Do most Protestants find Non-Denominationalism a good thing?

[bpbasilphx]

The Spirit can lead two men to different conclusions on the same issue or topic
**
No, He doesn’t. Otherwise, the Holy Spirit would be a house divided against itself.**

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

The problem I see with this sort of division is that you have hundreds of thousands of followers guessing at what is good doctrine and what is bad doctrine.

There will always be those who refuse to be led by the Spirit and will simply skew what is written to suit their own agenda. But for those who are led by the Spirit, truth will be revealed.

I’ve seen many Protestant web sites which explicitly state that each person should not depend on anyone else’s interpretation of the bible, no matter how persuasive, but their own, and then proceed to give them* their *interpretation as the true interpretation of the Bible.

It happens everywhere online with every topic known to man. And it’s not just with Protestant doctrine either.

How are we suppose to know the truth which is to set us free with all these varying interpretations? How do we know which doctrines are essential or not? How do we know if there is such a thing as a non-essential doctrine?

Again, the Spirit will lead to truth.

I believe that non-denominationalism has done nothing but confuse the Body of Christ.

I vehemently disagree here. If anything, non-denominationalism has led to an incredible diversity within the body that sets a shining example to those on the outside. If I ask 100 people what a Christian looks like or how they act or what they enjoy, there will be 100 different answers. The fact that some believe that long hair is a sign of the devil and some believe that long hair in no way impairs a relationship with God is immaterial; it may allow non-believers with long hair to say, “Hey wait a minute. That’s someone with long hair who says he’s a Christian. I’m going to go talk to him.”

When thrown into a group of strangers, we tend to cling to those who resemble us outwardly. If you throw 1,000 total strangers into a room, within an hour you’ll usually see those with tattoos associating with their fellow tattooed, you’ll see those with shirts promoting a certain team associating with fellow fans, you’ll see those who dress certain ways associating with others who dress similarly, you’ll see white folks, black folks, Hispanic folks, and Asian folks associating with their own kind, and so on.

If you ask 1,000 non-denominational Christians whether they believe that Jesus is the resurrected son of God that died for us, you’ll hear 1,000 saying “yes”. If you ask them whether or not listening to rock music is permissible, you’ll get a good split between “yes” and “no”, with a whole lot of qualifiers. Does this impair the body of Christ? I don’t believe it does; if anything, it allows a more welcoming atmosphere for non-believers because there isn’t that same sort of judgmental intimidation that many non-believers complain of.

 

[khutcheson]

I’m not a Protestant but I find non-denominationalism a confusing idea. Doesn’t it make the interpretation of the individual pastor the final arbiter about what is true? Or have I misunderstood it?

No.

It makes the individual Christian the final arbiter of what they believe to be true.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

There will always be those who refuse to be led by the Spirit and will simply skew what is written to suit their own agenda. But for those who are led by the Spirit, truth will be revealed.

How do you explain the differences on these central doctrines of faith among bible believing Christians who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit?

1. Infant Baptism
2. Speaking in tongues
3. Once Saved Always Saved
4. Salvation by Faith Alone
5. Unconditional Election
6. etc.

Who is in error, these individuals, or the Holy Spirit?

Who decides the truth on these issues?

 

[khutcheson]

How do you explain the differences on these central doctrines of faith among bible believing Christians who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

CHESTERTONRULES;4286891:

Is a correct understanding of these doctrines essential to salvation? QUOTE]

Absolutely.

If you don’t accept the necessity of baptism but it is in fact necessary, you are in trouble.

Equally troubling, if you consider infant baptism to be sufficient when it is not, you are in trouble.

If speaking in tongues is demonic, as some Christians believe, then could this practice jeopardize your salvation?

If election is not unconditional, and Calvinists believe it is, then they could be jeopardizing their salvation by assuming they are already in.

These are central matters of the faith. Agreed?

 

[christcnection1]

There is simply no such thing as a non-denominational church.

“Non-Denominationalists” tend to have their own denominational belief system. By categorizing themselves as Non-Denominational, they are essentially putting themselves into a particular brand of Christianity. The label itself, and the beliefs they espouse, undermine the title they magnify.

Though it’s certainly well-meaning in my opinion, it’s also largely self-defeating. To say one is truly Non-Denominational is inaccurate, because each organization has certain established “truths” whereby they are called to conform their lives.

