Non-denominational Christians

  • Thread starter Thread starter jack_hawkins
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Did you know there have been 3 black popes in the Church’s history?
One was in (i believe) the year 189. Then there was one in the 300s…
Then there was the father of monastasism
 
distracted said:
Did you know there have been 3 black popes in the Church’s history?
One was in (i believe) the year 189. Then there was one in the 300s…
Then there was the father of monastasism
Click to expand...
Are you sure there were only three? I always thought there were more than that, but I’m not sure. There must be some records of what some of the Popes looked like.
 
awantz said:
Yes, Every day of holy obligation. It’s a non-denominational. We have confession on the individual’s request. We are not required to attend confession. We do it when we feel led to. We have an initiation into the church we do for everyone wanting to become a member. We are having one this coming Sunday, but we don’t call it conformation. However, it is basically the same thing. They have baby dedication, but as far as what goes on at a baby dedication at my church, it os pretty much the same as what goes on at an infant baptism. We are in a church church.
Click to expand...
Maybe your pastor has started to read the ECF’s.

This reminds me of the story of Alex Jones, a Pentecostal preacher who started studying the ECF’s and was surprised at what he learned:
catholiccompany.com/product_detail.cfm?ID=3064

If there is one thing that marks the faith journey of Alex Jones, it is his uncompromising commitment to the truth. In 1998, then Reverend Jones promised his congregation of some 200 souls, a real New Testament worship service. In thirty short days of reading the Fathers of the Church he came face-to-face with the Truth again. Like the night when he gave his life to Christ, Alex Jones had made another great discovery. He had found the Apostolic Church. Here, in the writings of other “Pentecostal Pastors” who had known and followed the apostles, was a Christianity he had never known; a liturgical and hierarchical Church where the center of worship was not just great preaching or even the movement of the Spirit, but the Eucharist. The Church founded by Jesus was a Sacramental Church. Going to the Scriptures, Alex found that they fell right in line with his new apostolic vision of the “Church of the upper room.”

But there was one problem. Reverend Alex Jones was a popular Pastor with a faithful flock! Was he crazy to go on? Should he just leave? Or did he love them enough to risk the pain of rejection by trying to lead them to the Truth? The stunning events that followed in this real-life drama are guaranteed to inspire in you to a greater appreciation of our magnificent Catholic Faith. Hosted by author Steve Ray, “No Price Too High: The Alex Jones Story” is a compelling video presentation popular Catholic filled with drama, courage and trust in God. But according to Alex Jones, the real heroes of the story are those who were received into the Catholic Church with him this Easter. The faithful who had not seen Alex’s vision, but believed in it. As he says in the opening moments of this incredible tape, “This is our story.”
 
jmcrae said:
Wisdom;

It’s definitely tempting to be skeptical. I’m just trying to keep an open mind, here.

You’re right about the baby dedications, but let’s just assume they’re doing the best they can.

At some point, it’s going to dawn on someone that either the kid has a relationship with Jesus, or he doesn’t. If he does, he should be baptized, and if he doesn’t, “dedicating” him isn’t going to help.
Click to expand...
You are right on, as usual, jmcrae. Most protestants have not been properly educated about baptism. Many want to do for them what Mary and Joseph did for Jesus, by offering the life of the child to God. Also, since most of them have been taught that it is not right to baptize until a person can have a personal relationship and confess Jesus as Lord, they wait to baptize until the age of reason, as we do for confirmation.
 
What do I think about Mathew 16:18?

Let’s start at verse 15.

…"But who do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said, “you are the Christ, the son of the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered,"Blessed are you Simon Bar Johah, for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father that is in heaven. And I say to you you are Peter (rock) and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not stand against it.
  1. Jesus is indeed the Christ.
  2. Peter was blessed to have this revelation.
  3. God revealed this to Peter.
  4. Jesus is building his Church.
  5. It’s HIS church.
  6. He does not say you are Peter and on you I am building my Church. Rather he is building his church on the solid rock fact that he is who he says he is (the Christ) and that the Church is an offensive weapon that the enemy cannot stand against.
Peter certainly was one of the most important leaders and pastors of the early Church. Paul says that James and Peter are seen to be Pillars in the church.
Peter was fallabile and was publicly rebuked by Paul. Some say that he was the first Pope. Jesus said that greatest among you shall be your servant. He said (Math 23:8-11) But you do not be called ‘Rabbi’ for one is your teacher, the Christ and you are all brothers. "Do not call anyone on earth your father for One is your father , He who is in Heaven. And do not be called teacher for One is your teacher the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. By calling your priest ‘father’ you are violating the command of Jesus. The bible teaches that we are all priests and kings unto God. The sin of the people of Isreal in the time of Samuel was they wanted to have a king over them.

