Do most Protestants find Non-Denominationalism a good thing?

[dougfreed]

WOW!! Never heard it that way.
Is that what Catholics think about us Christ Followers,
If we don’t follow the man church that we’re possessed?

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?

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

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.

I’ve got nothing to respond to; this is totally absurd on every level.

 

[bbarrick8383]

I grew up in a Church of Christ. My understanding of being non-denominational was that it was “The” Church that Jesus started. Therefore, although they did not preach this, if you were not baptized in this Church you were going to hell. They did not want to be associated with any other type of religion. But, they kept in contact with other Church of Christs within this area and we actually had our own Church camp.
I am hoping that I will be able to attend RCIA classes soon, I’m sure my family will pitch a fit when they find out I am attending a Catholic Church.

 

[christcnection1]

The Holy Spirit is operating in all true Christians. Although I don’t believe the Holy Spirit will lead someone away from the Holy Catholic Church, I do believe that someone can, in clear conscience, believe they are called to a different community of believers.

If someone unknowingly leaves the truth, but still tries to act according to what they believe God’s will is (within reason), God very well may still be pleased with that individual. In their heart, mind and soul, they desire to please their Creator and Redeemer - something our Lord is indeed pleased with, in normal circumstances.

Let us not pretend that all truth is so clear and easily recognized. Yes, I believe the most profound truths are easier to accept. But I do not believe that all truth is so easy to embrace, or easy to understand.

We can agree to disagree folks, but let’s not demonize each other. Let us build bridges where we can, because when we throw mud we lose ground.

Let us love one another.

 

[christcnection1]

I grew up in a Church of Christ. My understanding of being non-denominational was that it was “The” Church that Jesus started. Therefore, although they did not preach this, if you were not baptized in this Church you were going to hell. They did not want to be associated with any other type of religion. But, they kept in contact with other Church of Christs within this area and we actually had our own Church camp.
I am hoping that I will be able to attend RCIA classes soon, I’m sure my family will pitch a fit when they find out I am attending a Catholic Church.

May the good God grant you peace, perseverance, and wisdom!

One suggestion I might add… Do not be afraid to ask others for prayer and support. It sounds like you will need a lot of grace and encouragement.

I am very happy and excited for you.

 

[christcnection1]

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?

I would not say that, even if I strongly disagree on some issues. I believe the Lord is guiding all His people in unique and mysterious ways. He also works in profound ways through our finiteness and limited knowledge. This includes Catholics, though I believe He has given us additional rays of light to guide our way. (To who much is given, much is required.)

As a former Non-Catholics Christian, I can confidently say that the Holy Spirit is alive and well, and is changing many lives to the glory of His name. He changed my life as an Evangelical and I owe a lot to my separated brethren!!

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

I grew up in a Church of Christ. My understanding of being non-denominational was that it was “The” Church that Jesus started. Therefore, although they did not preach this, if you were not baptized in this Church you were going to hell. They did not want to be associated with any other type of religion. But, they kept in contact with other Church of Christs within this area and we actually had our own Church camp.
I am hoping that I will be able to attend RCIA classes soon, I’m sure my family will pitch a fit when they find out I am attending a Catholic Church.

Although churches that are part of the “Church of Christ” apparently identify as “non-denominational” ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churches_of_Christ ), the reverse is not the case. I’m having a bit of trouble coming up with exact numbers, at the moment, but this study indicates indicates that 13% (it’s not entirely clear whether this is by members of congregations) of Christians in the US are non-denominational. Compare that to 1.3 million “Churches of Christ” members in the US.

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.

 

[bbarrick8383]

The ideology of it was based on going back to the New Testament, reading it word for word, doing only what it says to do. Like music, Church of Christ does not allow musical instruments in the Church at all, not even for a wedding. Because they cannot find it in the New Testament.

What they do think is this, Jesus started one Church, you had to believe, confess(not on a regular basis just at the time of baptism), repent and be baptized to get to heaven. There is no main dogma, doctrine, creed or anything specifying anyone of another religion being allowed to enter into heaven based on ignorance or whatever. They believe, they are the Church and you have to attend it to get to heaven.

Last I checked they were at about 3.5 million world wide. Grain of sand compared to the 1 Billion + that are Catholics.

“Many are called, but few will be chosen.”

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

Don’t forget the ICOC spinoff, which is listed in most cult watchdog lists as a prime target.

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

The ideology of it was based on going back to the New Testament, reading it word for word, doing only what it says to do. Like music, Church of Christ does not allow musical instruments in the Church at all, not even for a wedding. Because they cannot find it in the New Testament.

What they do think is this, Jesus started one Church, you had to believe, confess(not on a regular basis just at the time of baptism), repent and be baptized to get to heaven. There is no main dogma, doctrine, creed or anything specifying anyone of another religion being allowed to enter into heaven based on ignorance or whatever. They believe, they are the Church and you have to attend it to get to heaven.

