How do non-denominational Christians pick a church?

[Xavierlives]

You put out the claim to be just like those of past and the only written record of what those of the past did is in scripture…and it is written that those of the past held no private property …so if you are like those of the past why do you hold private poperty?

Do I?

any person can baptise another person provided they(the one doing the baptising) does it according to the tritrian formula and the person being baptised askes for it.

Good to know. I thought differently of Catholics.

everbody does seem to forget that Christ did not ascend into heaven for forty days AFTER His reserrection,in His own words…"for I have yet to go to my Father"so where /what was this paradise Christ was speaking of, for it wasn’t heaven cause He didn’t go there immediately.He was preaching to those souls in prison…ask St.Peter about this one he knows cause he wrote it.

I’ll have to wait to ask Peter. As for preaching to the souls in prison… I understand your concept. Paradise seems so… whats the word? Unlike prison. To think about 40 days lets just add in Ps. 90:4. Then we really get to wonder when he actually saw him in paradise.

You are the who claimed to have a long list of those whom do just as you do.

Oh the list of NT people who follow Christ? You want to talk about that? Ok. I’m game.

 

[Xavierlives]

Thank you for understanding–yes, we are indeed sensitive about people bringing up rather old arguments like the Crusades, the Inquistion and pedophile priests.

Firstly, those arguments have been addressed ad nauseum on other threads.

Secondly, most of us Catholics see that type of argument as an act of desperation. It’s like when someone is losing a fight and throws sand in his opponent’s eyes. (I am not saying we’re* fighting* on this thread, 'kay? )

In a dignified discourse each person presents his arguments/rebuttals with reason, logic, intelligence and thoughtfully considers the others’ arguments.

I suppose a crude analogy would be trying to explain to your children why being married is sacramental vs just living together. Your adult children might say, “So it boils down to our getting a piece of paper from the courthouse that makes us qualified to say we’re validly married?” My response to someone who says that would be, “No, it’s not just simply getting a piece of paper that makes you sacramentally married. It’s wayyyyy more than that.”

But Catholics don’t tire of asking protestants ad nauseum about rebellion, or sola scriptura, or “Lutheran… you follow a man!” or any number of things.

I think the only difference is I am believe Christ to almost all-inclusive when it comes to Christian-faiths. While Catholicism is exclusive. I do not try say your way is wrong. I do not judge your practices. I want to learn about them and I am happy to answer questions about my faith, but I will not stand on the corner and say “YOU’RE GOING TO HELL!” Now non-Christians are a different subject.

 

[PRmerger]

But Catholics don’t tire of asking protestants ad nauseum about rebellion, or sola scriptura, or “Lutheran… you follow a man!” or any number of things.

But there lies good discussion with those topics.

In my opinion, the main reason Protestants bring up the Crusades, the Inquisition and pedophile priests is to be inflammatory. People who bring those up, esp in the context of other topics, are not willing to have reasoned dialogue. They simply want to say, “Your Church is full of sinners!”

Well, acknowledged and affirmed. [SIGN1]We are a bunch of sinners. [/SIGN1]Doesn’t change the fact that our doctrines are Jesus’ doctrines.

And, we are quite willing to discuss those topics–for there are valid points to be made by Protestants when bringing up the Crusades, the Inquisition and pedophile priests. It’s simply the inflammatory nature of how those topics are introduced.

 

[PRmerger]

**Originally posted by Xavierlives **
I think the only difference is I am believe Christ to almost all-inclusive when it comes to Christian-faiths.

Then, you lose truth. Your truth is a watered down version of Christ’s truth.

And, you, by being a Christian are necessarily exclusive. For all Christians must affirm and proclaim that “Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through him.” See the exclusivity in that statement, Xavier?

Why do you get to be exclusive in your beliefs, but Catholics don’t?

but I will not stand on the corner and say “YOU’RE GOING TO HELL!”

Then, you would be very Catholic in doing that, for the Church has never proclaimed that any individual is in hell.

 

[Xavierlives]

Then, you lose truth. Your truth is a watered down version of Christ’s truth.

And, you, by being a Christian are necessarily exclusive. For all Christians must affirm and proclaim that “Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through him.” See the exclusivity in that statement, Xavier?

Why do you get to be exclusive in your beliefs, but Catholics don’t?

Then, you would be very Catholic in doing that, for the Church has never proclaimed that any individual is in hell.

Yeah, I deleted that message pretty quickly after posted it because I am not feeling well and I don’t think I articulated my thoughts in any reasonable manner. After I read it I said to myself… Huh?

I can try to post again my thoughts, but I am not sure defense of the deleted post will get us anywhere.

 

[1beleevr]

and he does just that; and don’t bother telling him he is incorrect because he is falliably correctThat’s is a good description of true worship

]

Which would put me in the same boat with you! There are many descriptions of true worship, this being one of many!

 

[Xavierlives]

But there lies good discussion with those topics.