We love our pastors and priests, many are nice people and love God. " Here comes the man of God is something I heard in a church recently". Yes we need leaders. Paul appointed Elders in the churches he was establishing. Leaders need to be raised up. However we need to be careful. King Saul was a good king before he became corrupt. King Solomon started with pure motives and just wanted to be wise to lead God’s people. He went bad too.
When things are good the pastor is the hero. When things are bad, the pastor is to blame. I have seen people run to the pastor for every little thing, (where is the authority God gave you?)

The Catholic Church and Evanjelical Christian church are both sick and weak and luke warm. We need to in the world but not of it. The Catholic’s try to prove that they are right because they come from Peter. The Evanjelicals try to say that they are right because they follow the bible more closely. And the Pentacostals think they are right because they have the Holy Spirit. Maybe we should all take the planks out of our eyes so that we can then remove the specks from each other’s eyes. Sectarianism is truly carnal. “I am from Paul!”. “Ya, well I am from Appollos so there.”
God we are all such children. We are Christ’s representitives. We represent him. We are Christ to the unsaved and brother they are looking at us to see if we really walk the walk and talk the talk.
Do we really love each other like he loves us?.. He basically said that it is not important where we worship him but that we worship him with in Spirt and in truth. He is looking at the conditions of our hearts…

You have a high, high, calling. Will the body of believers where you fellowship, support your ministry or will they throw a stumbing block under your feet? We must know that in our own Christian faithwalks, we must be obedient to what he is telling us to do. It may seem like it rebellion to the leadership in your congregation, but it is not. It is submission to God and his will for our lives.

Your friend,

arcadia,
aka Rob Webster
 
From Arcadia’s Post: *Let’s start at verse 15.

…"But who do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said, “you are the Christ, the son of the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered,"Blessed are you Simon Bar Johah, for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father that is in heaven. And I say to you you are Peter (rock) and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not stand against it. *

1. Jesus is indeed the Christ.
2. Peter was blessed to have this revelation.
3. God revealed this to Peter.
4. Jesus is building his Church.
5. It’s HIS church.
6. He does not say you are Peter and on you I am building my Church. Rather he is building his church on the solid rock fact that he is who he says he is (the Christ) and that the Church is an offensive weapon that the enemy cannot stand against.

My response: I agree with #1 throught #5 above, but regarding #6, I’m not sure how you came to your conclusion. Jesus changed Peter’s name from Simon to Peter (=Kepha in Aramaic). In Aramaic He would have addressed him as Kepha. What else could Jesus have meant when He said “You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my Church?” Peter is the Rock (Kepha). How could this be more clear? If you read the writings of the earliest Christians, this is the way they interpreted this Scripture. I can give you many examples of ECF’s writings to show you this if you would like.

James Akin talks about Matthew 16:17-19 in this article:
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/AKINSTOR.htm

You can read the rest of the article at the link, but here is an excerpt:

In Matthew 16:17-19 Jesus makes three statements to Peter: (a) “Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah,” (b) “You are Peter,” and (c) “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” The first statement is clearly a blessing, something which builds Peter up and magnifies him. Christ declares him blessed because he received a special revelation from God.

The third statement is also a blessing: Christ declares that he will give Peter the keys to the kingdom. This is clearly a beatitude, something that magnifies and builds Peter up.

And if Christ’s first and third statements to Peter are blessings, the middle statement, in its immediate context, also must be a blessing.
 
Arcadia posted: He said (Math 23:8-11) But you do not be called ‘Rabbi’ for one is your teacher, the Christ and you are all brothers. "Do not call anyone on earth your father for One is your father , He who is in Heaven. And do not be called teacher for One is your teacher the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant.

My response: So I take it you never refer to anyone as “father,” “rabbi,” “teacher,” “master,” “doctor.” (BTW “teacher” is interpreted as “rabbi” or “master” or “doctor” in some Bible translations.)

Is that the point Jesus was making, that it is improper to use these words when you refer to another person? Should we strike these words from our vocabulary?

Do you consistently apply this verse to people who call someone “teacher” or “rabbi” or “doctor” or “master?”
 
jmcrae said:
What do they consider Holy Days of Obligation? (Do they follow the American Catholic calendar of Saints, or are they thinking of things like Mother’s Day, Thanksgiving, Veteran’s Day, etc.?)

When you go to Confession, who hears your Confession?

