No Denominations?

[grandfather]

Thankfully “nicene Christianity” is not the One who makes the decision whom grace is bestowed to…and it is He that my trust is in…“my hope is in the Lord.”…not a group of ecclesial bodies.

But the Lord founded a Church and gave her authority to teach the nations. Those who reject those He sent reject Him, according to scripture.

He says of His Church that it is a beacon set on a hill. Why did He say that?

 

[Publisher]

But the Lord founded a Church and gave her authority to teach the nations. Those who reject those He sent reject Him, according to scripture.

He says of His Church that it is a beacon set on a hill. Why did He say that?

God called a People…a Community to be the Light to the world…the beacon set on the hill…He did not “found an ecclesial institution”…I am part of His Church…His People…and I will stand before Him…neither yours nor my ecclesial community will be Judge.

We all will stand before Him and give an account of our lives…and where I fail…I will place myself in His Hands of Mercy and Grace.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

So you do believe in a denomination in which you are the Pope.

I think that everyone is his or her own pope, and that the situation is unavoidable (and not really all that desirable!).

But I am open to the possibility that I’m wrong.

I believe denominations exist, and I even favor some over others. But the fact that I may have my believe in the majority of historical creeds does not mean that post-denominational Christians as a whole have a creed, because many other post-denominational Christians may not agree with me. I’m ok with that.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

Another thing to think about as you try to cope with denominationalism and get past it is its cause. Where did it come from, this great disparity of versions of doctrine, so many groups that call themselves church?

What is the root cause? The many denominations are versions of Protestantism. They split off from one another. It is essentially a Protestant phenomeon.

This is a good historical insight here… denominationalism is mostly Protestant (although Catholics have the sedevacantists and SSPX, and Orthodox have their ethnic divisions). But it is at least 99% Protestant.

I feel mixed about this. On one hand, denominationalism is bad, because division is bad. But on the other hand, diversity is good, and I wouldn’t want to live in a world without the Baptist, mega-church and Lutheran forms of worship. The diversity of belief is also enriching, I think.

You can know that with certainty by logic. If you can’t know any specific doctrine is true for certain (yet), you can use logice to know what is false for certain and eliminate it from consideration. God is not the author of confusion. The devil is.

Logic is only as certain as the method of reasoning, and the soundness of the premises. The method can indeed be certain. But can the premises always be certain? How can we be sure that God does not encourage confusion from time to time?

The One who inspired Romans and Revelations and Ezekiel and Daniel seems like he doesn’t mind being confusing from time to time. The Bible is very confusing (if it weren’t confusing, what’s the problem with sola scriptura?). Isn’t God the author of the Bible? Then he’s the author of confusion! Logic!

 

[Publisher]

One of the differences between Catholic and Protestant view of “denominations”…Catholics seek to impose their understanding of “church” upon the framework of “denonimantions”…very few denominations claim to be the “authentic understanding” of Christianity…most of us are not nearly as diverse as man Catholics like to suggest…we do not have to agree on every point of doctrine and disipline…There is latitude in Catholicism for various views and understanding…so to in Protestant groups.

I have worshipped with Methodists, Baptists, Mennonites, Adventists, Free-Will Baptists, Nazarenes, Brethren, Brethren in Christ, Presbyterian, Episcopalians, Lutherans…and not once was I “confused” about what it was they were seeking to expound about God…we worshipped together…in unity found in Christ…we did not beleive every single item of doctrine and historical understanding in any “cookie cutter” fashion…but then…neither do Catholics with one another…some things we do not find as important as Catholics do…I’ve even attended mass several times and joined in the Presence in worship and praise.

I don’t need to define God to the nth degree to worhip Him in Truth…I do not have to understand the Mysteries to know I have been in His Presence as two or three of us have gathered in His Name and experience Him in our midst…where He is Present, there is Unity.

