Do most Protestants find Non-Denominationalism a good thing?

[reen12]

I’m a believer in Jesus…So I guess that make me of The Jesus denomination

Well said!

Welcome to CAF, dougfreed. http://bestsmileys.com/waving/5.gif

reen12

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

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…

What’s it matter? Apparently I’m a heathen anyway who couldn’t be saved out of a brown paper bag no matter what.

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

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.**

What’s a bigger issue…the slanting of more and more Christians into a political realm that rejects God and promotes infanticide as a sign of “progress”, or the abuses and trials of the underground church in Africa and the Middle East?

Yet there are those who minister entirely to one or entirely to the other. Are neither Spirit-led, or is one simply a liar who’s misled?

 

[valiermn]

God is "Non Denominational !! He is not Catholic.

 

[Contarini]

What’s a bigger issue…the slanting of more and more Christians into a political realm that rejects God and promotes infanticide

But of course the definition of abortion as infanticide is precisely one of those things on which the “Spirit” has moved different Christians in very different ways. The most likely next president of the United States has not been moved by the Spirit in the way you and I might wish. By your logic, it seems unclear how you can say that this is wrong. Why do you get to decide that certain issues really are clear and all Christians agree on them (even though as a matter of fact baptized people professing faith in Christ disagree very sharply), while others (which you happen to want to keep as gray issues) really are unclear and the Spirit may lead different people in different directions? It seems to me that you have an arbitrary and inconsistent standard based on your own desires more than anything else.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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.

Including whether one’s spouse has to be of the opposite sex, and/or whether a “spouse” must be someone to whom one is lawfully married and from whom one cannot be divorced without committing adultery.

Edwin

 

[jblake]

Hajnalcsillag;:

I won’t even ask how listening to rock music is a “sign of the devil”.

Look at the theology of Voudon drumming.
Then look at how Voudon drumming influenced Rock music.

xan

jonathon

 

[jblake]

Contarini;:

whether a “spouse” must be someone to whom one is lawfully married

You realize that the concept of “lawfully wedded” is a Protestant tradition. The specific blame belongs to Calvin.

xan

jonathon

 

[christcnection1]

God is "Non Denominational !! He is not Catholic.

God is God. Let’s not even reduce Him to “Non-Denominational.”

But instead of me reading into your statement, let me ask, what do you mean by it? And what does it have to do with the Title?

 

[HannahLisa]

Non-denominationalism really means evangelical of some sort who don’t worry too much about the stickier theological issues.

Though there are churches which call themselves non-denominational and adhere to the beliefs of a denomination…

I really think most of the denominations just need to get over themselves and reunify. But that’s just me…

 

[christcnection1]

Non-denominationalism really means evangelical of some sort who don’t worry too much about the stickier theological issues.

Though there are churches which call themselves non-denominational and adhere to the beliefs of a denomination…

I really think most of the denominations just need to get over themselves and reunify. But that’s just me…

I think I recognize where you are coming from, and I do not fundamentally disagree. In some measure, I think that even Catholics should unite with all other Christians by putting aside some of the “stickier” theological issues, if there is an appropriate reason for it.

However, although I believe this unity can be good, it’s far from God’s best. As a Catholic, I believe that God intended His people to have some clear (not contradictory) views concerning important issues. As you likely know, Christians can have radically different views on issues of salvation - the very thing we all desire to attain. It’s not necessary to go into a litany of all the differences. We are all aware they exist.

I guess my point is simple. If God intends the kind of unity seen in most “Non-Denominational” circles, then we can also conclude that many of these typically divisive issues are of little importance to Him. But that’s just not true! It’s not about Denominations getting over themselves; they are well within their duty to serve what they believe is the truth.

The unity found in Evangelical and “Non-Denominational” Christianity is good, but it’s not God’s best. He desires to bestow many truths to His people, and in doing so, He is giving His very self. When we deviate from any truth, whatever it might be, we are essentially abandoning a part of who He is, and what He wants to give to us.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding where you are coming from, but if I was a devout Methodist for example, I might potentially be a little offended.

This makes me things of a couple questions…

In your opinion, what do you think Christians should unite over, and how do we come to a consensus? How do we know which issues are important and which issues are not? It seems the Bible suggests that nearly all these issues are very important.

Thank you for thoughts. I sincerely believe you desire to do God’s will concerning all these things.

Peace and Blessings

 

[Contarini]

You realize that the concept of “lawfully wedded” is a Protestant tradition.

Not really. I know what you mean, though the Catholic Reformers jumped on the bandwagon pretty fast (with some caveats) and so it’s unfair to refer to it as exclusively Protestant. The Reformation era did see an unprecedented degree of governmental/social supervision of marriage, requiring parental consent, a church ceremony or at least witnesses, etc. But marriage was a concept in both civil and ecclesiastical law before the Reformation. The requirements were just less onerous and relied more on the consent of the two parties, which led to all sorts of confusion and lawsuits. (So much for no concept of “lawful marriage.”)

The specific blame belongs to Calvin.

