepers, with its strong VM leadership, is so ecumenical and encourages the participation of Catholics even in leadership.
2. The VM has dominionist leanings. Dominion theology teaches that dominion over every area of life has been restored by the first coming of Christ. It is now the church’s obligation to redeem not only individuals, but society as well, in order to usher in the kingdom of God. The VM, following the teachings of George Ladd, believe that “the kingdom is, but not yet.”

Thank you :idea::newidea::ehh:

I’ll gladly tell you what I know.

1. I’m not sure about a ‘Spiritual Warfare Movement’, but we certainly believe in spiritual warfare. We believe the Bible when it says that some illnesses, and some difficulties in life are the result of demonic activity. We are taught to pray against such influences, if and when we believe them to be present. However, we aren’t the ‘demons under every rock’ brigade. lol Demons are not the cause of every bad thing that happens to a person.
2. This is basically correct. We believe that programme-evangelism is good. However, it’s not what Jesus did in His ministry, at least not exclusively. He did preach and teach, but He also demonstrated the Kingdom with signs and wonders. We just try to emulate Him.
3. We are indeed highly ecumenical. We firmly believe that all believers are part of Christ’s Body on earth. We honour, respect and love our sister churches, and actively seek to partner with them, and work alongside them. However, that doesn’t include ‘anyone who claims to be a Christian’. For instance, the LDS would say they are Christian, but they don’t believe in the Holy Trinity, so we wouldn’t class them as part of the Body.

I’m not sure about claiming the Pope is an evangelical Christian. He’s quite clearly a Catholic, but that’s a good thing.

I don’t know anything about Promise Keepers. As far as I know, they aren’t active in the UK, which is where I’m from. I did have a look at their website, though, and there are no Vineyard pastors on their Board, so I’m not sure where the author of your list got the idea that they have a ‘strong VM leadership’.

1. Itwen has already provided an excellent quote that shows the Vineyard’s Kingdom Theology. It’s not the same as Dominionism, which is not taught in Vineyard churches.

 

[CopticChristian]

This is quite true. The Catholic foundations on which much of the Western Church is built are important, and can’t be ignored, IMO.

I’ll gladly tell you what I know.

1. I’m not sure about a ‘Spiritual Warfare Movement’, but we certainly believe in spiritual warfare. We believe the Bible when it says that some illnesses, and some difficulties in life are the result of demonic activity. We are taught to pray against such influences, if and when we believe them to be present. However, we aren’t the ‘demons under every rock’ brigade. lol Demons are not the cause of every bad thing that happens to a person.
2. This is basically correct. We believe that programme-evangelism is good. However, it’s not what Jesus did in His ministry, at least not exclusively. He did preach and teach, but He also demonstrated the Kingdom with signs and wonders. We just try to emulate Him.
3. We are indeed highly ecumenical. We firmly believe that all believers are part of Christ’s Body on earth. We honour, respect and love our sister churches, and actively seek to partner with them, and work alongside them. However, that doesn’t include ‘anyone who claims to be a Christian’. For instance, the LDS would say they are Christian, but they don’t believe in the Holy Trinity, so we wouldn’t class them as part of the Body.

I’m not sure about claiming the Pope is an evangelical Christian. He’s quite clearly a Catholic, but that’s a good thing.

I don’t know anything about Promise Keepers. As far as I know, they aren’t active in the UK, which is where I’m from. I did have a look at their website, though, and there are no Vineyard pastors on their Board, so I’m not sure where the author of your list got the idea that they have a ‘strong VM leadership’.

1. Itwen has already provided an excellent quote that shows the Vineyard’s Kingdom Theology. It’s not the same as Dominionism, which is not taught in Vineyard churches.

Much of the Western Church? Imagine how powerful a Catholic priest is. We listen to them, we confess to them, they consecrate the Eucharist, they minister to the sick, they give up lots and lots, they preach every Sunday and sometimes more often, they pray daily and you can understand how powerful these priests are…

Luther was an Augustinian monk, Zwingli was a priest, Knox was a priest and Calvin was a Catholic, lawyer whose father was excommunicated. You know what Shakespeare said about what we should do to Lawyers. They all gave up celebacy to give you not much but all of the Protestant part of what you believe. Protestant thought is pure Western, yahoo! The Western Church and Eastern Church are Catholic. Just look at any Orthodox website, they say they are One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. The Pope says we are sister Churches. So if we consider that the Church East and West is The Church and deranged priests gave you Protestant thought, much has to become “all” the Western Church.

Some priests teach well and others don’t

 

[CopticChristian]

Are you sure?

