In this quote you are implying that non-denom churchs are started by dissenters…of an existing church…
FBL how are you
I haven’t chatted with you in a while sister.Great question and point of fact there have been splits within our church. But not because of doctrinal differences though. It was more because the church had grown to be so large that sister campuses needed to be opened to accommodate the population. But more directly to your question the church in 1800 defined and published it’s theological position(s). If one does not agree with that then they probably wouldn’t join. The council of elders chooses a head pastor to preach to the congregation but the head pastor has to have the theology that is in line with the church. If he doesn’t then the council would not choose him. No one Elder has the ability to challenge the theology of the church and change it. I suppose if someone was that disenchanted with the teachings of the church they could leave and try to start their own church. But then I would question why they were there in the first place.
Fish definitely sounds more like Pentecostal roots.
It’s brother,but no matter for in Christ there is niether male or female…FBL how are you
Interesting point. I wouldn’t say they were dissenters of the church though. The church is and always will be pure. I think the move was to try to get back to that purity. Not saying it’s right or wrong but the dissension is more with the church leadership than anything.
Great question and point of fact there have been splits within our church. But not because of doctrinal differences though. It was more because the church had grown to be so large that sister campuses needed to be opened to accommodate the population. But more directly to your question the church in 1800 defined and published it’s theological position(s). If one does not agree with that then they probably wouldn’t join. The council of elders chooses a head pastor to preach to the congregation but the head pastor has to have the theology that is in line with the church. If he doesn’t then the council would not choose him. No one Elder has the ability to challenge the theology of the church and change it. I suppose if someone was that disenchanted with the teachings of the church they could leave and try to start their own church. But then I would question why they were there in the first place.
With regard to the authority of defining an error, the church will always refer to scripture. Now I’m sure your next question is who’s interpretation do they use. The answer is the church always defers back to its roots and what the theology of the church was and always has been. So let’s take for for instance OSAS. We have never preached nor will we ever preach this document. But given we are non-denominational we do have folks that believe in OSAS. I may not agree with them personally and the church certainly doesn’t so they will never be able to influence the church to teach that doctrine. It’s a non-essential as I was referencing before. We don’t have to believe in OSAS to go to Heaven. And that’s what I believe really defines our church. There are a set of beliefs that are considered absolutely essential for salvation. They are non-negotiable as far as teaching. With things that are non-essential, people can believe whatever they like. Even the RCC gives some wiggle room for private interpretation of scripture. But there are certain things the RCC teaches from scripture that have no wiggle room. So now you may be interested in knowing what the essentials are right?
Hope this helps. If not please feel free to ask more
FBL please accept my most sincere apologies and forgive me. I must have confused you with someone else.
I’m saying I believe the dissension was with the leaders of the Catholic church and other churches. Let’s face it the church went through some difficult times and didn’t have the most moral of leaders. I’m not referring to dissension within our current church.
Well that depends on what time frame you are talking about. Certainly scripture existed within 10-15 years of Christ being crucified. Mark’s Gospel is dated by some to be as early as the late 30s AD to the early 40s AD. Most believe Paul’s works to be older so that would mean his letters were in circulation in as little as 5 years after the death of Jesus.
FBL the RCC is not of one mind either my brother. I surely hope you don’t believe that. Currently less than 50% of all Roman Catholics actually believe in the real presence. Most see it as symbolic now. I know Catholics that believe in predestination. Point of fact in the early 20th century a group of Roman Catholic Theologians re-interpreted the Lord’s supper to be symbolic. Because of the failing doctrine of transubstantiation they wanted to re-define the church’s view on communion and stress the meaning rather than a substance change. The Pope elected to hold onto Trent’s definition. But this just goes to show they are not one mind at the leadership level either. Look at the votes on any of the council rulings and tell me how many were 100%. I believe none. They ruled by majority. This isn’t one mind is it? No it isn’t. It may mean you teach one thing outwardly but just as you accuse us that’s an escape for not being of one mind.
I didn’t mean for this to be baiting. I was just anticipating this would be your next question. But as stated above anything Christ commands is not negotiable.
didn’t take it that way(baiting)FBL please accept my most sincere apologies and forgive me. I must have confused you with someone else…
fbl9 not a problem
I’m saying I believe the dissension was with the leaders of the Catholic church and other churches. Let’s face it the church went through some difficult times and didn’t have the most moral of leaders. I’m not referring to dissension within our current church.
fbl9
Nor was i meant…hypothetically…so bc the leader was not true to his call means the whole institution is false from the beginning?
With regard to authority it is taken from Christ.
fbl9
In other words usurpedthey took it from Him not He (Jesus)giving it.
The essentials are viewed as anything Christ commanded us to do…
fbl9
so if it isn’t written in one of the gospels then it is not required?