I have not heard that he originated the push for closer regulation of marriage, though he was certainly part of it. Luther advocated the parental consent requirement and similar measures. Way too much gets attributed to Calvin, who was not in fact a very original person.

Edwin

 

[jblake]

Contarini;:

I know what you mean, though the Catholic Reformers jumped on the bandwagon pretty fast

The Catholic Reformers simply caught up to what the Protestant reformation had mandated the State to do.

The Reformation era did see an unprecedented degree of governmental/social supervision of marriage,

That was all a side effect of the Protestant revolt. (The German princes, not the theologians.)

requiring parental consent,

he wanted laws. Prior to that it had been custom. Prior to circa 1,000 AD, marriage was an economic union between two families. Sex was the act that defined the marriage.

a church ceremony or at least witnesses, etc.

Credit for both of those belongs to the Medieval Catholic Church. This also gets back to why marriage currently requires government sanction.

The requirements were just less onerous and relied more on the consent of the two parties, which led to all sorts of confusion and lawsuits. (So much for no concept of “lawful marriage.”)

Economic disputes.
(Contemporary lawsuits about marriage are still economic in nature.)

I have not heard that he originated the push for closer regulation of marriage,

It wasn’t so much he pushed for closer regulation of marriage, as much as he thought it was “inappropriate” for the church to regulate, and maintain such things. That was the duty and function of the State. Which promptly picked up the relevant parts of Catholic Canon Law, and decreed that it applied to everybody.

xan

jonathon

 

[peary]

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 )

For me, personally, there is no such thing as a “non-denomination.” Once a non-denominational ecclesial community becomes establihed, it becomes another denomination.

 

[HannahLisa]

I think I recognize where you are coming from, and I do not fundamentally disagree. In some measure, I think that even Catholics should unite with all other Christians by putting aside some of the “stickier” theological issues, if there is an appropriate reason for it.

However, although I believe this unity can be good, it’s far from God’s best. As a Catholic, I believe that God intended His people to have some clear (not contradictory) views concerning important issues. As you likely know, Christians can have radically different views on issues of salvation - the very thing we all desire to attain. It’s not necessary to go into a litany of all the differences. We are all aware they exist.

I guess my point is simple. If God intends the kind of unity seen in most “Non-Denominational” circles, then we can also conclude that many of these typically divisive issues are of little importance to Him. But that’s just not true! It’s not about Denominations getting over themselves; they are well within their duty to serve what they believe is the truth.

The unity found in Evangelical and “Non-Denominational” Christianity is good, but it’s not God’s best. He desires to bestow many truths to His people, and in doing so, He is giving His very self. When we deviate from any truth, whatever it might be, we are essentially abandoning a part of who He is, and what He wants to give to us.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding where you are coming from, but if I was a devout Methodist for example, I might potentially be a little offended.

This makes me things of a couple questions…

In your opinion, what do you think Christians should unite over, and how do we come to a consensus? How do we know which issues are important and which issues are not? It seems the Bible suggests that nearly all these issues are very important.

Thank you for thoughts. I sincerely believe you desire to do God’s will concerning all these things.

Peace and Blessings

Sorry, let me clarify!

I’m not saying all Christians should reunify at the expense of important theological issues. I’m saying that most of the Protestant evangelical churches today - for instance, most non-denominational churches, Baptist churches, etc. - are so close in their beliefs that they shouldn’t be separate denominations anymore. Breaking over the unity of the Godhead is one thing, breaking over whether or not dancing is okay is quite another.

It seems to me that when evangelical churches have break-offs, it’s usually over things so small that it’s not worth it. Some of that does depend on the specific congregation one finds oneself in, as well. For instance, the Baptist church my sisters go to is pretty much mainstream evangelical, not hardcore Baptist, whatever that means.

I’m not sure what to give as an example for what theological issues matter less than others. But not everything is so important that you MUST MUST MUST believe it to be saved. The passage in Acts, in which Paul is told that all foods are now okay to eat, sums up the right attitude I think.

 

[Contarini]

The Catholic Reformers simply caught up to what the Protestant reformation had mandated the State to do.

I’m not sure it’s so simple, but basically you are right, and I don’t have evidence to support my suspicion that you may be oversimplifying things, so I won’t contest the matter further.

That was all a side effect of the Protestant revolt. (The German princes, not the theologians.)

That’s a false dichotomy. The theologians advised the rulers (not just princes–also city magistrates), but they also often came up with theological rationales for things the magistrates had been wanting to do for a while (like make clergy citizens).

he wanted laws.

Who’s he? Calvin?

Prior to that it had been custom.

“Common law” was largely codified custom, so the distinction was not as clear as it is today. And Roman law, which was distinct from custom, also had laws about marriage, I believe.

Prior to circa 1,000 AD, marriage was an economic union between two families.

And long after that. Not to mention that it’s puzzling why you would make a claim about what happened before 1000 A.D., when we are supposedly discussing what difference the Reformation made 500 years later!

Sex was the act that defined the marriage.

