Non-denominational Christians

[Janet_S]

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.

Catholics believe, like you do, that the Church father’s teachings are not binding.

The Church Fathers writings, though, do give us eyewitness testimony to the beliefs and practices of the early Church. Some of these men were disciples of the Apostles (Polycarp was a disciple of John, for example.)

The early Christians were Catholic, not non-denominational Bible Christians or Protestants. They believed in the sacraments, the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, praying for the dead, Apostolic succession, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, etc. They did not believe in salvation through faith alone (sola fide) or in sola Scriptura.

You might be surprised to learn this. However, I don’t expect you to believe me just because I say so. It’s very easy for you to find out for yourself since their writings are available online and in books. Here is an online site where you can read a lot of their writings:

newadvent.org/fathers/

 

[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

As a matter of fact, I just read several this morning that I thought were a bunch of horse hockey!

The faith / authority issue is at the core. How can you submit to an authority when you are not sure if it is right? How can you submit yourself to something that doesn’t make any sense? I think that lacking faith in God is EXACTLY the dilemma. It is putting your faith in HIm that even if others misinterpret (or misrepresent) His teaching , or even if it does not make sense to you, that you will still submit to it IN FAITH that it is truly the teaching of Jesus. If you do not believe that the Catholic Church contains the deposit of faith that Jesus left, then it is better not to join.

 

[guanophore]

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

Since this boils down to the infalliblity of the church, then I strongly urge that you not make that judgement based on the individual posters here. Read the church’s documents and teachings, and go from there. I have not had a chance to get thru all that thread you linked, so I am not sure about the rubbish. I am sure, when you read the teachings, that you will get the best instructions. I am not at all sure you will be able to submit to them, but I do believe that if you do, you will be enormously blessed! For all you know, all your fertility problems will become solved!:extrahappy:

 

[guanophore]

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.

I am curious, where do you think your bible came from? Also, when Jesus was teaching, it was all oral. He did not write everything. And since we know “everything” is not in the bible, why would you assume that the part that did not get written down is any less important?

 

[PapaSquash]

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.

God never says in the Bible that only the Bible is binding.

 

[Returnee]

Thinking about things and listening to what Catholics have to say here, I have come to the conclusion that the only Christianity that makes any sense to me is non-denominational Christianity. Are there many non-denominational Christians here?

Quite a long thread, but I read it all!

It seems we come back to the original post here, really. First of all, IMO there’s no such thing as a “non-denominational” church, because the very definition of “denomination” is:A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.
(American Heritage Dictionary defintion)
Emphasis added. A denomination really, for all intents and purposes, is any group that falls in the bold description. Usually, in today’s society, it usually means something larger, and more encompassing, like the “Lutheran denomination” for example. However, this isn’t always so.

Today, many like the term “non-denominational” because it affords them some measure of protection against critics, critics who, knowing major denominational teachings, would be able to criticize the church in question if, by a name, they knew what it taught. It’s basically, with all due respect, a rather easy way to avoid criticism, while still being able to cricisize other denominations.

Many form non-denominational churches because they were dissatisfied with something in the Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Calvinist, whatever church they left, and thus wanted to express their “true freedom”. It’s nothing new, really, it’s just an expression of a typical human desire to “do whatever I want, when I want”. Many people think that’s true freedom, after all, so when they reach a point with their former church where they disagree with some teaching, they must break away, to “do what they want”. After all, that’s TRUE freedom, right?

WRONG! And indeed, it’s interesting that that is where this thread has gone, the direction it’s generally taken. You, Jack, (and some others) seem to be under this impression (as so many in this world are) that TRUE freedom is “the ability to do whatever I want, when I want”, or, “whatever I BELIEVE is right for ME, IS what is right for me”. This is demonstratively false, as I will show with a brief example, and then I will urge you to reconsider what it is you really object to Catholicism:Let’s say you are in a department store, shopping for shoes, and you come to this PERFECT pair, that just look so charming, and would go with all your outfits so well, and is indeed the latest fashion. And it’s on sale!

But the shoes don’t fit you, they don’t have your size!

If the axiom: Whatever I want, is what’s best, for me, all the time

was right, then you should still buy the shoes, right? Because you WANT them, they look so good, they are the latest fashion, etc. You WANT them.