 

[andrewstx]

There’s a concept I’ve been thinking about, called post-denominational Christianity. First, some definitions:

Denominational Christianity: Here I mean any Christian communion that has a history, a creed and a defining character (it is in some way exclusive). Even groups that may not be denominations under the standard definition, such as Orthodox or Catholics, qualify as part of denominational Christianity under this definition.

Non-denominational Christianity: This was an effort to break away from any denominations and to found a Christian community that did not have any defining character or creed. Very quickly it developed a character and creed. After a couple decades, it also developed a unique history, and therefore itself became a denomination.

Post-denominational Christianity: This is a meta-group within Christianity. Different denominational Christians can be post-denominational. Post-denominational Christianity will not become a denomination, because it will be open to all denominational forms of Christianity, and indeed all groups that identify as Christian. Any worship or doctrinal choice will be a matter of taste, or even a matter of believing that one form of worship or element of doctrine is true or right, while remaining open to the possibility of being wrong. To keep from having a centralised character, post- denominational Christians will worship within multiple denominations; it may be helpful for its diversity that post-denominational Christians attend a different denomination each time they move, or that they go to multiple different churches on Sunday or through the week. The only denominational element post-denominational Christianity will come to have is a historical character.

I am a post-denominational Christian. I worship during the week with a group at my university (non-denominational), p ray the morning prayer at a Scottish Episcopalian Church, and attend contemporary Presbyterian worship on Sundays (while twice a month going to Catholic Mass on Saturday evening). I have made meaningful connections within these communities, and am starting to build bridges.

What do you think of this sort of movement? Does anyone here identify with post-denominational Christianity? What problems do you see with it? What would you think about a post-denominational Christian attending Mass?

A more provocative question… what do you think about opening communion to post-denominational Christians?

Post-denominational is a new concept for me, and I do not understand it.

The problem I see with “non-denominational” denomonations is that they try to make their brand of Christianity exclusive by insisting on sola scriptura and applying the name Christian only to themselves. In this area, we have many institutions and businesses that call themselves Christian only.

Schools that are baptist or another denomination usually fundamentalist, and teach specifically fundamentalist doctrrine to the children.

Book stores that stock only fundamentalist books and media.

Television and radio stations that exclusively broadcast fundamental teaching.

In using Christian in this exclusionary fashion they deny the Christianity of all other Christians.

There are Catholic, Episcopal and Lutheran schools. book stores, and media. Are we not Christian as well?

Not all Christians are solo-sciptura, but we are Christians none the less.

I was raised in a solo scriptura denomination that claimed to be “undenominational” and to be the worlds only Christians. I will never go back down that road again,never.

 

[andrewstx]

Appolgies Brandon, I responded to your first post straight away instead of reading the whole thread first.

I see you are not solo scriptura at all.

But what holds post denominational Christians together?

 

[grandfather]

God called a People…a Community to be the Light to the world…the beacon set on the hill…He did not “found an ecclesial institution”…I am part of His Church…His People…and I will stand before Him…neither yours nor my ecclesial community will be Judge.

We all will stand before Him and give an account of our lives…and where I fail…I will place myself in His Hands of Mercy and Grace.

But He did found an institution. It is plain to see in the Bible. He called certain men, taught them and sent them out to teach the nations. He said to them if anyone rejects you they reject me. The Church He instituted had episcopoi (bishops), presbyters (priests) and deacons from the beginning in the Bible.

If His Church is a beacon set on a hill as He said, then it is there to shed light and to be seen, visible to all, so they can find their way. If it is visible not simply a spiritual essence then we can recognize it and say there is the Church. These are her members and ministers. This is her doctrine without ambiguity or confusion.

Indeed it is God who will judge us. He will judge us on how we respond to the message He sends through those He sends. Faith is handed down from generation to generation. God did not come to you personally and reveal His will.

Certainly we all need mercy and grace. That is the message of His Church. We did not figure this out on our own apart from the generations who came before us. We belong to them.

Saint Paul writes something about faith and those who came before us and lived by it.
He says all the Old Testament personages naming them all lived by faith and were justified by faith. After he goes though an account of them all he closes the thought by saying that without us they would not be saved.