Hence, each organization, whether they call themselves “Non-Denominational” or not, is in effect another Denomination.

I come from this strand of Christianity, and have many wonderful things to say. Their efforts have been very effective in permeating the culture with a more Christian identify, and for that they should be applauded. For the many issue I disagree with, they are generally correct on the most important issues.

 

[khutcheson]

khutcheson;4287081:

CHESTERTONRULES;4286891:

Is a correct understanding of these doctrines essential to salvation? QUOTE]

Absolutely.

If you don’t accept the necessity of baptism but it is in fact necessary, you are in trouble.

Equally troubling, if you consider infant baptism to be sufficient when it is not, you are in trouble.

If speaking in tongues is demonic, as some Christians believe, then could this practice jeopardize your salvation?

If election is not unconditional, and Calvinists believe it is, then they could be jeopardizing their salvation by assuming they are already in.

These are central matters of the faith. Agreed?

No–they are important, but not essential to salvation.

Babtism–I disagree–even the Catholic Church accepts the idea of Baptism by desire. If someone honestly, but mistakenly believes that they have been baptised, or don’t need to be baptised, but attempts to diligently (and sacrifically) follow Christ, I don’t they wil be excluded from the Kingdom.

BTW, I thought the Catholic Church accepted infant baptism.

Tongues–Clearly all speaking in tongues is not demonic (I refer you to the day of Pentecost). If someone believes it to be demonic, whether it is or not, then by participating they are sinning. However, while obediance to God is essential, I don’t know anyone who believes that tongues are essential.

Election–Both the Calvinist view of election and the Arminian view of election (pretty much the entire gamut of Protestant thought on this subject) are tolerated (as I understand) within the Catholic Church (Thomist vs. Molinist schools of thought), hence it seems to me that the Catholic Church agrees with my conclusion that a correct understand of the doctrinve is election isn’t necessary to salvation.

 

[fbl9]

Again, the Spirit will lead to truth.

I vehemently disagree here. If anything, non-denominationalism has led to an incredible diversity within the body that sets a shining example to those on the outside. If I ask 100 people what a Christian looks like or how they act or what they enjoy, there will be 100 different answers. The fact that some believe that long hair is a sign of the devil and some believe that long hair in no way impairs a relationship with God is immaterial; it may allow non-believers with long hair to say, “Hey wait a minute. That’s someone with long hair who says he’s a Christian. I’m going to go talk to him.”

When thrown into a group of strangers, we tend to cling to those who resemble us outwardly. If you throw 1,000 total strangers into a room, within an hour you’ll usually see those with tattoos associating with their fellow tattooed, you’ll see those with shirts promoting a certain team associating with fellow fans, you’ll see those who dress certain ways associating with others who dress similarly, you’ll see white folks, black folks, Hispanic folks, and Asian folks associating with their own kind, and so on.

If you ask 1,000 non-denominational Christians whether they believe that Jesus is the resurrected son of God that died for us, you’ll hear 1,000 saying “yes”. If you ask them whether or not listening to rock music is permissible, you’ll get a good split between “yes” and “no”, with a whole lot of qualifiers. Does this impair the body of Christ? I don’t believe it does; if anything, it allows a more welcoming atmosphere for non-believers because there isn’t that same sort of judgmental intimidation that many non-believers complain of.

yes and if you will allow the Holy Spirit to work in you;you will end up in the church Christ Himself founded…in your example we will have some christians saying long hairs are devil’s children,thus slandering them,not good for salvation Thou shalt not bear false witness against your nieghbour.in the other example of a room of starngers we will also find catholics gathering together as well as protestants of thier own stripe…in your example of the 1,000 you may not get the 100% resposne you hoped for cause there are some"christians" who do not beleive in the Holy Trinity rather that Jesus is the Father,Son and Holy Spirit,much like a person can be a mother,secertarty,and a daughter…so i would have to be of the opion that non-denoms do add more confusion as to the face of Christ…

 

[dougfreed]