Well that depends on what time frame you are talking about. Certainly scripture existed within 10-15 years of Christ being crucified. Mark’s Gospel is dated by some to be as early as the late 30s AD to the early 40s AD. Most believe Paul’s works to be older so that would mean his letters were in circulation in as little as 5 years after the death of Jesus.
Let me ask what time of dissension are you referring to??
FBL the RCC is not of one mind either my brother. I surely hope you don’t believe that. Currently less than 50% of all Roman Catholics actually believe in the real presence.
fbl9 of those who don’t beleive,how many actually attend mass properly?
Most see it as symbolic now. I know Catholics that believe in predestination.
fbl9 Predestination is held by catholics but not in the sense of Calvin did.
Point of fact in the early 20th century a group of Roman Catholic Theologians re-interpreted the Lord’s supper to be symbolic. Because of the failing doctrine of transubstantiation they wanted to re-define the church’s view on communion and stress the meaning rather than a substance change. The Pope elected to hold onto Trent’s definition.
fbl9 Just where are those "theologians now?either they left the church and started new ones (just like yours could have been) or they now hold the truth in this regards.
But this just goes to show they are not one mind at the leadership level either. Look at the votes on any of the council rulings and tell me how many were 100%. I believe none. They ruled by majority. This isn’t one mind is it? No it isn’t. It may mean you teach one thing outwardly but just as you accuse us that’s an escape for not being of one mind.
fbl9… How many of those who had opposing ballots left?How many of the same stood corrected?
I can remember growing up and being told we can’t eat meat on Fridays during Lent. Then suddenly it was Ok. Then it wasn’t. Then it was. Then not again unless you were pregnant or a senior. I know some local Catholic churches that allow the lectern to clean the chalice. That’s supposedly a big no no. So no disrespect my brother honestly, but you will never convince me the RCC is of one mind.
fbl9 who cleans the chalice is not an essential,you know that…it bugs me that disicplines are open to change…Look at it this way the speed limit is subject to change but everybody follows what is posted.not what it used to be.the disciplines are an aid in living a holier life,just as speed limits are an aid for living longer
I didn’t mean for this to be baiting. I was just anticipating this would be your next question. But as stated above anything Christ commands is not negotiable.
Non-denoms are cashing in on the “Catholics are a denomination too” worries that many Protestants have.
Gabriel I attend a non-denominational church. You need to clarify what you mean here by saying hold accountable. If the belief’s, teachings etc. of Christians come under attack, you want to hold someone accountable? What does that mean?? Are you referring to the Pastors of the church if they are the attackers, or if outsiders are the attackers who is held accountable?
Gabriel of 12
Forgive me for not being clear; What I propose to you is Mathew 18:15
"If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
16
If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
17
**If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. **14 If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
I call your attention to verse 17. Who do non denominationals go to when ever they are unable to resolve a Sin between two denominational Christians or any other for that matter?
I will presume, that when it comes to Christian doctrinal belief’s and a non denominational does not agree with his or her Pastors decision, do they move on to another non denominational church that would disagree with the Pastors decision?
My point is a non denominational Christian is at liberty to freely move from body of believers to another body of believers without any one authority they adhere to but what scripture dictates to them from their own interpretation.
NDfan
We thank the Catholic church for preserving the Bible and bringing it forward through all the attempted persecutions of it. We don’t accept the apocryphal books as being divinely inspired and therefore do not use them for doctrines of faith. Something by the way Jerome and many Popes asserted as well. They are good for historical reading, although some have some errors, and for edification but not for creating doctrines of Faith around.
Gabriel of 12
Now we are getting off the OP topic here, but you raise an interesting point, and it may help with my analysis. You see no matter a Pope’s or Saints opinion of my Catholic dotrinal belief’s, they cannot change what the Holy Spirit confirmed Through the “CHURCH”. As far as the Apocryphal books are concerned, The main reason why these books are God Breathed and why the Catholic church has kept them as inspired of God, not because of the decision of a Pope, Saint or Church council, but because "Jesus himself taught from these books, and the “Church” does not overrule Jesus.
NDfan
As far as authority and guarantees we get that right from the scriptures. We believe scripture contains the teachings of Christ as written by the Apostles and consider them the final rule of Faith. We acknowledge that not everything was written down and have tremendous respect for the church’s history and traditions. But doctrines of Faith are not taken from traditions. We may disagree on this but you are asking how we think and practice and I’m giving honest answers. If all you are going to do is say we are wrong that gets us nowhere. So let’s keep this charitable eh??
Gabriel of 12
Agreed
I have scrutinized the Catholic doctrines, and have found all them taught, believed in, and prophecised about from Sacred Scripture.
I am not going to say you are wrong, what I will say is, if whatever you have been told about the Catholic faith without seeing for yourself what she truly believes and teaches, you may have been misinformed. This is true for runaway Catholics also.
Cont.