In the 12th century and later, there was a lot of discussion about consummation vs. consent. According to at least one scholar, one of the things driving this was the view that Mary and Joseph had never consummated their marriage, so marriage must be defined by something other than just consummation. By the late Middle Ages the standard view was that you needed consent and consummation, although I believe that consent and open cohabitation (i.e., living in the same house and presenting yourselves as man and wife) was also understood to constitute valid marriage.

a church ceremony or at least witnesses, etc.

Credit for both of those belongs to the Medieval Catholic Church. This also gets back to why marriage currently requires government sanction.

Now you have really lost me! I thought you were saying that the whole concept of a “valid marriage” was of Protestant origin!

In fact the medieval Catholic Church did not require a church ceremony, or even witnesses, as necessary for a valid marriage. That was the big change after the Reformation.

Economic disputes.
(Contemporary lawsuits about marriage are still economic in nature.)

But you can only have economic disputes in a lawcourt about something that has a legal status. If marriage wasn’t seen as “lawful”–i.e., if it didn’t confer on a couple a legal status they didn’t have before–then it would be irrelevant in economic disputes. You are making a false dichotomy. And the disputes weren’t always economic, except in the sense that they often involved a woman’s hopes for social *and *financial security. There were many cases of women taking men to court claiming that a marriage had taken place, with the men denying this. The women in these cases saw their honor at stake. It wasn’t just economic, and it certainly implied a concept of “lawful marriage.”

,

It wasn’t so much he pushed for closer regulation of marriage, as much as he thought it was “inappropriate” for the church to regulate, and maintain such things.

You are dead wrong in ascribing this to Calvin personally. In fact, Calvin pushed for a much bigger role for the Church in regulating social behavior (including things with legal implications) than most other Reformers were willing to argue for (and he was much more successful in this regard than other Reformers, such as the later Bucer, who did push for such a role). The Genevan “Consistory” had a role much closer to that of Catholic ecclesiastical courts than was common in other Protestant cities and regions. Calvin was accused of “new Popery” because of this, and this was also one of the reasons why the Puritans (who wanted to follow the Genevan example) were seen as a political threat in England.

Edwin

 

[Reformed]

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 attended a non-denominational church (Calvary Chapel) for 10 years. Thereafter, I attended denominational churches (PCA and OPC) with the Westminster Confession of Faith as their statement of faith. I currently attended a non-denominational church which the main pastor who preaches and teaches just like the pastors from the churches who embrace the Westminster Confession of Faith. The non-denominational pastor is quite Reformed. Here is what the Westminster of Faith states related to your question.

CHAPTER XXV.
Of the Church.
I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

III. Unto this catholic and visible Church, Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world; and doth by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.

IV. This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less, visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error: and some have so degenerated as to become apparently no Churches of Christ. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth, to worship God according to his will.

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.

If you notice the comment about the Pope, you can see why some Protetsant churches prefer to be non-denominational. There is great history in Protestantism, and many non-denominational churches prefer not to deal with that history.

 

[christcnection1]

I attended a non-denominational church (Calvary Chapel) for 10 years. Thereafter, I attended denominational churches (PCA and OPC) with the Westminster Confession of Faith as their statement of faith. I currently attended a non-denominational church which the main pastor who preaches and teaches just like the pastors from the churches who embrace the Westminster Confession of Faith. The non-denominational pastor is quite Reformed. Here is what the Westminster of Faith states related to your question.

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.

If you notice the comment about the Pope, you can see why some Protetsant churches prefer to be non-denominational. There is great history in Protestantism, and many non-denominational churches prefer not to deal with that history.

Indeed… and I’m sure that most Non-Denominationalists would utterly reject this. It seems that most Non-Catholic Christians continue to get further and further away from their “founding” roots (during the Reformation period). Why do you believe that is?

 

[peary]

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?”

**That’s just wrong. The Holy Spirit WILL NEVER LEAD ONE AWAY FROM THE CHURCH THAT CHRIST FOUNDED! **What ‘spirit’ exactly have you been allowing to work in you? If it led you away from the Church, then it is not the work of the Holy Spirit, but either a denomic presence ("Even Satan can appear as an Angel of Light" says Paul) or your own self-delusion. Leaving the Church is apostasy, whether you agree with that or not.

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.”

That is something totally different. That is one’s vocation to go and serve, which is God-called.

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.

You can very well know the answer. Once again, Saint Paul emphatically states that Satan can appear to us as an Angel of Light, meaning that the most vulnerable can be led astray away the Church due to denomic influences. Nothing gives the denomic more joy and satisfaction that to ruin a soul or to lead a gullible one away from the Church.

 

[Namesake]

That’s just wrong. The Holy Spirit WILL NEVER LEAD ONE AWAY FROM THE CHURCH THAT CHRIST FOUNDED! What ‘spirit’ exactly have you been allowing to work in you? If it led you away from the Church, then it is not the work of the Holy Spirit, but either a denomic presence (“Even Satan can appear as an Angel of Light” says Paul) or your own self-delusion. Leaving the Church is apostasy, whether you agree with that or not.

So then, if we don’t believe as you do we are being led by demons, or we are delusional? Is that what you really believe?