Do you think that many thousend years of polytheism go away just like that, only because a monotheistic religion becomes the national religion?
No, I am sure not!
Maybe there is no historical proof (I don’t know, frankly, as I haven’t studied that part of Ancient History that accurately) that some feasts, gods and practices were converted into christian feasts, and saints, but I think this highly probable.
Let’s take All Saints Day: Only one day before nowadays (again) Helloween is celebrated. Helloween was in former times called Samhain (by the Celts) and marked the End of the Year, where also the dead are remembered. (They even were afraid that they might get out of Hades in this night, as the barriers between the worlds are very slight on this particular day.)
A strange coincidence? - No, I don’t think so. And there are even other examples.

Christianity didn’t have a mother-goddess, so what happened when it became the national religion of the Roman Empire? I think you know what I want to say now.

Saints: You invoke certain Saints for certain occationes, don’t you? (Like St. Antonius when you lose something).
Every club has a patron, like St. Florianus for the fire-brigade or St. Cecilia for the musicians.
In Polytheism there was something called “House gods”. Mhm, looks similar to me. Not talking about the Olympic Gods. (fishermen → Neptun)

I think it’s simply naive to think that all of sudden the whole inhabitants of the Roman Empire became Christians, forgetting from one day to the next their old gods and traditions and religious practices!!

Christianity didn’t have a mother-goddess, so what happened when it became the national religion of the Roman Empire? I think you know what I want to say now.

Something about Mary? That was what you were trying to say, MMMMary correct? Now I posted this elsewhere as we were discussing some DNA issues. These are facts that I will be happy to direct you to.

Jesus was in the womb of Mary. Mary was His Mother. The Bible says “all generations will call me blessed”. So please if you choose to write anything about Mary all I ask is that you honor the Word and type the following “Blessed Mary” everytime you type her name. :thumbsup:Jesus kept the commandments and so do we.

The fetus in the womb share cell with the mother and the mother with the fetus. Jesus was fully man and fully God and there was not a time when He was not God/Man. OK?

The fetal cells of the God/man became part of Mary, called chimerism, and the cells of Mary became part of Jesus.

Mary having given birth was filled with some of the God/man cells after birth and since every cell in the God/man was human/divine, Mary retained the divinty and humanity of her Son, the God/man. So far so good?

Now imagine this. Jesus on the cross, maintained some of Mary’s DNA by birth and also some of her maternal cells by chimerism. Jesus and Mary died on the cross in a sense. Now Mary was human and not divine but can you imagine what that might do to a person?

Now if the resurrected body is the body that sits at the right hand of the Father and that body is the same as it was prior to death, then comingled with the humanity of Jesus is the humanity of Mary???wow…

We don’t worship Mary, that was condemned in the 3rd century I believe.

I suppose that it supports “full of Grace” and filled with grace after birth and other such stuff about MMMMMMMary:thumbsup:

 

[Godith]

Much of the Western Church? Imagine how powerful a Catholic priest is. We listen to them, we confess to them, they consecrate the Eucharist, they minister to the sick, they give up lots and lots, they preach every Sunday and sometimes more often, they pray daily and you can understand how powerful these priests are…

Luther was an Augustinian monk, Zwingli was a priest, Knox was a priest and Calvin was a Catholic, lawyer whose father was excommunicated. You know what Shakespeare said about what we should do to Lawyers. They all gave up celebacy to give you not much but all of the Protestant part of what you believe. Protestant thought is pure Western, yahoo! The Western Church and Eastern Church are Catholic. Just look at any Orthodox website, they say they are One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. The Pope says we are sister Churches. So if we consider that the Church East and West is The Church and deranged priests gave you Protestant thought, much has to become “all” the Western Church.

Some priests teach well and others don’t

I think it’s a little harsh to call the reformers ‘deranged’. They disagreed with certain aspects of Catholic teaching and practice, but that doesn’t make them mental. lol

I also think it’s a mistake to discount the contribution of Protestant thinkers and theologians down the years. We may not all agree, but that doesn’t mean the debate is not worthwhile, and it doesn’t mean one side is 100% right and the other side is 100% wrong. IMO, we should all, in humility, be seeking to listen to and learn from each other.

*'The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!”… But God has combined the members of the Body and has given greater honour to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the Body, but that it’s parts should have equal concern for each other. * 1 Corinthians 12, v21, 24-25

The fetus in the womb share cell with the mother and the mother with the fetus. Jesus was fully man and fully God and there was not a time when He was not God/Man. OK?

The fetal cells of the God/man became part of Mary, called chimerism, and the cells of Mary became part of Jesus.

Mary having given birth was filled with some of the God/man cells after birth and since every cell in the God/man was human/divine, Mary retained the divinty and humanity of her Son, the God/man. So far so good?

Now imagine this. Jesus on the cross, maintained some of Mary’s DNA by birth and also some of her maternal cells by chimerism. Jesus and Mary died on the cross in a sense. Now Mary was human and not divine but can you imagine what that might do to a person?

