Non-denominational Christians

[DB_AND_ALI]

The biggest problem is breaking down the initial barriers I’m sure - once both sides destroy the myths and propaganda, they will see how much they have in common.
This is just a personal view, but I think sometimes we get too carried away with defending our own position and that we should leave people who are not amenable to persuasion to think what they want. If we are secure in our position with the Lord then any flaming arrows of accusation hit the breastplate of whatsitname - out of Pilgrim’s Progress anyway.
The ladies at RCIA are such a delight, they are such loyal servants of the Lord - no one could say that they are true Christians. I know equally devoted Pentecostals inc my late mother of course.
PS I went to church in South Africa during my studies, Rhema Church.

I agree my friend…i have however been very unfortunate in that i have met very few protestants outside of my family ] who realy , really want to learn what we believe in…as soon as a topic comes up they ‘kick in’ … with some sort of almost pre-learned answer…often original thought seems to be missing. To get them to actually give you a chance to respond is also a challenge ! Thanks to the web they might learn a lot…as i have of the different denominations. By the way Rhema is still going strong…i sometimes see Pastor Ray on telly , just before we head for mass on a sunday morning !!! Peace and joy in your walk with Jesus…!

 

[Janet_S]

Janet, maybe you could explain to me why you think IVF is wrong then? the difficulty is that the people dictating doctrine etc are all celibate and old!
jmcrae - I’m not sure if there’s any doctors in our parish, and it’s too late to change now really

Hi Jack,

I see a lot of people have already answered your question.

I did explain to you why IVF is wrong in a previous thread: Surely you must agree that just because we can do something (scientifically) does not mean we should do something. You also are aware that there are ethical standards we must uphold regarding the applied sciences. Keeping this in mind, these are the facts: IVF diminishes the dignity and inestimable value of the human person and reduces the human embryo to the status of an object/commodity. A child is a gift from God, not a guaranteed right. Regular practice of IVF takes a toll on society in general since societies that no longer recognize the dignity and worth of each human life (from conception to natural death) are heading for destruction. Also there is the problem of embryos being destroyed or frozen (and later used for embryonic stem cell research) during IVF treatments.

As far as “old, celibate men dictating doctrine”, this is a very prejudicial thing to say. I agree with the other posters–what does this have to do with truth? I often say (and I truly believe this) priests know more about sin than any street-walking prostitute does. Not because all priests have had first-hand experience of grave sin (some may have, of course), but because they are keenly aware of the nature of good and evil.

Finally, here is another website you should look at. There are many dedicated, Catholic physicians devoted to the teachings of the Church and the study of women’s health and infertility treatments. There are other infertility treatment options for couples besides IVF. Please take a look at this website.

naprotechnology.com/infertility.htm

About the Discoverer of NaProTechnology:
Thomas W. Hilgers, MD, is the director of the Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction and the National Center for Women’s Health in Omaha, Nebraska. Working at the St. Louis University and Creighton University Schools of Medicine, Hilgers and his coworkers developed the Creighton Model FertilityCare System. Dr. Hilgers is currently a senior medical consultant in obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive medicine and surgery at the Pope Paul VI Institute. He is a clinical professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, Nebraska. In 1994, Dr. Hilgers was appointed to permanent membership to the Pontifical Academy for Life. In 2004, Dr. Hilgers published the definitive textbook on natural procreative technology, The Medical and Surgical Practice of NaProTECHNOLOGY.

 

[guanophore]

Janet, maybe you could explain to me why you think IVF is wrong then? the difficulty is that the people dictating doctrine etc are all celibate and old!
jmcrae - I’m not sure if there’s any doctors in our parish, and it’s too late to change now really

John, you have GOT to get this. In reading your posts and praying for you, it has become clear to me that this is not just some extraneous matter of doctrine, but a fundamental principle of the faith that is essential for YOU. It is NOT “people dictating” and that is why this issue is SO CRITICAL for YOU!!! It is in this issue of IVF that God wants to DEMONSTRATE to you that HE is God and no other. He is calling you to forsake the artificial, and trust in HIS providence. By this means, He will show ou that it is not hte celibate old people that are dictating. BY this you will know that it is HE that does not dictate, but rather INVITES you to trust in HIM, and HIM alone. It is too late to change, because you have already been pursuaded of too much of the truth. You are a medical specialist, and you have never been challenged to this extent to bring your science into faith. Let God be God,and you will find that it is not celibate old men dictating , but the God of life inviting you to a new way of life.