By the way, it’s “Confirmation,” (sealing of the Holy Spirit) not “conformation.” 😉
Click to expand...
Pretty much the same days as the Catholic Church.
I went to confession towards the end of last year, because I felt the Holy Spirit leading me to do so. I talked to my Pastor.
I know that it is confirmation. The i and the o are right next to each other on the keyboard. My finger must have slipped. Sorry about that.
 
Regarding the teaching of Jesus regarding calling people teacher, father, etc.

I take Jesus’ command seriously. I believe that he had reasons for saying these things. I should not have to defend my obedience in this area. Though I could. I probably should ask how you can justify your disobence in this area. Truely we are all accountable to our Lord who is our King and we have given him all authority in our lives.

What problem did Jesus have with titles and why?

In love, and in submission to the word of God,

arcadia
 
I have always called the pastor of the church I attend by their first names. Although i greatly respect the pastor, he is truely a peer and a brother. Even though he is indeed a teacher or God’s word and is a pastor to God’s people “the church”. He would not want it any other way.

I was at at a Catholic wedding in 2002. The Bishop performed the ceremony. He was introduced as ‘Your excellentcy’. I do not like the title Reverend either. Definately not Biblical. In fact, this practice is in opposition to Jesus’ command in Mathew 23 : 8 -12.

Jesus rebuked the Parisees for putting the traditions of men above the word of God. Brothers, aren’t we doing the same thing?

your brother,

arcadia (Rob)
 
arcadia said:
I have always called the pastor of the church I attend by their first names. Although i greatly respect the pastor, he is truely a peer and a brother. Even though he is indeed a teacher or God’s word and is a pastor to God’s people “the church”. He would not want it any other way.

I was at at a Catholic wedding in 2002. The Bishop performed the ceremony. He was introduced as ‘Your excellentcy’. I do not like the title Reverend either. Definately not Biblical. In fact, this practice is in opposition to Jesus’ command in Mathew 23 : 8 -12.

Jesus rebuked the Parisees for putting the traditions of men above the word of God. Brothers, aren’t we doing the same thing?

your brother,

arcadia (Rob)
Click to expand...
Unbiblical Traditions of “Bible-only” Christians

Catholics are constantly being accused of being unbiblical and of having traditions “of men” that are not in the Bible. On the other hand, I hear many non-Catholic’s state that they belong to “Bible-only” churches which totally reject Tradition. I am constantly told, “We got the Bible and that’s all we need. Nothing else! We don’t need your silly unbiblical rules, rites, rituals, beliefs, and medieval hocus pocus.”

Perhaps they need to be reminded of following are examples of the many unbiblical traditions and beliefs of “Bible-only” churches:

The following are “Must do’s” to be saved:

Just accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and savior, nothing else - Not in the Bible
Must recite of the “Sinners Prayer” – Not in the Bible
Must have altar calls – Not in the Bible

Other unbiblical beliefs/practices:

Must be baptized by full immersion - Not in the Bible
The body of Christ is just a spiritual union - Not in the Bible
Sin is a sin – Not supported in the Bible
Saved by faith alone (sola fide) – Not in the Bible
Christ paid the full penalty of sin – Not in the Bible
Bible is the sole rule of faith (sola scriptura) – Nowhere in the Bible
Private interpretation of Scripture – Not in the Bible
Health and Wealth Gospel – Contradicts the Bible
Once saved always saved – Contradicts in the Bible
Baptism is symbolic and just a public declaration of faith – Not in the bible
Pre-tribulation rapture – Not in the Bible
Going to church on Sunday – Not in the bible
Celebrating Christmas – Not in the Bible
Celebrating Easter – Not in the Bible

They don’t reject tradition, just Catholic Tradition, then replace it with inferior unbiblical rules, rituals, beliefs, and post-modern hocus pocus. Did I miss any?
 
IanS said:
Did I miss any?
Click to expand...
Let’s see:
Rules forbidding church members from using alcohol, tobacco, caffeine (Mormons), non-kosher foods (SDAs). etc.
Rules dictating what clothing church members may wear (no short sleeves for men, no pants for women, etc.)
 
arcadia said:
Regarding the teaching of Jesus regarding calling people teacher, father, etc.

I take Jesus’ command seriously. I believe that he had reasons for saying these things. I should not have to defend my obedience in this area. Though I could. I probably should ask how you can justify your disobence in this area. Truely we are all accountable to our Lord who is our King and we have given him all authority in our lives.

What problem did Jesus have with titles and why?