You say we cause confusion…I say different. If you want to be saved and be a disciple of Jesus you are.
You say if I want to be saved I must become whatever the Religion and MUST do certain things all of which are not in the Bible, I am using Catholic and just being a Bible believer for this example, but it does apply to all religions in general.
How to Become a Catholic
FIND CHRIST TODAY

yes and if you will allow the Holy Spirit to work in you;you will end up in the church Christ Himself founded…in your example we will have some christians saying long hairs are devil’s children,thus slandering them,not good for salvation Thou shalt not bear false witness against your nieghbour.in the other example of a room of starngers we will also find catholics gathering together as well as protestants of thier own stripe…in your example of the 1,000 you may not get the 100% resposne you hoped for cause there are some"christians" who do not beleive in the Holy Trinity rather that Jesus is the Father,Son and Holy Spirit,much like a person can be a mother,secertarty,and a daughter…so i would have to be of the opion that non-denoms do add more confusion as to the face of Christ…

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

How do you explain the differences on these central doctrines of faith among bible believing Christians who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit?

1. Infant Baptism
2. Speaking in tongues
3. Once Saved Always Saved
4. Salvation by Faith Alone
5. Unconditional Election
6. etc.

Who is in error, these individuals, or the Holy Spirit?

Who decides the truth on these issues?

10 people tune into a radio station. One hears the signal clearly and the music that is played. Four hear the signal, but it’s kind of fuzzy. Four more hear both the radio station that they’re tuned to but also get a crossed signal with a local country station. And the last one can hear other stations, but can’t hear the one the radio is tuned to. Is the problem the transmitter or the receivers?

God cannot err, therefore His Spirit cannot err. There are plenty of ways that the people that believe they hear the Spirit can err though. Dishonesty is one. Applying an individual Spirit-led path as indicative of an absolute for everyone is a big one. I already mentioned David and Solomon with the temple as an example of that, but I’ll give you another example.

A friend of mine who is as single-minded for God as anyone you could meet used to drive the two of us to church when we were freshmen in college. And he would literally go no faster than the speed limit, no matter what the circumstances (although there was never a medical emergency, so I can’t speak for sure on that). I asked him about it, and he said, “The Spirit convicted me on speeding, so I’m going no faster than the speed limit.” When I got back home, I was poking along at exactly the speed limit, and the Spirit said, “You can go faster.” I still didn’t do it, then a minute later the Spirit said, “Really, it’s fine. What’s right for him isn’t necessarily right for you, and vice versa.” I was still confused, then I realized a few minutes later what it meant. My friend lived in a fairly small town about an hour away from anything resembling a city. I lived in an unincorporated township less than 10 minutes from a city. Where I was saw a lot of commuter traffic, where he lived did not. But if either one of us tried to take that individual statement from the Spirit and apply it as an absolute, we both would be in error.

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

yes and if you will allow the Holy Spirit to work in you;you will end up in the church Christ Himself founded

Forgive my bluntness, but that’s a garbage statement. When I started allowing the Spirit to work in me, I was led away from the Roman church. At the same time, a friend of mine was being led from a Baptist denomination to the Roman church. I remember saying something like, “Isn’t it odd that we both had to travel 375 miles away from home to basically switch places?”

Believe it or not, it’s entirely possible for the Spirit to lead one away from something that others find beneficial. Otherwise we wouldn’t have missionaries that say, “The Spirit is leading me from my comfortable suburban life to go minister in Zambia.” And if it means being led away from something that is hindering, impairing, or choking faith, so be it. I can tell you without a doubt that if I had stayed in the Roman church, I would never have been able to handle the adversity that has come my way since that day. Maybe that’s why I was led away. Or maybe it’s for a reason that I’ll never know.

…in your example we will have some christians saying long hairs are devil’s children,thus slandering them,not good for salvation Thou shalt not bear false witness against your nieghbour.

There’s an enormous difference between an individual making a negative statement and a group making an official statement of doctrine. That’s the difference between Eric Rudolph (someone acting on his own in a barbaric manner) and al-Qaeda (a group organized by official doctrine acting in a barbaric manner).

in the other example of a room of starngers we will also find catholics gathering together as well as protestants of thier own stripe…in your example of the 1,000 you may not get the 100% resposne you hoped for cause there are some"christians" who do not beleive in the Holy Trinity rather that Jesus is the Father,Son and Holy Spirit,much like a person can be a mother,secertarty,and a daughter…

Fine, 95%. If you throw out Unitarians, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses from the equation, it would go back to 100%.

so i would have to be of the opion that non-denoms do add more confusion as to the face of Christ…

I don’t see how.