 

[parkly]

In my experience, not quite. There are plenty of folks who might describe themselves as liberal Christian, but who do not affiliate with any specific denomination. This is very different than what one means when one says one attends a non-denominational church, at least in the southern US . The latter is usually very evangelical, often very conservative, advocating sola scriptura and frequently charismatic.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-denominational_Christianity

Karen,
A liberal Christian can be members of what we describe as orthodox also. I guess non-Denom. would be non- orthodox. what do you think?
To be a Christian is to have a personal relationship with the Lord. Anyone can give lip service to God, God knows the heart.

God bless,
parkly

 

[jack_hawkins]

John, you have GOT to get this. In reading your posts and praying for you, it has become clear to me that this is not just some extraneous matter of doctrine, but a fundamental principle of the faith that is essential for YOU. It is NOT “people dictating” and that is why this issue is SO CRITICAL for YOU!!! It is in this issue of IVF that God wants to DEMONSTRATE to you that HE is God and no other. He is calling you to forsake the artificial, and trust in HIS providence. By this means, He will show ou that it is not hte celibate old people that are dictating. BY this you will know that it is HE that does not dictate, but rather INVITES you to trust in HIM, and HIM alone. It is too late to change, because you have already been pursuaded of too much of the truth. You are a medical specialist, and you have never been challenged to this extent to bring your science into faith. Let God be God,and you will find that it is not celibate old men dictating , but the God of life inviting you to a new way of life.

I’ll try and explain my perspective a bit better. For me a guideline or “doctrine” can be judged by how well it manages special circumstances, exceptions. In my professional life there is a “magisterium” of senior medical academics who write “doctrine” which helps guide doctors in what to do. This guidelines have to acknowledge special cases that require different treatment. A guideline that covers even 99.9% of cases is no good - for instance in acute heart failure beta blockers are exactly the wrong thing to give except in one situation where they are exactly the right thing to give.
Yes, I know some people will seize on this literally and say you can’t compare the medical profession to the Church, but that would be completely missing the point. My point is that by understanding the principles guiding something, you understand where exceptions inevitably have to be made.
Of course I have no problem with God’s authority, but when I am told (possible incorrectly) that such and such applies even in X and Y situations, I have some difficulty reconciling that doctrine with an omniscient loving God. It may well be the problem is in my fellow Catholics’ understanding of the doctrine rather than the doctrine itself - more than likely actually.

 

[Tonks40]

I’ll try and explain my perspective a bit better. For me a guideline or “doctrine” can be judged by how well it manages special circumstances, exceptions. In my professional life there is a “magisterium” of senior medical academics who write “doctrine” which helps guide doctors in what to do. This guidelines have to acknowledge special cases that require different treatment. A guideline that covers even 99.9% of cases is no good - for instance in acute heart failure beta blockers are exactly the wrong thing to give except in one situation where they are exactly the right thing to give.
Yes, I know some people will seize on this literally and say you can’t compare the medical profession to the Church, but that would be completely missing the point. My point is that by understanding the principles guiding something, you understand where exceptions inevitably have to be made.
Of course I have no problem with God’s authority, but when I am told (possible incorrectly) that such and such applies even in X and Y situations, I have some difficulty reconciling that doctrine with an omniscient loving God. It may well be the problem is in my fellow Catholics’ understanding of the doctrine rather than the doctrine itself - more than likely actually.

You make it seem like Catholics are limited by doctrine - which in your view can be imperfect. We are not limited by doctrine, but by Truth - doctrine develops from that Truth. It does not contradict the Word, either thru Scripture or tradition.

By seeing Catholic doctrine having the inability to deal with what you call “special circumstances” shows that you have more faith in what man can do with these circumstances than with what God shows us what we should do. The way I see it, it is in fact your inability to understand and have FAITH in the Word (Will) of God…and which I can see and understand can be fraught with spiritual difficulty.