In love, and in submission to the word of God,

arcadia
Click to expand...
What is this passage saying? I think Jesus is warning us against trying to usurp the fatherhood of God which, in many ways, is what the Pharisees and Scribes were doing. Did Jesus intend in this passage from Matthew 23 that there be an absolute ban against calling anyone your spiritual “father?” No, I don’t think so since in the Bible, Jesus, Paul, and Stephen refer to people as “father.”

I just wondered if you had the same problem referring to someone as “teacher” as you do “father?”

Specifically, do you refuse to call anyone teacher, doctor, master or rabbi?
 
I heard the funniest story a while back - one of these Fundamentalists was making a big deal when he met Father Jones, of calling him “Mister Jones.”

“Mister” (a variant of “Master”) is just as forbidden as “Father” in that passage that they quote from, if you’re going to take it literally. But they get so fixated on “Father” that they forget about the rest of the titles that Jesus refers to.
 
Janet_S said:
Are you sure there were only three? I always thought there were more than that, but I’m not sure. There must be some records of what some of the Popes looked like.
Click to expand...
i think there were only 3… I went to a search engine, typed in Black Popes… I need to do that again because at that time yesterday, i didn’t have time to read the whole thing…
I’m not black, but i am very interested in black history…
I took a history (US Hist) class once and the teacher seemed racist… (or was i just imagining it??). He said soemthing like how the Africans never had any advanced society… I asked, “What about the Egyptians?” He said something about how they were “Indo-Europeans” (??) or something like that… As if the Africans in Egypt were not true Africans (??)…
What do you think??
 
IanS said:
Unbiblical Traditions of “Bible-only” Christians

Catholics are constantly being accused of being unbiblical and of having traditions “of men” that are not in the Bible. On the other hand, I hear many non-Catholic’s state that they belong to “Bible-only” churches which totally reject Tradition. I am constantly told, “We got the Bible and that’s all we need. Nothing else! We don’t need your silly unbiblical rules, rites, rituals, beliefs, and medieval hocus pocus.”

Perhaps they need to be reminded of following are examples of the many unbiblical traditions and beliefs of “Bible-only” churches:

The following are “Must do’s” to be saved:

Just accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and savior, nothing else - Not in the Bible
Must recite of the “Sinners Prayer” – Not in the Bible
Must have altar calls – Not in the Bible

Other unbiblical beliefs/practices:

Must be baptized by full immersion - Not in the Bible
The body of Christ is just a spiritual union - Not in the Bible
Sin is a sin – Not supported in the Bible
Saved by faith alone (sola fide) – Not in the Bible
Christ paid the full penalty of sin – Not in the Bible
Bible is the sole rule of faith (sola scriptura) – Nowhere in the Bible
Private interpretation of Scripture – Not in the Bible
Health and Wealth Gospel – Contradicts the Bible
Once saved always saved – Contradicts in the Bible
Baptism is symbolic and just a public declaration of faith – Not in the bible
Pre-tribulation rapture – Not in the Bible
Going to church on Sunday – Not in the bible
Celebrating Christmas – Not in the Bible
Celebrating Easter – Not in the Bible

They don’t reject tradition, just Catholic Tradition, then replace it with inferior unbiblical rules, rituals, beliefs, and post-modern hocus pocus. Did I miss any?
Click to expand...
🙂 Great Post!! 🙂
 
RNRobert said:
Let’s see:
Rules forbidding church members from using alcohol, tobacco, caffeine (Mormons), non-kosher foods (SDAs). etc.
Rules dictating what clothing church members may wear (no short sleeves for men, no pants for women, etc.)
Click to expand...
Actually, I know Mormons don’t make the Bible-only claim (Not sure about SDA). In fact, they will tell you that the B.O.M. is much more accurate and superior to the Bible.

However, this does remind me of something. I remember my mother-in-law once telling me that she was raised Pentecostal, and no girls were not allowed to ride bicycles, swim, or wear pants. Talk about unbiblical “traditions of men”.
 
contramundum7 said:
I took a history (US Hist) class once and the teacher seemed racist… (or was i just imagining it??). He said soemthing like how the Africans never had any advanced society… I asked, “What about the Egyptians?” He said something about how they were “Indo-Europeans” (??) or something like that… As if the Africans in Egypt were not true Africans (??)…
What do you think??
Click to expand...
I think it’s definitely based on racist assumptions.

In any case, how does he know that the Africans who don’t use technology aren’t actually superior to us? Since they are able to make quite a decent living, working only 10-15 hours a week, without the stress of the 9-5 grind every day. And if something breaks, they know how to either fix it or make a new one - they don’t have to call in a repairman and wait all day for him to show up.

It makes me wonder, who is more “advanced?”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top