God calls a people to Himself from generation to generation, but all the generations are united. They are the same people including the Old Testament people and the generations of the New Testament, the early Church fathers, the teachers, preachers, prophets, all the Saint Paul lists.

This is our patrimony. We inherit it all. It witnesses to us the truths of the faith. If we reject it how will God judge us?

 

[Khalid]

Oh my God, did we just agree?!

 

[Khalid]

I disagree that questioning the historicity of the virgin birth disqualifies one from being a Christian. One does not have to believe in a literal “virgin birth” to accept that God was in Christ and in Christ God is disclosed as His Revealed Word in our midst.

Maybe he could have been God’s word (but the Bible couldn’t have been God’s word in any way, meaningful or not: it would merely become a compilation of human documents no more inspired than the poetry of Rumi), but he emphatically could not have accomplished a salvific mission, as he couldn’t have been sinless. (Unless Jesus was just another “Immaculate Conception”, and, in that case, why have two?)

 

[Khalid]

Then if it is mythical, it is not worth placing my faith in and I am still in my sins. Good news, indeed!

Amen, Luther-an!

 

[Khalid]

Do you believe in God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Spirit?

the answer of that alone should be enough…

Actually, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is enough. Nothing less, nothing more. (I’ve even dropped Chalcedonianism from there after the strenuous objections of a few on these forums that non-Chalcedonians can be orthodox after some fashion.) An adoptionist is not Christian - this has been known for 16 centuries. (And, outside of a few scholars, it is debated whether the Shepherd actually does teach adoptionism.) Nor are universalists - this has been known for just about as long. As I said in my very first post, and what has become more clear with additional posts, is that you are a Unitarian Universalist with strong Christian leanings.

As I’ve said, If one denies the first Council, one denies God; if one denies the first four, one denies Christ; if one denies the first seven, one denies orthodoxy; if one denies the entire twenty-one, one denies the fullness of the Truth.

If I may chime in with my suggestions for reading,

Heresy and Orthodoxy by Kostenberger
History of the Development of Christian Doctrine (5 vol) by Pelikan
And less Ehrman and Pagels.

 

[TarkanAttila]

What do you think of this sort of movement? Does anyone here identify with post-denominational Christianity? What problems do you see with it? What would you think about a post-denominational Christian attending Mass?

A more provocative question… what do you think about opening communion to post-denominational Christians?

I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. (John 14:6)

This is the Gospel of the Lord.

Your answer, effectively:

What is truth? And whatever it is, does it matter?

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

What is truth?

I ask this not in an empty way, but in an earnest way. I really want to know.

This question is identical to the question “Who is Jesus?” It is also related to the question “what is the mass of an electron?” and “what is the driving mechanism for evolution?”

I want truth, and I won’t claim certainty until I really have it.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

But what holds post denominational Christians together?

I have been thinking about this question… my imprecise answer so far is:

The desire to know Christ, to want/appreciate a united but diverse Christian body, and to worship in at least one of the historical Christian denominations.

These things, and the admission that none of our religious beliefs are certain, but any and all of them may be wrong.

With many of us, it might involve also the willingness to revise our beliefs in the face of new evidence.

 

[grandfather]

I have been thinking about this question… my imprecise answer so far is:

The desire to know Christ, to want/appreciate a united but diverse Christian body, and to worship in at least one of the historical Christian denominations.

These things, and the admission that none of our religious beliefs are certain, but any and all of them may be wrong.

With many of us, it might involve also the willingness to revise our beliefs in the face of new evidence.

Brandon,
Years ago I had a friend whose father was a Baptist pastor. The friend was involved in activity to support a pregnancy center to help young women in crisis. The minister father councilled young women in his church when they found themselves in trouble, that it was ok to have an abortion. It was his opinion that before a woman was three monthds pregnant he could not see that the child in the womb was a person, a human life, so it was ok to kill it to make woman’s life easier.