 

[SIA]

Which “Protestants” or “Non-Catholic Christians” find Non-Denominationalism a good thing? Why or why not?

I personally believe its main intent is good: to foster greater unity. In many instances I believe this is achieved. But in the process, aren’t many profound truths lost? Isn’t a lot seriously watered-down?

Thanks for your thoughts. (Be nice everyone )

I will agree with this as it is written. I think that many things have been lost (important things) throughout the generations. Mainstreamers such as Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans do contain those early church things, but as the denoms. branch and branch, those things begin to be pushed out for whatever the reasons.

 

[fbl9]

. The fact that some believe that long hair is a sign of the devil and some believe that long hair in no way impairs a relationship with God is immaterial; it may allow non-believers with long hair to say, “Hey wait a minute. That’s someone with long hair who says he’s a Christian. I’m going to go talk to him.”

listening to rock music is permissible, you’ll get a good split between “yes” and “no”, with a whole lot of qualifiers. Does this impair the body of Christ? QUOTE]being a sign of the devil in no way impairs one’s relationship with God?..your variances here makes one think of this…“and they will listen to those pleasing to the ear…”

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

10 people tune into a radio station. One hears the signal clearly and the music that is played. Four hear the signal, but it’s kind of fuzzy. Four more hear both the radio station that they’re tuned to but also get a crossed signal with a local country station. And the last one can hear other stations, but can’t hear the one the radio is tuned to. Is the problem the transmitter or the receivers?

God cannot err, therefore His Spirit cannot err. There are plenty of ways that the people that believe they hear the Spirit can err though. Dishonesty is one. Applying an individual Spirit-led path as indicative of an absolute for everyone is a big one. I already mentioned David and Solomon with the temple as an example of that, but I’ll give you another example.

A friend of mine who is as single-minded for God as anyone you could meet used to drive the two of us to church when we were freshmen in college. And he would literally go no faster than the speed limit, no matter what the circumstances (although there was never a medical emergency, so I can’t speak for sure on that). I asked him about it, and he said, “The Spirit convicted me on speeding, so I’m going no faster than the speed limit.” When I got back home, I was poking along at exactly the speed limit, and the Spirit said, “You can go faster.” I still didn’t do it, then a minute later the Spirit said, “Really, it’s fine. What’s right for him isn’t necessarily right for you, and vice versa.” I was still confused, then I realized a few minutes later what it meant. My friend lived in a fairly small town about an hour away from anything resembling a city. I lived in an unincorporated township less than 10 minutes from a city. Where I was saw a lot of commuter traffic, where he lived did not. But if either one of us tried to take that individual statement from the Spirit and apply it as an absolute, we both would be in error.

That’s a nice story.

However, Jesus told the apostles that the spirit would lead them into all truth.

It is either truth or it is not truth.

Would the Holy Spirit lead someone to a lie?

When Christians disagree about a doctrinal truth, who has the authority to decide?

I believe the bible and the history of Christianity are clear.

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

being a sign of the devil in no way impairs one’s relationship with God?..your variances here makes one think of this…“and they will listen to those pleasing to the ear…”

I won’t even ask how listening to rock music is a “sign of the devil”. I’ve read various works by atheists; does that mean I’m a reflection of the devil? Or does it mean that I become more aware of “the other side”? If the first rule of war is to know your enemy, wouldn’t a major tenet of equipping for spiritual war be knowing the enemy?

You know, up until about 100 years ago, the idea of exercise and recreation was also regarded as “the work of the devil”. Does that still apply today?

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

That’s a nice story.

However, Jesus told the apostles that the spirit would lead them into all truth.

It is either truth or it is not truth.

Would the Holy Spirit lead someone to a lie?

When Christians disagree about a doctrinal truth, who has the authority to decide?

I believe the bible and the history of Christianity are clear.

Okay, so we’re back to the idea of “doctrinal truth”. I think it was another thread (danged if I remember which one) where I basically questioned exactly how necessary most doctrines are for daily life or for salvation.