It’s good that you have the ability to really look at Christian doctrines and use your gift of reason to hammer these things out. But in the end, you are going to have to ask yourself - “Lord - is my understanding of this Your Will - or mine?”

God Bless!

 

[jack_hawkins]

let me ask you, are you confident that the rigid interpretations provided by some posters are correct?
how can I have faith in a doctrine when the interpretations given by people contradict what isn the apparent spirit of that doctrine?
what are you suggesting I have faith in - doctrine or God?
saying I lack faith in God’s will is completely misunderstanding my dilemma in fact

 

[KarenNC]

Karen,
A liberal Christian can be members of what we describe as orthodox also. I guess non-Denom. would be non- orthodox. what do you think?
To be a Christian is to have a personal relationship with the Lord. Anyone can give lip service to God, God knows the heart.

Your profile lists you as Lutheran, so I am presuming you are using the term “orthodox” to mean “right belief” rather than the Orthodox Church and also that your measure of “orthodox” is a Protestant rather than Catholic one (and I have learned from these boards that those two can be quite different).

Based on those presumptions, no, I don’t think non-denominational automatically means non-orthodox. There is a wide continuum within any denomination from conservative and fundamentalist to liberal and those folks that I know who attend non-denominational churches, while usually falling on the first end, are not necessarily outside of what is encompassed in the continuum. Now there is also a continuum among those who attend non-denominational churches, so the answer is–depends on the church, depends on the person. Since they are primarily organized around a charismatic (as in having a forceful attractive personality, not necessarily in the religious sense) preacher, much depends on that individual preacher’s place on the continuum.

 

[Tonks40]

let me ask you, are you confident that the rigid interpretations provided by some posters are correct?

No, I’m not. That’s why I look to the Catechism and writings from the ECF and the Magisterium, along with other Catholic apologetic writings. When I do, I find that the posters are trying to convey what falls in line with Church teaching as best they can.

how can I have faith in a doctrine when the interpretations given by people contradict what isn the apparent spirit of that doctrine?

Again, research them. See what the Church through encyclicals such as Humanae Vitae says about it.

what are you suggesting I have faith in - doctrine or God?
saying I lack faith in God’s will is completely misunderstanding my dilemma in fact

Well, then maybe I misunderstood.

 

[jack_hawkins]

When I look at Jesus in the gospels I see him breaking through the laws when necessary - he quoted the example of David and his men eating the shew bread. So on that basis I anticipate a similar paradigm in the Church’s doctrines.

 

[jmcrae]

When I look at Jesus in the gospels I see him breaking through the laws when necessary - he quoted the example of David and his men eating the shew bread. So on that basis I anticipate a similar paradigm in the Church’s doctrines.

Yes, there can be special cases. (Although in the case of IVF, I can’t imagine how.)

What you need to do is look to the medical experts at the Vatican, and read what they have written - and actually I was presuming that you were doing that anyway - hopefully on these kinds of important matters, you aren’t just taking the word of lay people. especially if what you are seeking is an in-depth theological and scientific understanding.

What I know is that IVF is bad because it goes against the ethics of human life. I also know that the teachings of human life include that the only proper use of sexuality and reproduction is within the bounds of marriage.

Introducing third parties into the marriage is forbidden.

Separating the unitive act from the procreative act in sex is also forbidden.

Why? I don’t know. Any more than a three-year-old knows why the stove is too hot to touch. (Would you say that a three year old should just go ahead and touch the stove, since he doesn’t believe it could harm him, and no one is explaining thermodynamics to him in a way that he can understand?)

I will tell you this - I have never lost or damaged my relationship with God by being obedient to the Church, even at times when I didn’t personally agree or understand - and nor have I ever met or heard of anyone who did. Ever.

But I’ve met and heard of lots of people who lost their relationship with God after deciding that they were smarter than the Church, and did something that the Church told them not to do - so, the evidence I see shows that obedience to the Church is good, while disobedience to the Church is either neutral (nothing changes), or bad (the relationship with God is lost).

 

[guanophore]

Karen,
To be a Christian is to have a personal relationship with the Lord. Anyone can give lip service to God, God knows the heart.