Last I checked they were at about 3.5 million world wide. Grain of sand compared to the 1 Billion + that are Catholics.

“Many are called, but few will be chosen.”

I’ve never really had experience with a Church of Christ congregation, I just got the impression from your post that you were saying all non-denominational churches are Church of Christ churches and believe themselves to be (exclusively) the One True Church. I simply wanted to point out that (by far) most non-denominational churches are not associated with the Churches of Christ movement and do not make such a claim. If I misunderstood your original post then pay me no mind

 

[valiermn]

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?

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

 

[Contarini]

Don’t forget the ICOC spinoff, which is listed in most cult watchdog lists as a prime target.

Because evangelicals have decided that a “cult” is any church that takes itself seriously.

Edwin

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

Because evangelicals have decided that a “cult” is any church that takes itself seriously.

Edwin

Most churches do take themselves seriously. That doesn’t explain the formation and existence of REVEAL, a spot on cultwatch.com, a writeup on cultsoncampus.com, and a host of others. Or this tidbit:

“In 1985, Dr. Flavil R. Yeakley Jr., then of the Church Growth Institute at Abilene Christian University in Texas, was asked to do a study on the growth and dynamics of the (Boston) Movement. Yeakley works with many cult counselors and says they receive more complaints regarding the ICC than any other group except the Church of Scientology.”

I certainly can admire the radical devotion that the ICC/ICOC has toward personal sin. I vehemently disagree with the methods used to both get and maintain converts.

 

[Contarini]

Most churches do take themselves seriously.

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

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

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

Well, at the root of the statement is a fundamentally different conceptualization of what the Church is. That is that it is not some temporal structure or organization, but that the Church is all those who follow Christ, regardless of what denomination name is found on the building where they worship.

As for the last part, speaking personally I would love to see more coming together of churches, but as for the Catholic Church, they wouldn’t have me. I consider myself willing to seek unity despite disagreements on some matters of faith, but like most of us I’m unwilling to profess belief in doctrines which I believe are incorrect (as opposed to letting them be a matter of conscience) in order to achieve such unity.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Well, at the root of the statement is a fundamentally different conceptualization of what the Church is. That is that it is not some temporal structure or organization, but that the Church is all those who follow Christ, regardless of what denomination name is found on the building where they worship.

So God is perfectly OK with differing and conflicting doctrines among His children?

As for the last part, speaking personally I would love to see more coming together of churches, but as for the Catholic Church, they wouldn’t have me. I consider myself willing to seek unity despite disagreements on some matters of faith, but like most of us I’m unwilling to profess belief in doctrines which I believe are incorrect (as opposed to letting them be a matter of conscience) in order to achieve such unity.

Why do you think the Catholic Church wouldn’t have you? It sounds more like you don’t accept the God-given authority of the Church.

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

So God is perfectly OK with differing and conflicting doctrines among His children?

I think that there are issues (e.g. the Marian Doctrines) on which which God has not revealed a definitive answer, and that it is an error to enforce uniformity of belief on those matters. The Catholic Church recognizes this to an extent, as it is not difficult to find matters (e.g. the authenticity of relics) on which they have declined to provide definitive guidance, thereby allowing conflicting beliefs to remain within the RCC.

Why do you think the Catholic Church wouldn’t have you? It sounds more like you don’t accept the God-given authority of the Church.

Well, of course I don’t believe the Catholic Church is the One True Church. If I did, I’d obviously be a member in a heartbeat

 

[Contarini]

Well, at the root of the statement is a fundamentally different conceptualization of what the Church is. That is that it is not some temporal structure or organization

What do you mean by this? If you mean that it’s not a bureaucratic structure per se, then of course. Everyone agress on this (except maybe the United Methodists–I’m only half kidding!).

But the Church is the Body of Christ in time and space. That makes it “temporal.” I don’t see how you can justify a purely “invisible” view of the Church on the basis of the New Testament. You have to explain the Biblical language away at every turn. (Just to give one obvious example–when Matt. 18 says to take a disagreement “to the church,” this must mean a concrete body of people.)

but that the Church is all those who follow Christ

Following Christ being defined how? If “following Christ” means some inner, mystical spiritual state, or some moral standard that is hard to judge and almost impossible to realize, then you are again left with a definition of “church” that makes most of the NT references to the Church nonsensical.

Edwin

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

Ok, well now you’re talking about churches (local congregations) as opposed to the Church (all believers)…the New Testament talks about both. The Matthew 18 passage, which is a great example, is a reference to the former (I believe this very point was discussed in a recent thread).

 

[Contarini]

Ok, well now you’re talking about churches (local congregations) as opposed to the Church (all believers)…the New Testament talks about both. The Matthew 18 passage, which is a great example, is a reference to the former (I believe this very point was discussed in a recent thread).

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