From my standpoint, if two Christians have both been led by the Spirit to opposing viewpoints, it’s not something that should be established as doctrine. If it were, then all who are led by the Spirit would arrive at the same point. The idea of the Trinity is firmly established in every Christian denomination. The idea of infant versus adult baptism is not. The idea of baptism being necessary for salvation is not.

The idea of being faithful to one’s spouse is established in every denomination. What is “valid” and “lawful” sexual relation with a spouse is not.

I’m sure if I wanted to, I could come up with five pages of what is a common theme in every denomination and forty pages of what causes dissension, but I honestly lack the time and desire to do such a thing. We can probably agree that the major tenets of Christian life and faith are those that are consistent across the board, while the minor tenets or doctrines that shouldn’t even be established as such are those that vary widely.

When you state that “I believe the bible and the history of Christianity are clear” in relation to who has authority to decide a dispute of doctrine, the implication is that those who hold a viewpoint contrary to that authority are:

1. Heretics
2. Liars
3. Blasphemers
4. Etc.

I don’t believe that at the end of my life, the first questions I’ll be grilled on are, “What are your views on infant baptism? Did you ever have sex with your wife in an unapproved position? Do you believe in transubstantiation? What do you think of Mary?” And yet when we discuss matters of faith with each other, that somehow always seems to be among the first things that comes out.

 

[Contarini]

Which “Protestants” or “Non-Catholic Christians” find Non-Denominationalism a good thing? Why or why not?

I personally believe its main intent is good: to foster greater unity. In many instances I believe this is achieved. But in the process, aren’t many profound truths lost? Isn’t a lot seriously watered-down?

Thanks for your thoughts. (Be nice everyone )

A lot of Protestants would agree with you, particularly those of us in the “mainline” denominations–and of course conservative confessional Protestants would agree even more emphatically.

One misconception that I think has taken hold among a lot of evangelicals is that being nondenominational is humbler and more ecumenical than belonging to a denomination. In fact it frees you from accountability, so that you can fool yourself that your particular version of Christianity is “just Christian.” Methodists and Anglicans and even Presbyterians know that this isn’t true of their respective traditions. We know that we have a particular history that has shaped us, and that our perspective on the Christian faith is only a partial one.

Edwin

 

[fbl9]

I won’t even ask how listening to rock music is a “sign of the devil”. I’ve read various works by atheists; does that mean I’m a reflection of the devil? Or does it mean that I become more aware of “the other side”? If the first rule of war is to know your enemy, wouldn’t a major tenet of equipping for spiritual war be knowing the enemy?

You know, up until about 100 years ago, the idea of exercise and recreation was also regarded as “the work of the devil”. Does that still apply today?

you made the claim,not me dude…are you saying every soldier knew the ways of the enemy?NOT…who cares about the ways of the devil,it would be far better to have spent the time learning about God then the devil…

 

[fbl9]

Okay, so we’re back to the idea of “doctrinal truth”. I think it was another thread (danged if I remember which one) where I basically questioned exactly how necessary most doctrines are for daily life or for salvation.

From my standpoint, if two Christians have both been led by the Spirit to opposing viewpoints, it’s not something that should be established as doctrine. If it were, then all who are led by the Spirit would arrive at the same point. The idea of the Trinity is firmly established in every Christian denomination. The idea of infant versus adult baptism is not. The idea of baptism being necessary for salvation is not.

The idea of being faithful to one’s spouse is established in every denomination. What is “valid” and “lawful” sexual relation with a spouse is not.

I’m sure if I wanted to, I could come up with five pages of what is a common theme in every denomination and forty pages of what causes dissension, but I honestly lack the time and desire to do such a thing. We can probably agree that the major tenets of Christian life and faith are those that are consistent across the board, while the minor tenets or doctrines that shouldn’t even be established as such are those that vary widely.

When you state that “I believe the bible and the history of Christianity are clear” in relation to who has authority to decide a dispute of doctrine, the implication is that those who hold a viewpoint contrary to that authority are:

1. Heretics
2. Liars
3. Blasphemers
4. Etc.

I don’t believe that at the end of my life, the first questions I’ll be grilled on are, “What are your views on infant baptism? Did you ever have sex with your wife in an unapproved position? Do you believe in transubstantiation? What do you think of Mary?” And yet when we discuss matters of faith with each other, that somehow always seems to be among the first things that comes out.