God bless,
parkly

I am curious where you come by this definition. It seems to me that even Satan had a relationship with the Lord, as did the demons that recognized who he was.

 

[guanophore]

let me ask you, are you confident that the rigid interpretations provided by some posters are correct?
how can I have faith in a doctrine when the interpretations given by people contradict what isn the apparent spirit of that doctrine?
what are you suggesting I have faith in - doctrine or God?
saying I lack faith in God’s will is completely misunderstanding my dilemma in fact

Certainly not, but I am not suggesting you use the postings as the standards, either. We all gave you links to the church’s teaching on issues related to reproduction. I do not expect anyone to have faith in a doctrine based on the many and varieid (mis) understandings and expressions of it. The reason that I think it is so essential for you to get this point is that it has to do with the infallibility of the Church. If you don’t believe the Jesus started the Church, or you don’t believe He promised to preserve Her from error, or you think He is too weak to do this in spite of all us fallible people, then you should not be a Catholic, or pretend to be one. I see it as a lack of faith in God because you do not recognize and appreciate the teaching is from God. You think it is something men made up, and that they might be wrong. That is why it is an issue related to your trust in God.

 

[guanophore]

When I look at Jesus in the gospels I see him breaking through the laws when necessary - he quoted the example of David and his men eating the shew bread. So on that basis I anticipate a similar paradigm in the Church’s doctrines.

There is a logical error here. Jesus had the authority to break the laws because He made them. In point of fact, most of the issues he addressed with the Jews were their misinterpretations of the law. Are you saying that you are on par with Jesus, and that because He broke the Laws when they did not meet the needs of the people, that you have the same liberty?

 

[DLC]

Anon-denominational Christian in my opinion as being one, tries to follow that biblical model of a church. We look into the bible to see what and how the first century church did and then use that example as our guyide. Acts 2:42-47; Eph 4:11; 1 Tim.3; 1 Chor, 16:1-2; 1 Cor. 11:23-34 are just few passage the shows what the early church did and how it was organized.

 

[DLC]

A non-denominational Christian in my opinion as being one, tries to follow that biblical model of a church. We look into the Bible to see what and how the first century church did and then use that example as our guide. Acts 2:42-47; Eph 4:11;
1 Tim.3; 1 Chor, 16:1-2; 1 Cor. 11:23-34 are just few passage the shows what the early church did and how it was organized.

 

[guanophore]

Anon-denominational Christian in my opinion as being one, tries to follow that biblical model of a church. We look into the bible to see what and how the first century church did and then use that example as our guyide. Acts 2:42-47; Eph 4:11; 1 Tim.3; 1 Chor, 16:1-2; 1 Cor. 11:23-34 are just few passage the shows what the early church did and how it was organized.

Do you concern yourselves at all with what the early father’s taught?

 

[jack_hawkins]

The reason that I think it is so essential for you to get this point is that it has to do with the infallibility of the Church

You’ve hit the nail on the head. The interpretations I’ve heard make it impossible for me to believe in the infallibility of the church to be honest.
This may be due to faulty interpretations by the individual posters. If this is the case, I can see what the problem is Fulton Sheen referred to.
Some of the rubbish pushed out by the “pro-lifers” destroys all credibility among the scientific/medical community eg rubbish about “hol(e)y” condoms

 

[DLC]

I concern myself with early church father’s teachings only if what they taught lines up with the Bible. The Bible is our source of truth and all Christian are held personally accountable for understanding the Bible and salvation by grace through faith on an individual basis. God never says in the Bible that the Church father’s teachings are binding. Only as what they tauth agrees with the Bible do we give importance to it. Otherwise what they taught is good for history but not for faith and morality.

 

[jack_hawkins]

There is a logical error here. Jesus had the authority to break the laws because He made them. In point of fact, most of the issues he addressed with the Jews were their misinterpretations of the law. Are you saying that you are on par with Jesus, and that because He broke the Laws when they did not meet the needs of the people, that you have the same liberty?

Jesus did not sin. If it was kosher for him to break the letter of the law but obey the spirit, then it is the same for the adopted children of God the Father surely? It was OK for David as well, not just Jesus.