Non-denominational Christians

[Janet_S]

To Arcadia,

I know it seems like we are all ganging up on you, and maybe we are. But your posts were “loaded,” so we are trying to address all the points you made. Actually, we could write a book to respond to all the issues you brought up.

I hope you continue posting on this thread (and this forum) because I think you one of the more thoughtful posters here. It seems like you really are listening to us, and I certainly appreciate it. I will listen to you too. If it weren’t for people like you, this forum would be very boring.

But to get to the point, I would like to address what you said about Baptism:

Arcadia posted: Water baptism (full immersion) is biblical whether we like it or not. Many, many scriptures support this. Sprinkling an infant is a far cry from water baptism. Water baptism is one of the ways that the Bible says we are saved. (Mark 16:16) I cannot think of any cases in the Bible were a child was sprinkled. You can baptise your way if you want. This is not forbidden in the Bible (it is not mentioned at all) but I would rather be baptised in the same way as Jesus etc. and the way the bible speaks of.

My Response: In this post I won’t address every issue you brought up, but I would like to address the issue of “sprinkling” versus “full immersion.”

Catholics accept two methods of baptism: immersion and pouring.

There is historical precedence in support of the pouring method of Baptism in the Church document called the “Didache” or also known as “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.” (written around AD 70-100) Catholics acknowledge this document is not inspired Scripture, but it contains eyewitness testimony to the beliefs and practices of the early Church. You might want to read the entire document if you are interested in what the early Church taught about abortion, Sunday worship, and the Eucharist. Here’s the teaching about Baptism:
ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_didache.htm

CHAPTER 7

7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water;

7:2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water;

7:3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

7:4 But before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized fast previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command him who is baptized to fast one or two days before.

 

[arcadia]

Jesus was NOT criticizing titles, but the attitude of the heart.

CALL NO MAN–WHAT?

A few days ago the Gospel reading was taken from the beginning of Matthew 23. After Jesus tells his listeners to obey, but not to follow the example of, the Pharisees, who love “being called rabbi by men,” he says: “But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ. He who is greatest among you shall be your servant; whoever exalts himself shall be humbled, and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.”

Commonly we begin parsing this passage by thinking of the way our Lord was taking the Pharisees to task for their ostentation and hypocrisy, but I wonder whether it might be more productive to begin at the end. Isn’t the point that his followers are to inculcate the virtue of humility, each putting the rest ahead of himself?

It isn’t that the one who is the greatest among them is going to end up being the servant of the others; it’s that the one who is the servant is, precisely because of that, the greatest. True greatness (the kind the world rarely acknowledges) paradoxically arises from humility.

No one should take Christ’s words as forbidding the use of titles. If “you are not to be called rabbi” (which means teacher in the sense of a learned man, not just an instructor), it isn’t that there is something wrong with the title. What is wrong–in some cases, as with the Pharisees–is that the title is sought as a perk.

By the way, the titles are more or less duplicative: rabbi, teacher, master, father (in the sense of spiritual or intellectual generator), plus one that does not appear, doctor (from the Latin for teacher). Sometimes I am amused at the vehemence with which a Fundamentalist preacher will inveigh against Catholics calling priests “Father,” while that same preacher styles himself “Doctor.”

Yes, we have one Father in heaven, but our Lord tells us we also have “one teacher” and “one master.” If it is wrong to use one title, it is wrong to use any of them. If it is right to use one title, it is right to use them all–in appropriate circumstances.

catholic.com/newsletters/kke_030325.asp

I liked the responce written by Keating in 2003. But i have never in 9 years of Christianity heard anything from the pulpit denouncing calling the practice of calling a man father. However I read this in the bible and I believe it. There are 2 points to consider and both the catholics and christians have fallen in the error as well as doctors and many lawyers. I should know there are 3 lawyers and 1 doctor in my family. I too have sufferred from PRIDE.

1. Jesus said not allow anyone to call you father.
2. Don’t call anyone father for you are all brothers.

If someone teaches he is a teacher. If someone builds he is a builder. We do not say “hi builder!” Is he any less a person under God? The use of titles separates and exhaults and demeans. We are all brothers. Do you agree? I have seen people almost worship a pastor or a priest. This is not healthy for the pastor or the church member. Close friends and peers are called by their first names. By refraining from the titles we can be closer as friends and brothers. Your priest will still be respected, perhaps more so. He will still be considerd a teacher for that is what he does. However, by dropping the titles we find ourselves looking less to man and more to God.