They are NOT what’s BEST for you though, are they? No, obviously the shoes that actually FIT you are what’s the BEST for you. No one but a lunatic would disagree with this.

So we have demonstrated that the axiom, “What an individual WANTS, is always what’s BEST for that person” is NOT what true freedom is. In fact, going back to our shoe example, we can see what TRUE freedom REALLY is:Let’s say the same store has the same shoes, in ALL sizes. Now you have a CHOICE, you can CHOOSE to buy the RIGHT sized shoes, the one’s that are the BEST for you.

So what we have here, is the description of TRUE freedom: True freedom is having the ABILITY to CHOOSE what is BEST for you. Note, it’s not having the KNOWLEDGE, it’s merely having the ABILITY.

Applying this to Catholicism is easy: By following Church teaching, TRUSTING in it, the Church gives us the ABILITY to CHOOSE the RIGHT choice for ourselves, and PREVENTS us from making choices that are BAD for us. If it didn’t, then it wouldn’t REALLY be giving us FREEDOM in CHRIST.

Thinking of the shoe example, the Church would be like a store employee (or the store itself) that would prevent us from buying a pair of shoes that didn’t fit, or, point out to us WHEN we COULD buy the shoes in our size. Is this limiting our freedom? NO, because remember, true freedom is NOT “having the ability to do what we want, whenever we want”. It’s “having the ABILITY to do what is BEST for ourselves”.

And sometimes, (and this is a very, un-individualistic concept, but this is what Christ asks us to do, He asks us to DIE to OURSELVES and follow HIM), we don’t always know what’s best for ourselves.

That’s where the Church comes in; without it, then how do we REALLY know we’re being led by Christ?

By believing (doing) whatever we want, whenever we want?

Just something to think about, next time you think the Church is “too restrictive”.

 

[jack_hawkins]

You, Jack, (and some others) seem to be under this impression (as so many in this world are) that TRUE freedom is “the ability to do whatever I want, when I want”, or, “whatever I BELIEVE is right for ME, IS what is right for me”.

No, not at all - otherwise why become a Christian?
What you are describing is rather like the pronouncement of Aleister Crowley, “do what thou wilt”. I certainly don’t subscribe to that, and I don’t believe my posts would suggest that.
Submission to the authority of the Church is fine if one is convinced that the Church has been given and retained authority from Jesus Christ. There are tests from scripture against which to judge what Christians and apostles say - for example, why does it say beware of someone bringing a new revelation even one from an angel? Why would those tests be necessary if the Church has perpetuating infallible authority?

 

[jack_hawkins]

(cont.)
Why would those tests be necessary if the Church has perpetuating infallible authority?
To take your analogy further, if someone else decided to pick my shoes for me, should I accept their decisions no matter what? Even if they are a style guru? What they think suits me may not be what I want or need. They have been socialised in thinking about shoes and clothing in a certain way. Who decides what’s fashionable and should I accept what everyone else says is fashionable?
With shoes there is an objective way of determining whether a shoe will fit - the size. This can be confirmed logically.

 

[guanophore]

No, not at all - otherwise why become a Christian?
What you are describing is rather like the pronouncement of Aleister Crowley, “do what thou wilt”. I certainly don’t subscribe to that, and I don’t believe my posts would suggest that.
Submission to the authority of the Church is fine if one is convinced that the Church has been given and retained authority from Jesus Christ. There are tests from scripture against which to judge what Christians and apostles say - for example, why does it say beware of someone bringing a new revelation even one from an angel? Why would those tests be necessary if the Church has perpetuating infallible authority?

Because those “angels” bringing contradictory doctrine are not from the infallible source! The test is not for the Christian, or the apostle. The test is to discern the IMPOSTER.

 

[Janet_S]

Quite a long thread, but I read it all!

It seems we come back to the original post here, really. First of all, IMO there’s no such thing as a “non-denominational” church, because the very definition of “denomination” is:A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.
(American Heritage Dictionary defintion)
Emphasis added. A denomination really, for all intents and purposes, is any group that falls in the bold description. Usually, in today’s society, it usually means something larger, and more encompassing, like the “Lutheran denomination” for example. However, this isn’t always so.