Gabriel of 12
Self-Responsibility is the (usually) unstated theme of non-denominational congregations.
Gabriel I don’t recall stating non-denoms understand the church of Christ to NOT be formalized or organized. To the contrary we certainly believe the church needs to be organized. But we don’t agree with an upward reporting structure.
Good point. We reject the books of the apocrypha because in the early tradition of the church they were rejected and also rejected by the Jews who would know their canon better than anyone. Jerome and many Popes advised that the apocryphal books are only to be used for edification and never for doctrines of faith. So in this case the Apostolic tradition seems to be not to accept these works for doctrines of Faith. If other non-denom churches want to accept them we can’t influence them one way or another.
That’s not entirely true. The first authority is scripture. But we hold our interpretations of scripture to be consistent with what the early churches were doing. We don’t just sit down, interpret the Bible, and then claim we are the authority on it. Our Pastors graduate from Seminary and are scholars on church history. We hold tradition with the utmost respect and would never try to interpret scripture outside of the bounds of church history.
Not sure what you mean here.
Gabriel I would never disagree with you on this brother. But let me say this. The same situation exists within the RCC right now and always has. The RCC may try to outwardly preach one message but internally there is conflict. As mentioned to FBL look at all the previous councils and the many votes they had. Never were the councils 100% on their vote. That shows everyone did not agree. In gallup polls conducted by the RCC we see less than half of all RCC members believe in the real presence. In the early 20th century Roman Catholic theologians interpreted communion to a change of meaning rather than a change of substance. Paul the VI decided to retain the original dogma. If he hadn’t then the teaching would be different today.
Not true. Agreement on doctrine does not define you as a denomination.
And I thank you Gabriel. Look forward to continued discussion.
Peace be with you too
Ok I see where you are going Gabriel. In this instance Christ is obviously referring to conflict between Christians correct? So in this case Christ gives us commands on how to handle this situation. One command after exhausting a few others is to take it to the church. In this case we would consider our church including the leadership and congregation to be “the church”. Or at least part of it. Certainly not the entire church. Many times we seek guidance from our small groups. Christ never commands us to go to the Pastor/Elder/Presbyter to seek resolution. HE just states the church. What I find most interesting is that Christ at the end of verse 17 and from verse 18 forward to about 20 states the following:
Gabriel I would guess they always have the freedom to do that. But that to me would show one of 2 things. Either the Pastor is teaching a bad message which is entirely possible as we both would agree. Or that the person hearing the teaching doesn’t want to accept it and just wants to keep shopping until they find someone they agree with. Ultimately you have to submit to church authority, otherwise you end up a loner outside the church, or you attempt private interpretation which is what most evangelicals do today which of course leads to what we have.
I think you are right on with this. But I disagree that it’s isolated to just non-denoms. We have Roman Catholics enter our church because they disagree with Rome. We have Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians etc. etc. that do the same thing. We always see Christians moving from one denomination to another in search of what they think is the truth. Catholics, presbyterians etc. become Lutherans and vice versa. But ultimately you have to submit to the authority of the church. Unfortunately even when you choose to follow a specific church I have never met anyone who agreed 100% with their church’s teachings. Or take it one step further, I don’t know anyone who is 100% familiar with everything their church teaches.
I have a different view on this. How do you confirm what the Holy Spirit has revealed to the church?
We are going to disagree on this but Christ never taught from the Apocryphal books. If HE did please show me.
Ok now I agree 100% on this but want clarify a few things. The church did not come 300 years before the Bible. Maybe the official canon yes but not the works themselves. The copies of the works themselves in some cases are dated back to potentially the late 30s AD which would mean the originals have to be older than that. Paul’s letters are believed to be older than any Gospel writing so they may go back to just a few years after the death of Christ.Gabriel of 12
Agreed
I might disagree with you on a few. Scripture knows nothing of Mary as being co-redemptrix for instance. The Apostolic teachings that we have say nothing about this. What seems to happen is folks will point to church leaders that followed the Apostles as if somehow that validates it came from an Apostle orally but just not written. Someone had to write it down sooner or later because the appeal is always made to the writings of some ECF. So the notion that oral teachings alone exist doesn’t seem to make sense. The doctrine of transubstantiation is another one I don’t believe can be supported by scripture. Certainly not the way it’s defined by Aquinas and the council of Trent. Any one these can generate a thread on their own so we can do that if you want I’m just throwing out some examples.
Well I spent the better part of 40 years in the Roman Catholic Church. Grew up in Baltimore and attended one of the best Catholic Schools at least at the time. I served as altar boy for years and helped my Father usher weekly as I got older. I’m pretty intimate with the church’s teachings so I don’t get influenced by people who are outside the Catholic church. Their postings make me laugh. But I’ve also met Catholics who don’t even understand their own teachings. Have you ever met someone who thought the immaculate conception was the birth of Christ? I’m sure you have. I’ve met Catholics who flat out state that they pray to Mary or pray to a saint. They didn’t understand the notion of intercessory prayers.