Now if the resurrected body is the body that sits at the right hand of the Father and that body is the same as it was prior to death, then comingled with the humanity of Jesus is the humanity of Mary???wow…

This is an amazing thing to meditate on. I like the Orthodox name for Blessed Mary - Theotokos - God Bearer. Her’s was a very special role.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Each non-denominational church is its own denomination. You will find variation from church to church.

 

[CopticChristian]

I think it’s a little harsh to call the reformers ‘deranged’. They disagreed with certain aspects of Catholic teaching and practice, but that doesn’t make them mental. lol

I also think it’s a mistake to discount the contribution of Protestant thinkers and theologians down the years. We may not all agree, but that doesn’t mean the debate is not worthwhile, and it doesn’t mean one side is 100% right and the other side is 100% wrong. IMO, we should all, in humility, be seeking to listen to and learn from each other.

*'The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!”… But God has combined the members of the Body and has given greater honour to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the Body, but that it’s parts should have equal concern for each other. * 1 Corinthians 12, v21, 24-25

This is an amazing thing to meditate on. I like the Orthodox name for Blessed Mary - Theotokos - God Bearer. Her’s was a very special role.

Deranged priests and a deranged Catholic lawyer. Deranged people that called the Pope the Anti-Christ and the OHCAC the whore of babylon. Yes. I think and believe that they were deranged. They led people astray.

The Catholic Church is 100% correct. The Protestant is united in some mysterious way by Baptism in the trinity. What part that is I do not know. The Body/Head stayed the same. Members of the body, led by deranged leaders, led others in the body astray.

 

[Esdra]

The ‘rules’ surrounding membership in Protestant (i.e. non-Catholic) churches differ widely. In my experience, full membership is rarely immediate. Usually some evidence of commitment, both to Christ, and to that particular faith community, is required.** In my own church, what we don’t do is require people who are already Christian to ‘convert’. We accept the validity of Trinitarian baptism in any church (like Catholics )**, and if a person is following Jesus, they are a Christian, regardless of which church they have previously attended.

Hi, wow, wait a second: The Vineyard Church doesn’t require people to do credo (believe) baptism?
That’d be a very big difference to the Pentecostals!
I didn’t know that!

Baptists teach that the Catholic (infant)-baptism isn’t valid ('though it’s Trinitarian), as for baptism full commitement to Christ is needed beforehand (and a Baby obviously can’t do that!). [commonly called: giving one’s life to Jesus.]

For a Baptist the Catholic (infant-)baptism is “only” a child-blessing, like Jesus did in Matthew 19:15 (“15 When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.” NIV). (And if you ask an elder or the pastor, they will also that (the blessing of an infant)).

Interesting question, I’ll ask my pastor about, is whether a Catholic credo-baptism’d be valid. (Meaning a baptism in adolescence age.) - I personally do not think so, as the rebirth (see above) is obligatory.

Judging from the parts of your post marked in bold, Vineyard seems to be very open-minded to other Churches/denominations.

 

[Godith]

Hi, wow, wait a second: The Vineyard Church doesn’t require people to do credo (believe) baptism?
That’d be a very big difference to the Pentecostals!
I didn’t know that!

No, it’s not required. It is left to the individual to discern if they feel they should undergo a believer’s baptism by full immersion. Many do, since we believe it is ‘best’, being the closest to what Jesus himself did. Children brought up in our church are dedicated, rather than baptised, but a person who was already baptised as an infant needn’t be re-baptised unless they want to be. At least, put it this way, in all the years I’ve been in the church, and the many baptism services I have attended, I have never heard it taught that infant baptism is invalid, nor that a person so baptised must be baptised again. Full-immersion baptism is recommended, in imitation of Christ, but that’s as far as it goes.

Judging from the parts of your post marked in bold, Vineyard seems to be very open-minded to other Churches/denominations.

We aim to be, I think. The idea is always that our way of doing church is just our way. It’s not the only way, and not necessarily the best way. We aim, in that what we do, and the way we do it, to please God, but we also think it’s good to be open to the idea that you might be getting it wrong. We take very seriously the idea that all Christians are brothers and sisters in Christ, and that means being open-minded, respectful and gentle with each other.

 

[amber_lux]

If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.

Correction:
The Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church was founded in 1054 A.D., by Cardinal Humbert, because his pride required him to reject the gentle correction of his superiors.

The “founders” of the other listed denominations were “founders” purely because they were rejected by the church that they belonged to. Most of them had no desire to start a new denomination.

Case in point: The Salvation Army was formed because Anglican, Catholic and Protestant Churches point blank refused to accept the converts that William Booth made. It was not unknown for his converts to be physically thrown out of churches that they attempted to enter. His converts were considered to be “not good enough” for Christ. That “not good enough” is due to a lack of both money and social standing.