Today, many like the term “non-denominational” because it affords them some measure of protection against critics, critics who, knowing major denominational teachings, would be able to criticize the church in question if, by a name, they knew what it taught. It’s basically, with all due respect, a rather easy way to avoid criticism, while still being able to cricisize other denominations.

Many form non-denominational churches because they were dissatisfied with something in the Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Calvinist, whatever church they left, and thus wanted to express their “true freedom”. It’s nothing new, really, it’s just an expression of a typical human desire to “do whatever I want, when I want”. Many people think that’s true freedom, after all, so when they reach a point with their former church where they disagree with some teaching, they must break away, to “do what they want”. After all, that’s TRUE freedom, right?

WRONG! And indeed, it’s interesting that that is where this thread has gone, the direction it’s generally taken. You, Jack, (and some others) seem to be under this impression (as so many in this world are) that TRUE freedom is “the ability to do whatever I want, when I want”, or, “whatever I BELIEVE is right for ME, IS what is right for me”. This is demonstratively false, as I will show with a brief example, and then I will urge you to reconsider what it is you really object to Catholicism:

Let’s say you are in a department store, shopping for shoes, and you come to this PERFECT pair, that just look so charming, and would go with all your outfits so well, and is indeed the latest fashion. And it’s on sale!
​

That was a great post, Returnee.

I just want to add, there are many physicians, other health care professionals, lawyers, and scientists who are faithful the the Church’s teachings. We have a Catholic obstetrician/gynecologist in our town who teaches natural family planning, uses naprotechnology techniques to treat infertility, and refuses to prescribe birth control pills. I wish there were more like him, because his office is so busy it’s hard to get in to see him.

I also know of many physicians and pharmacists (Catholic and non-Catholic alike) who refuse to prescribe or dispense the Plan B “emergency contraceptive” pill. I don’t think having a well-formed conscience is incompatible with being a prudent physician or health care professional. In fact, I dread the day when the majority of health care professionals just go along with all the accepted practices of the “real world” without recognizing the God given dignity and value of each human life.

I think if people bothered reading Church documents that explain its moral teachings (particularly Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae and Pope JP II’s enclicals Evangelion Vitae and Veritatis Splendor), they might realize the Church has a very firm handle on the “real world.”​

 

[jack_hawkins]

so what’s wrong with having a conscience that says “but hang on, if you apply this rule in this situation, then that doesn’t seem right”? is that any less a well-formed conscience?
not agreeing with all of the Church’s positions is not being a loose cannon and being totally secular, contrary to what some seem to be saying

 

[jmcrae]

so what’s wrong with having a conscience that says “but hang on, if you apply this rule in this situation, then that doesn’t seem right”? is that any less a well-formed conscience?

I hope you don’t take offense, but I would hope that my doctor or any doctor treating members of my family would not take that kind of attitude.

I don’t want to come to the bedside of my loved one only to find out, “Oh, we euthanized her because we saw that she was in pain - it seemed like the right thing to do, at the time. But don’t worry - we harvested her eggs and you will have 300 brothers and sisters frozen in a bank vault somewhere, until we decide to kill them because they’re not needed, implant them in someone’s womb, or do experiments on them.”

 

[jack_hawkins]

I hope you don’t take offense, but I would hope that my doctor or any doctor treating members of my family would not take that kind of attitude.

I don’t want to come to the bedside of my loved one only to find out, “Oh, we euthanized her because we saw that she was in pain - it seemed like the right thing to do, at the time. But don’t worry - we harvested her eggs and you will have 300 brothers and sisters frozen in a bank vault somewhere, until we decide to kill them because they’re not needed, implant them in someone’s womb, or do experiments on them.”

take what attitude? you haven’t really explained what in particular you object to about questioning certain things
to suggest I would do any of these is pretty offensive actually
do you think I’m in favour of euthanasia?
so you would prefer a non-thinking protocol-driven doctor, who is actually far more likely to do these sort of things, in a profession increasingly dominated by secularism?

 

[jmcrae]

take what attitude? you haven’t really explained what in particular you object to about questioning certain things
to suggest I would do any of these is pretty offensive actually
do you think I’m in favour of euthanasia?