Well it’s not my own interpretation Gabriel. I’m not just reading scripture and saying no this is wrong let me find someone that agrees with me. I’ve studied it for years to really gain an understanding of what Christ was saying in these verses. This includes an extensive study of the Greek.
Well I’m not sure how the church can be founded on a man. Consider the conversation. Christ asks who do you say that I am. After many take turns answering Jesus understands they obviously are just not getting it and says no who do "YOU’ say that I am. Peter answers HIM and then immediately Christ says upon this rock I am building my church. Even in Peter’s letter he confirms Christ is the Rock. Peter calls us all living stones built up into a spiritual household with Christ as the cornerstone. The foundation as we’re told is the apostles and prophets. As noted in another thread binding and loosing was given to the entire church not singularly to Peter.
I don’t disagree that we need authority within the church and that scripture is clear we need to submit to that authority. So the bottom line is I don’t really have a problem with the Pope. I may have a different take on Matthew 16 but certainly understand that Peter was granted authority as well as the rest of the Apostles. But then this has to extend to all church leaders. I agree not down to each individual as that would be chaotic. Which incidentally is what we have today because people cannot submit to the authority of the church.
Maybe we’re defining Apostolic succession differently. I believe in Apostolic succession. I believe the church can trace it’s roots back to the Apostles. But I don’t believe to be a church leader you have to have Apostolic succession. Christ’s calling of Paul shows us that anyone can be called. How else do you explain people that are outside of the Catholic Church but feel called to the service of Christ. You have people that dedicate their lives to Christ because they feel they have been called. When Ignatius first used the phrase Apostolic succession he was referring to people that were familiar with Apostolic teachings. Now I would never deny that it’s important we maintain consistency with Apostolic teachings. But I feel the Catholic church has deviated somewhat from those teachings. Not abandoned them but let’s just say created some that are not Apostolic.
I accept it brother I really do. I guess we have different feelings on it. I don’t think that you need to be able to trace your church back to an Apostle to say it’s a valid Christian church. I think if you are called by GOD to serve you serve. You may be Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian or whatever. But I truly believe if every Christian leader was supposed to be called to serve only within the Catholic church then that’s where they’d be.
Yes I acknowledge that John said this.
Well in studying the Greek there’s a difference between petra and petros. If Christ meant that HE was building HIS church on Peter he would have said you are Petros and on you Petros I will build my church. The argument gets made that the Armaic has no distinction for rock so the Armaic would have been you are kephas and on this kephas I will build my church. The problem is we only have the Greek and the Greek doesn’t bring the statement forward that way. So the Armaic is only speculation. If Matthew’s Gospel really did exist in Armaic as some suggest I wish we had it. It would probably clear things up one way or another.
Well as noted above I don’t believe sacred scripture is stating what you are stating. But let’s assume that Jesus did in fact build HIS church on Peter. How does that impact saying the Catholic church is the only church?? The behavior of the early church doesn’t show that where ever Peter was that’s where the authority was. The Jerusalem council was presided over by James. James made the decisions on the content of the letter sent to the Gentiles. Peter dying in Rome doesn’t then imply a de facto authority over the whole church as coming from Rome. If that were the case then Antioch would have been the initial home of the authority. Peter was there as well and appointed leaders. We both know Peter was all over the place planting churches and leaders. Any one of them could make the same claim Rome does. You make the assumption that because Peter died in Rome that’s where it resides. Somehow tying his death to a passing of authority.
Well again I believe when Christ said on this Rock HE was referring to HIMSELF but using the confession of Peter as the basis. That’s why Peter was named Rock. Because he would be first to make the confession. Now if you go back to your comment above regarding John 21:25, you yourself Gabriel admit that not everything Jesus said and did was written down and we both agree to that. So then how do we know that the commands Jesus gave to Peter were not given to the entire group of Apostles and just not recorded by John or someone else later??
Yes exactly and I agree. I’m just noting that Peter doesn’t identify himself as a Bishop. And I think the reason we have this is because Peter wasn’t stationed at one church. He like Paul moved around preaching and spreading the Gospel. They were following Christ’s command of preaching to all nations. I don’t believe Peter was going to stay stationary in Rome. Neither was Paul. Paul was on his way to Spain and was stopping off in Rome to visit with the folks he wrote to. It just so happened he was put to trial and be-headed. Peter may have gone to Rome but I believe from church history accounts we see he placed Linus, who we read about in scripture, in charge of the church at Rome with plans to continue moving on, preaching and placing other leaders. But then Peter was crucified upside down so his ministry was ended.
And I think that’s a rich part of church history. But again I don’t believe this is how it was intended. Peter and Paul would have continued traveling and preaching until they died.