 

[arcadia]

Since I am exploring the beliefs of Catholics I am interested in what they believe about spiritual gifts. You guys may know that the christian church is very divided on the issue. I read a biography about Fr. Rookey from Chicago that has a healing ministry. Personally, God healed my son Daniel from a terrible disease and lately, I just got back from Suriname South America(at the end of Jan 2007). During this missions trip many, many people were healed and delivered. One woman was blind and can now see.

Many christians hold to the doctrine that the age of miracles is past. One book is called Charismatic Chaos by John Mc Arther.
There are many others on prophesy. What do you guys say?

Curiously,
arcadia

 

[RNRobert]

Since I am exploring the beliefs of Catholics I am interested in what they believe about spiritual gifts. You guys may know that the christian church is very divided on the issue. I read a biography about Fr. Rookey from Chicago that has a healing ministry. Personally, God healed my son Daniel from a terrible disease and lately, I just got back from Suriname South America(at the end of Jan 2007). During this missions trip many, many people were healed and delivered. One woman was blind and can now see.

Many christians hold to the doctrine that the age of miracles is past. One book is called Charismatic Chaos by John Mc Arther.
There are many others on prophesy. What do you guys say?

Curiously,
arcadia

If you pick up a book on Catholic saints (or heck even one on Orthodox Saints), you will read of numerous miracles being attributed to them (healing the sick, raising the dead, being able to read the hearts of others, etc.). So no, spiritual gifts are not dead. As for speaking in tongues, I’m not so sure (but that’s just my opinion).

 

[jmcrae]

Since I am exploring the beliefs of Catholics I am interested in what they believe about spiritual gifts. You guys may know that the christian church is very divided on the issue. I read a biography about Fr. Rookey from Chicago that has a healing ministry. Personally, God healed my son Daniel from a terrible disease and lately, I just got back from Suriname South America(at the end of Jan 2007). During this missions trip many, many people were healed and delivered. One woman was blind and can now see.

Many christians hold to the doctrine that the age of miracles is past. One book is called Charismatic Chaos by John Mc Arther.
There are many others on prophesy. What do you guys say?

Curiously,
arcadia

Arcadia, I’m starting a new thread on this question - you can find it HERE.

I’ve titled it Gifts and Miracles in the Catholic Church.

 

[guanophore]

I liked the responce written by Keating in 2003. But i have never in 9 years of Christianity heard anything from the pulpit denouncing calling the practice of calling a man father. However I read this in the bible and I believe it. There are 2 points to consider and both the catholics and christians have fallen in the error as well as doctors and many lawyers.

An error that you appear to have fallen into is thinkng that Catholics are not Christians. If someone were to denounce using titles, they would have to begin by denouncing Christ and His apostles for using them. I hope I never hear it!

I should know there are 3 lawyers and 1 doctor in my family. I too have sufferred from PRIDE.

1. Jesus said not allow anyone to call you father.
2. Don’t call anyone father for you are all brothers.

arcadia;2052238:

If someone teaches he is a teacher. If someone builds he is a builder. We do not say “hi builder!” Is he any less a person under God? The use of titles separates and exhaults and demeans. We are all brothers. Do you agree? I have seen people almost worship a pastor or a priest. This is not healthy for the pastor or the church member.

Yes, I agree we are all brethren. I think you have identified exactly what Jesus was trying to teach about, which was not to exhalt or demean others by the use of titles. He wants us to “judge with right judgement”.

Close friends and peers are called by their first names. By refraining from the titles we can be closer as friends and brothers. Your priest will still be respected, perhaps more so. He will still be considerd a teacher for that is what he does. However, by dropping the titles we find ourselves looking less to man and more to God.

Well, suit yourself. If you need to call the priest by his first name so you can feel chummy, hopefully he will not mind.

 

[Janet_S]

I liked the responce written by Keating in 2003. But i have never in 9 years of Christianity heard anything from the pulpit denouncing calling the practice of calling a man father. However I read this in the bible and I believe it. There are 2 points to consider and both the catholics and christians have fallen in the error as well as doctors and many lawyers. I should know there are 3 lawyers and 1 doctor in my family. I too have sufferred from PRIDE.

1. Jesus said not allow anyone to call you father.
2. Don’t call anyone father for you are all brothers.

If someone teaches he is a teacher. If someone builds he is a builder. We do not say “hi builder!” Is he any less a person under God? The use of titles separates and exhaults and demeans. We are all brothers. Do you agree? I have seen people almost worship a pastor or a priest. This is not healthy for the pastor or the church member. Close friends and peers are called by their first names. By refraining from the titles we can be closer as friends and brothers. Your priest will still be respected, perhaps more so. He will still be considerd a teacher for that is what he does. However, by dropping the titles we find ourselves looking less to man and more to God.