I have no idea. You’re in favour of IVF, which is part of the same philosophical system that favours euthanasia and selective abortion.

so you would prefer a non-thinking protocol-driven doctor, who is actually far more likely to do these sort of things, in a profession increasingly dominated by secularism?

I would prefer a doctor who believes in the Catholic values of pro-life, and doesn’t nit-pick them to death looking for loopholes.

 

[jack_hawkins]

I have no idea. You’re in favour of IVF, which is part of the same philosophical system that favours euthanasia and selective abortion.

no it’s not - at all in any way
I can’t even see where you get that apart from reading extreme “pro-life” literature that basically is not in touch with reality

I would prefer a doctor who believes in the Catholic values of pro-life, and doesn’t nit-pick them to death looking for loopholes.

That’s not what I’m doing
the exceptions determine the validity of the rule
it’s nothing to do with loopholes
I’ve said umpteen times I’m pro-life - don’t you get it?

this is the attitude that gets “pro-lifers” labelled as a lunatic fringe, a pressure group with no more validity or authority than any other eg animal rights

what you call “nit-picking” is a silly way of describing clarification, what you expect from a professional rather than an automaton

 

[jmcrae]

I’ve said umpteen times I’m pro-life - don’t you get it?

You’re not exactly helping me “get it” by promoting IVF.

what you call “nit-picking” is a silly way of describing clarification, what you expect from a professional rather than an automaton

Well, then, why don’t you get in touch with Vatican doctors, and read documents like The Theology of the Body, if you are looking for understanding, instead of asking non-experts like me who don’t even know the proper names of their bones?

Just because I can’t explain all the scientific reasons why IVF is bad doesn’t mean that the Church is wrong. All it means is that I’m not a scientist. (Being a scientist is not required for salvation. Avoiding to perform IVF is, though.)

 

[jack_hawkins]

You’re not exactly helping me “get it” by promoting IVF.

I don’t recall promoting IVF; IVF is not not “pro-life” anyway; and why assume acceptance of one thing means acceptance of the others???

Well, then, why don’t you get in touch with Vatican doctors, and read documents like The Theology of the Body, if you are looking for understanding, instead of asking non-experts like me who don’t even know the proper names of their bones?

Just because I can’t explain all the scientific reasons why IVF is bad doesn’t mean that the Church is wrong. All it means is that I’m not a scientist. (Being a scientist is not required for salvation. Avoiding to perform IVF is, though.)

I very much doubt Vatican doctors would speak to me even if I knew how to contact them. I am not asking for scientific reasons anyhow - science has nothing to do with whether something is good or bad.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t recall promoting IVF; IVF is not not “pro-life” anyway; and why assume acceptance of one thing means acceptance of the others???

It divides procreation away from the sex act in marriage, which destroys the marriage/family relationship. It also potentially makes the embryo a commercial commodity that one can customize to specifications. It also caters to the idea of “I want a baby right now,” which is baby as commodity - something one who has money and know-how can get.

Euthanasia is the “throwing out” of the human being who is no longer useful to society - again, viewing the human being as a commodity whose worth is based on his usefulness/wantedness.

Abortion is the “throwing out” of the human being who doesn’t meet the “customer’s” (mother’s, or society’s) standards - “I don’t want a baby at this time.” - the other side of the same coin as IVF.

I very much doubt Vatican doctors would speak to me even if I knew how to contact them.

Why not? You are a doctor, and they are doctors. I’m sure they write papers and are published, exactly the same way that you do.

I am not asking for scientific reasons anyhow - science has nothing to do with whether something is good or bad.

Well, then, I have no idea what you are looking for. The moral reasons have been presented.

 

[jack_hawkins]

HMMM - people don’t have IVF because they “want a baby right now”. I think people who desperately want a child and would treasure him/her (not treat the child as a commodity) would be quite offended by that comment. The possible abuses of something don’t make that thing evil.

 

[jmcrae]

HMMM - people don’t have IVF because they “want a baby right now”. I think people who desperately want a child and would treasure him/her (not treat the child as a commodity) would be quite offended by that comment. The possible abuses of something don’t make that thing evil.

Whatever. They’re still engineering the child, and they’re still separating procreation from the unitive act, instead of letting God create the child (or not) according to God’s own ways.

We will continue to disagree on this, because I will continue to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ in His Church.