Really? Rebellion from the church seems like a good topic to you? The sheer fact that you want to refer to is as a rebellion is inflammatory. The fact that you believe Lutherans follow Luther is inflammatory. The ignorance that you in a sense practice your own Sola Scriptura is irrelevant but the protestants’ concept of sola scriptura is a good topic?

All of these are acceptable topics? How long ago did those happen? Oh… nearly 500 years ago. But the Inquistition or the Crusades are out of bounds. Sounds fair.

In my opinion, the main reason Protestants bring up the Crusades, the Inquisition and pedophile priests is to be inflammatory. People who bring those up, esp in the context of other topics, are not willing to have reasoned dialogue. They simply want to say, “Your Church is full of sinners!”

As for abusive priest, I will be happy to talk about this in any form or fashion. It is no more inflammatory than the act. And if anyone has the right to accuse, it would be me.

Well, acknowledged and affirmed. [SIGN1]We are a bunch of sinners. [/SIGN1]Doesn’t change the fact that our doctrines are Jesus’ doctrines.

And, we are quite willing to discuss those topics–for there are valid points to be made by Protestants when bringing up the Crusades, the Inquisition and pedophile priests. It’s simply the inflammatory nature of how those topics are introduced.

So, what’s on your mind?

 

[1beleevr]

But there lies good discussion with those topics.

In my opinion, the main reason Protestants bring up the Crusades, the Inquisition and pedophile priests is to be inflammatory. People who bring those up, esp in the context of other topics, are not willing to have reasoned dialogue. They simply want to say, “Your Church is full of sinners!”

Well, acknowledged and affirmed. [SIGN1]We are a bunch of sinners. [/SIGN1]Doesn’t change the fact that our doctrines are Jesus’ doctrines.

And, we are quite willing to discuss those topics–for there are valid points to be made by Protestants when bringing up the Crusades, the Inquisition and pedophile priests. It’s simply the inflammatory nature of how those topics are introduced.

]

 

[jmcrae]

Oh the list of NT people who follow Christ? You want to talk about that? Ok. I’m game.

Specifically, the NT list of people who follow Christ, without ever becoming members of His Church, and without having anything to do with the Apostles. Your scads of “Lone Ranger” Christians, who apparently were jes’ doin’ they own thang, without regard for Christ’s Church.

 

[Teneas]

Really? Rebellion from the church seems like a good topic to you? The sheer fact that you want to refer to is as a rebellion is inflammatory. The fact that you believe Lutherans follow Luther is inflammatory. The ignorance that you in a sense practice your own Sola Scriptura is irrelevant but the protestants’ concept of sola scriptura is a good topic?

All of these are acceptable topics? How long ago did those happen? Oh… nearly 500 years ago. But the Inquistition or the Crusades are out of bounds. Sounds fair.

As for abusive priest, I will be happy to talk about this in any form or fashion. It is no more inflammatory than the act. And if anyone has the right to accuse, it would be me.

So, what’s on your mind?

Sounds like someone took a break at the right time.

 

[Xavierlives]

Specifically, the NT list of people who follow Christ, without ever becoming members of His Church, and without having anything to do with the Apostles. Your scads of “Lone Ranger” Christians, who apparently were jes’ doin’ they own thang, without regard for Christ’s Church.

See, the problem here is you can’t prove they joined the church and I can’t prove they didn’t.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

You misunderstand the CC’s teaching on infallibility. Pope B16 is a fallible man, however, by virtue of his office he is infallible, when speaking on faith and morals.

You also must believe, if you believe in the Sacred Scriptures, [SIGN]that men can be infallible,[/SIGN] men like Peter, Paul, Matthew, Mark, etc etc etc.

I assume you believe that only God can be called the Holy Father.

Do you object to calling St. Paul a “holy father”, 1beleevr?
What about to calling Abraham a “holy father”?

this has confused me about Catholics. Jesus Himself said "call no man father… why do you disregard this?

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

In a way, yes. Because they are PROTESTing (rebelling against) Christ’s Church, and want to do things their own way.

The can “serve” anything they want. They can call it whatever they want. It doesn’t make it valid.

They protest what you perceive is Christ’s church.

 

[bluelake]

Since my family has again recently moved, we have once again started the search for a church home. The search normally starts with denominations which are closest to our particular beliefs. Then we branch out. We have visited a couple of “bible churches” which really made me wonder, how do non-denominational Christians pick their churches?

I guess included in this question are sub-questions like does it take a while to find the right fit? Do you find yourself easily eliminating churches? What criteria is used?

X,
You mentioned, ‘Bible Churches’ I’m not sure what that means.
The preachers in some Bible Churches are usually preachng their interpretation of the Bible.
Why do you do if you don’t agree with him?
Maybe that’s why you keep seaching. Your looking for someone you can agree with.

Keep your heart near the Lord. Not a preacher.