 

[amber_lux]

I say then that there are 3 accepted Christian types, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.

Where do you fit:

• Oriental Christianity;
• Restoration Movement Christianity;

into that mix?

Many of these non-denominational people do not know that they are Protestant.

Faith alone does not make one Protestant.

Amber

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi, wow, wait a second: The Vineyard Church doesn’t require people to do credo (believe) baptism?
That’d be a very big difference to the Pentecostals!
I didn’t know that!

Baptists teach that the Catholic (infant)-baptism isn’t valid ('though it’s Trinitarian), as for baptism full commitement to Christ is needed beforehand (and a Baby obviously can’t do that!). [commonly called: giving one’s life to Jesus.]

For a Baptist the Catholic (infant-)baptism is “only” a child-blessing, like Jesus did in Matthew 19:15 (“15 When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.” NIV). (And if you ask an elder or the pastor, they will also that (the blessing of an infant)).

Interesting question, I’ll ask my pastor about, is whether a Catholic credo-baptism’d be valid. (Meaning a baptism in adolescence age.) - I personally do not think so, as the rebirth (see above) is obligatory.

Judging from the parts of your post marked in bold, Vineyard seems to be very open-minded to other Churches/denominations.

Be aware tha the answer you get from your pastor about validity of Baptism is a fallible not infallible answer. Your answer, my answer, the pastors answer would be just as valid. If the answer eases your mind then ask yourself how the possibility of a fallible answer could ease your mind. You will just have one person with a bible giving another person with a bible a fallible answer.

 

[CopticChristian]

Correction:
The Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church was founded in 1054 A.D., by Cardinal Humbert, because his pride required him to reject the gentle correction of his superiors.

The “founders” of the other listed denominations were “founders” purely because they were rejected by the church that they belonged to. Most of them had no desire to start a new denomination.

Case in point: The Salvation Army was formed because Anglican, Catholic and Protestant Churches point blank refused to accept the converts that William Booth made. It was not unknown for his converts to be physically thrown out of churches that they attempted to enter. His converts were considered to be “not good enough” for Christ. That “not good enough” is due to a lack of both money and social standing.

I would appreciate your elaboration and understanding of the date of 1054, document your understanding, help me understand where and how you came up with this date.

As far as the salvation army I ask you to review this website, not a catholic one, and see if you still hold “not good enough”.

christiancourier.com/articles/618-an-analysis-of-the-salvation-army

Thank you:thumbsup:

 

[CopticChristian]

Where do you fit:

• Oriental Christianity;
• Restoration Movement Christianity;

into that mix?

Faith alone does not make one Protestant.

Amber

Oriental Christianity would be considered schism from the Orthodox/Catholic. Restoration is a prevailing thought among many Protestants. If you look at the history of Restorationsists, this is applied generally to many types. Mormons would consider themselves restorationists having sprung from Protestant thought. Many Protestants at their roots believe they are restorationists. Dominionism is a restoration movement guided by Calvinism and is a restoration movement.

What do you mean by restoration movement? If you researched the origin it probably sprang from Protestant thought.

What makes one Protestant in your opinion?

 

[amber_lux]

help me understand where and how you came up with this date.

Christian History 101. Seriously, any semi decent book on the history of Christianity provides that information.

As far as the salvation army I ask you to review this website, not a catholic one, and see if you still hold “not good enough”

You do realize that Catholic practice has changed over the decades, don’t you?
That it is more accepting of the dregs of society now, than it was when Booth was alive.

Amber

 

[CopticChristian]

Christian History 101. Seriously, any semi decent book on the history of Christianity provides that information.

You do realize that Catholic practice has changed over the decades, don’t you?
That it is more accepting of the dregs of society now, than it was when Booth was alive.

Amber

Your first answer is no answer.

Your second response is an opinion.

You have not answered the questions.

I believe that your capacity to support your charges are ill founded.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

You know I have studied church history and no one ever tried to say the Catholic church adopted pagan practices. Do not see where people get that idea.

 

[CopticChristian]

You know I have studied church history and no one ever tried to say the Catholic church adopted pagan practices. Do not see where people get that idea.

It is part and parcel of “Protestant Christians” that bring people to their Churches by discussing not what others believe but what they believe others to believe. I do not understand this. If I went to a Church and heard disparanging of others as a first course I would run.

I used to be up on some of this stuff. There are so many anti-catholic resources. These are not directed towards scholars as you know.

I would challenge anyone to show me one Roman Catholic or Orthodox website where part of what they have to offer is a disparaging of other beliefs. I have not seen it. Perhaps it exists.

I randomly picked this one. Not one word about what other’s believe.

ihm.archchicago.org/

compare and contrast that with this

lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2004/2004-04-01.htm