Keep in mind that Baptists believe all their moral doctrine should come from the Bible. I asked him how he came to this position and he said he personally could not be sure that before three months there was a human life there. I asked if he was in a parking lot and saw some kids and got in his car, put it in reverse and looked in the rearview mirror and saw a flasho of something go behind the car, but was not sure what it was, would he hit the gas, or be safe just in case there was a child there. His personal position made no sense.

He asked me how we could know whether or not in a life and death situation what to do. I said we need to know truth about it. He anwered with the question Pilot asked Jesus, “What is truth”. I said the Church teaches truth. He said sarcastically that my Church (Catholic) teaches truth, says it does, or thinks it does. I said that is right.

This made him angry. He said no church has all true doctrines. They all have some errors and it is arrogant to think you know truth.

I asked him if some of his Baptist group’s doctrines were false. He said of course. I asked which ones are false. He became more frustrated at what he thought was a stupid question and said he could not know and if he did know he would stop believing them. I said if you do not know which of your dictrines are false, then it is impossible to know which are true.

But you set yourself up as a shepherd of souls. You tell people with questions and proiblems of a spiritual nature how they should deal with them, and tell girls to abort their babies if they are so inclined, and you say you do not know truth.

The truths about life are not discoverable by the power of our finite minds. Jesus said He is Truth. He taught men He called and sent them to the nations to teach. We learn truth from them by believing in faith, not figuring it out on our own, but once we know it it makes sense intellectually.

If you are a math student and I am not and there is a difficult calculus problem I can not figure out, but you do and tell me the answer, then I know the answer by belieiving you, by faith. It is reasonable that I believe you, because you have some credentials as an authority in the subject. It is reasonable I believe my doctor who tells me what health problem I have and how to treat it, because he studied medicine and is a recognized authority.

God trained and sent His apostles into the world to reveal His truth. The things, doctrines, they taught are still believed by some, but have been distorted and changed by others. Jesus promised to lead His Church into ALL truth, never to abandon us, to be with us until the end of time.

You will be able to discover truth, but you will not be able to reconcile the contradicting confusing doctrines of the denominations and nondenominations, and if there is a postdenominational Church, it will be a result of reunification to the Church Jesus founded and built on the rock.

 

[fbl9]

, and if there is a postdenominational Church, it will be a result of reunification to the Church Jesus founded and built on the rock.

 

[Izdaari]

One of my favorite things about the Anglican tradition is that it does not focus on what makes it different from other denominations, but on what C.S. Lewis called “mere Christianity”, i.e., the things that all reasonably orthodox Christians, whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox, have agreed on down through the centuries. In that sense, Anglicanism already is and has long been a “postdenominational” church.

 

[Theophorus]

One of my favorite things about the Anglican tradition is that it does not focus on what makes it different from other denominations, but on what C.S. Lewis called “mere Christianity”, i.e., the things that all reasonably orthodox Christians, whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox, have agreed on down through the centuries. In that sense, Anglicanism already is and has long been a “postdenominational” church.

Problem is of course, Anglicanism no longer holds even ‘Mere Christianity’ as it’s focus. It’s becoming post-denominational churches rather than the old latitudinarian church it was.

 

[TypesAndShadows]

I ask this not in an empty way, but in an earnest way. I really want to know.

This question is identical to the question “Who is Jesus?” It is also related to the question “what is the mass of an electron?” and “what is the driving mechanism for evolution?”

I want truth, and I won’t claim certainty until I really have it.

“Truth, what is that?”

Jesus is God, the mass of an electron is roughly 9.10938291×10[sup]−31[/sup] kg, the driving mechanism of evolution is typically natural selection combined with genetic drift although this is an incomplete answer.

I don’t really understand. Your examples from science are questions that you could easily find an authoritative answer to, along with a wealth of information on why these answers have been given and how they have been derived. Much like the divinity of Jesus, I suppose, except you could feasibly work your way to the point where you could empirically verify the science results, whereas you’ll probably have to wait until you’re judged to empirically verify our Christology.