God bless,
bluelake

 

[PRmerger]

Really? Rebellion from the church seems like a good topic to you? The sheer fact that you want to refer to is as a rebellion is inflammatory.

I’ve not used the word rebellion, Xavier, in any of my posts here.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

Thank you for understanding–yes, we are indeed sensitive about people bringing up rather old arguments like the Crusades, the Inquistion and pedophile priests.

Firstly, those arguments have been addressed ad nauseum on other threads.

Secondly, most of us Catholics see that type of argument as an act of desperation. It’s like when someone is losing a fight and throws sand in his opponent’s eyes. (I am not saying we’re* fighting* on this thread, 'kay? )

In a dignified discourse each person presents his arguments/rebuttals with reason, logic, intelligence and thoughtfully considers the others’ arguments.

I suppose a crude analogy would be trying to explain to your children why being married is sacramental vs just living together. Your adult children might say, “So it boils down to our getting a piece of paper from the courthouse that makes us qualified to say we’re validly married?” My response to someone who says that would be, “No, it’s not just simply getting a piece of paper that makes you sacramentally married. It’s wayyyyy more than that.”

When I stand before my Lord He will know that I sought Him with all my heart. He promised that I would find Him. I didnt bring these things up just to through stones. these were the things that steared me away from the Catholic church. Jesus said you will know them by their fruit. for your church to claim uninterupted apostolic succession the friut of every pope would be good fruit. other wise that chain was broken. So your pope is no more attached to the desiples than my paster. I dont know what fruit your current pope has but I see very good fruit from my paster and my church family.

 

[PRmerger]

The sheer fact that you want to refer to is as a rebellion is inflammatory. The fact that you believe Lutherans follow Luther is inflammatory.

If you believe a post is inflammatory you should report it to the Mods.

Clearly, there are ways of presenting topics that are forthright, reasoned and thoughtful. There are ways of presenting these same topics that are inflammatory and meant to provoke, or used as a last-ditch straw man.

The ignorance that you in a sense practice your own Sola Scriptura is irrelevant but the protestants’ concept of sola scriptura is a good topic?

I don’t know what you mean here, Xavier. Catholics practice Sola Scriptura? :whacky:

But the Inquistition or the Crusades are out of bounds. Sounds fair.

sigh!. I thought I made it clear that these are worthy topics of discussion: I said so right here

 

[PRmerger]

this has confused me about Catholics. Jesus Himself said "call no man father… why do you disregard this?

Because we understand what Jesus meant. Of course he didn’t literally mean call no man father–that would mean we couldn’t even call our daddy “father.”

See this verse which just precedes it:
As for you, do not be called ‘Rabbi.’ You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers. Matt 23:6

Do you call no man “teacher” either?
Do you call your physician “doctor”? If you take Matt 23 literally, then you ought not call your pediatrician “doctor” for that means “teacher” in Latin.

There are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term “father” being used as a form of address and reference, even for men who are not biologically related to the speaker. [SIGN]There are, in fact, so many uses of “father” in the New Testament,[/SIGN] that the Fundamentalist interpretation of Matthew 23 (and the objection to Catholics calling priests “father”) must be wrong, as we shall see. Source here

 

[PRmerger]

When I stand before my Lord He will know that I sought Him with all my heart. He promised that I would find Him. I didnt bring these things up just to through stones. these were the things that steared me away from the Catholic church. Jesus said you will know them by their fruit. for your church to claim uninterupted apostolic succession the friut of every pope would be good fruit. other wise that chain was broken. So your pope is no more attached to the desiples than my paster. I dont know what fruit your current pope has but I see very good fruit from my paster and my church family.

In one sense, you are correct. If you see rotten fruit it does not speak well of the tree.

However, would you agree that the Mormon church produces good fruit? The Mormons I know are God-fearing, giving, charitable, wonderful people. Doesn’t prove that their doctrine is correct though.

And, you really have a grave misunderstanding about what the CC teaches about apostolic succession…

and about papal infallibility. Again, it’s not the man that’s infallible, but his office. Thus, the pope can be a rotten piece of fruit, but in his office, when he teaches on faith and morals and defines or declares something, it’s infallible.

And you will never be able to prove any pope–no matter how rotten or immoral he was-- infallibly defined or declared something that was later found to be contrary to Scripture.

 

[fbl9]

When I stand before my Lord He will know that I sought Him with all my heart. He promised that I would find Him. I didnt bring these things up just to through stones. these were the things that steared me away from the Catholic church. Jesus said you will know them by their fruit. for your church to claim uninterupted apostolic succession the friut of every pope would be good fruit. other wise that chain was broken. So your pope is no more attached to the desiples than my paster. I dont know what fruit your current pope has but I see very good fruit from my paster and my church family.

So if your pastor committed a grave sin then all his teachings were false then cause a bad tree does not bear good fruit.And further more every one in your worship group are also bad fruit because they followed bad fruit.