Do most Protestants find Non-Denominationalism a good thing?

[a_mirror_dimly]

But here’s the question: if the local church is made up of visible congregations, why is the Church suddenly made up of only all true believers? In other words, you have local churches many of whose members are not part of the Church, and a Church some of whose members may not be part of churches. This seems counter-intuitive at the least. Are we really to conclude that Ephesians and Colossians use the word “ecclesia” radically different from, say, Corinthians? Or could it be that the distinction you are making between the local “congregation” and the congregation throughout space and time is really not that sharp?

We must disagree on what is intuitive then, it really doesn’t seem particularly odd at all to me. There are local groups of people who meet together to worship, fellowship, and follow Christ, both historically and today. At the same time, it was true from the earliest days that there were some attending those assemblies who were not followers of Christ, and if they had no part in Him, how could they be considered part of the Body, the Church? Therefore I’m unsure of why this distinction should be unintuitive or troubling: that there exist both assemblies of those who gather in God’s name, but also that simply being at one of those assemblies does not imply membership in the Body.

As for members of the Church who are not part of any assembly, I believe that God is able to call people to Him without the intervention of a church, but to be called to God should also lead to participation in the Body of Christ, for the life to which we are called is at its core relational.

 

[jblake]

a_mirror_dimly;:

Although churches that are part of the “Church of Christ” apparently identify as “non-denominational”

The individual congregations range from the militantly autonomous, to the “autonomous” in name only.

The best that a researcher can do, is investigate the theology of a specific congregation, and how it changes over time.

In my experience and observations, it is extremely unusual for a non-denominational congregation to claim that they are the only True Church in the entire world.

a) “Christians, but not the only Christians”, is the slogan that some congregations use. (I’ve read a report that claims that those are the congregations that had the most influence in the growth of “the mega church movement”. );

b) Individual congregations have been known to consider that a different congregation, which agrees with them on every issue except something that everybody else would consider so utterly trivial, so as to not even be worth mentioning, is doomed to hell. (You’re going to go hell purely because your congregation met in a building that was pointing the wrong direction! Towards Bethlehem.)

xan

jonathon

 

[bbarrick8383]

I think that there are issues (e.g. the Marian Doctrines) on which God has not revealed a definitive answer

So, when God told Peter what he binds on earth shall also be bound in Heaven does not answer those issues to you? To me he was saying Hey, I’m gonna sit back and let you take care of things for awhile. So, what you say goes. So Peter passed things on to St. Linus he gave him the same right as head of The Church. And so on and so forth to this day.

That sound about right to the Catholics here? I’m hoping to start RCIA classes soon, so I’m not too educated on things yet.

 

[ralphinal]

And I made precisely this point.

But here’s the question: if the local church is made up of visible congregations, why is the Church suddenly made up of only all true believers? In other words, you have local churches many of whose members are not part of the Church, and a Church some of whose members may not be part of churches. This seems counter-intuitive at the least. Are we really to conclude that Ephesians and Colossians use the word “ecclesia” radically different from, say, Corinthians? Or could it be that the distinction you are making between the local “congregation” and the congregation throughout space and time is really not that sharp?

Furthermore, it ought to count for something at least that the early Christians believed in a visible universal Church–a fellowship not just of “true believers” in an individualistic way but of congregations, a mystical reality that was none the less concrete and identifiable for being mystical.

The position you are defending is the result of despair, not of sound exegesis or theology.

Edwin

THis is a very valuable post.

Forgive me if I am oversimplifying it, but why should we not assume that the local congregations don’t stack into the visible Church?

 

[christcnection1]

Only that God does not care if your Catholic ,Methodist or Lutheran All you must do is believe.

I believe that God cares about what you believe and how you live. Not all Christian groups emphasize the same exact things. Ideas have consequences, both in time and in eternity.

I disagree with your statement that one’s affiliation is irrelevant. Many fine Methodists, Lutherans, and Baptists would disagree with you as well. However, I do believe that a living faith and love for the true God is above all, the most important thing, regardless of one’s denomination.

Typically, belief is the beginning - not the end point of one’s conversion.

 

[christcnection1]

Most evangelical Protestants think that calling yourself the “one true church” means that you are taking yourself *too *seriously. Yet any church that doesn’t think it’s the one true church should ask itself very seriously why it remains separate from the many other churches surrounding it (chiefly, I should say, the Catholic Church).

Edwin

I am not sure what you mean when you say “remains separate.” It is my belief that we should take these issues seriously, because they are.

At least from my vantage point, the Catholic Church does as much, if not more, ecumenical work as other “denominations” (though I don’t consider the CC a denomination). Furthermore, I believe we state that other Christian groups do belong to the one Catholic Church, though they are imperfectly united.

The separation is understandable, as is understandable with other Christian groups. I’m not suggesting it’s easy or there isn’t a lot of work to be done. But for the Catholic Church to come out and say they are no different than any other Christian group would fundamentally undermine what we believe was taught from the beginning. And I’m sure we can agree to disagree, without being disagreeable.

All Christians are technically part of the one true Church. (There is only one) Catholics just believe that not all are perfectly united, and I believe that a very reasonable and charitable position to take, considering our roots.