Don’t you think God wanted some people on earth to have authority over others?

Will you read Numbers 16 and comment on it for us?

 

[contramundum7]

Jesus was NOT criticizing titles, but the attitude of the heart.

CALL NO MAN–WHAT?

A few days ago the Gospel reading was taken from the beginning of Matthew 23. After Jesus tells his listeners to obey, but not to follow the example of, the Pharisees, who love “being called rabbi by men,” he says: “But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ. He who is greatest among you shall be your servant; whoever exalts himself shall be humbled, and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.”

Commonly we begin parsing this passage by thinking of the way our Lord was taking the Pharisees to task for their ostentation and hypocrisy, but I wonder whether it might be more productive to begin at the end. Isn’t the point that his followers are to inculcate the virtue of humility, each putting the rest ahead of himself?

It isn’t that the one who is the greatest among them is going to end up being the servant of the others; it’s that the one who is the servant is, precisely because of that, the greatest. True greatness (the kind the world rarely acknowledges) paradoxically arises from humility.

No one should take Christ’s words as forbidding the use of titles. If “you are not to be called rabbi” (which means teacher in the sense of a learned man, not just an instructor), it isn’t that there is something wrong with the title. What is wrong–in some cases, as with the Pharisees–is that the title is sought as a perk.

By the way, the titles are more or less duplicative: rabbi, teacher, master, father (in the sense of spiritual or intellectual generator), plus one that does not appear, doctor (from the Latin for teacher). Sometimes I am amused at the vehemence with which a Fundamentalist preacher will inveigh against Catholics calling priests “Father,” while that same preacher styles himself “Doctor.”

Yes, we have one Father in heaven, but our Lord tells us we also have “one teacher” and “one master.” If it is wrong to use one title, it is wrong to use any of them. If it is right to use one title, it is right to use them all–in appropriate circumstances.

catholic.com/newsletters/kke_030325.asp

i hate when someone says “Catholics and Christians” as if they are 2 distinct things. Could u please say “Catholics & other Christians”?
Also, if we can’t call anyone “Father”, then we are wrong 2 call our biological fathers such… When we do call them “Father”, does that mean we are worshipping them as our God???

 

[arcadia]

People are not perfect, absolutely. However, any church established by Jesus Christ must be perfect in it’s teachings of faith and morals. Let me ask you a few things:

Is the one church which Christ established, authoritative, visible, apostolic, infallible on teachings of faith and morals, and consistent in doctrine?

If Christ is all the head, all of these must be true. Otherwise, Jesus is not the Son of God and was just a false prophet.

Are all Christian churches a visible sign of unity to the world?
Do all Christian churches have apostolic authority?
Are all Christian churches infallible?
Are all Christian churches consistent in their teachings of right and wrong?

Let’s say I want to know if embryonic stem cell research is moral or immoral in the eyes of Jesus and don’t know where to turn. So I go talk to my evangelical buddy and he tells me that the Bible is the sole rule of faith and morals as well the only source of all Christian infallibility.

So I crack open my Bible and can’t find a single word on embryonic stem cell research. What now?

Well, the infallible Bible does tell me that it is actually the Church that is the pillar and bulwark of all truth (1Tim 3:15), the final source of authority (Mt 18:17-18) as well it must consistent in teachings (1Tim 1:3).

So I open the phone book and to the “Church” section with listings for 396 different churches in my area:

Churches-Baptist (66)
Churches-Baptist-General (63)
Churches-Catholic (47)
Churches-Church Of Christ (22)
Churches-Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints (16)
Churches-Episcopal (12)
Churches-Lutheran (73)
Churches-Methodist (65)
Churches-Pentecostal (11)
Churches-Presbyterian (21)

Which one should I go to? Will I get the same answer from all 396 churches?

There is noting in the Bible that states what is written is superior to oral traditions. In fact, Paul tells us to hold fast to our traditions, whether written or oral. How do you think Christians taught one another when 90% of people were totally illiterate? The Bible wasn’t even canonized until late in the fourth century. Did you know that one of the tests for canonization for a NT book was to see if it complied to oral tradition?

The Bible doesn’t forbid it. However, what day do you celebrate it on? If it is on December 25th, why? There is only a 1 in 365 chance Jesus was actually born on what would be December 25th according to the gregorian calendar.

Wow are sure so sure of your facts?

1. The church is God’s people. Will we ever agree on everything? No. Can we even agree with our wives on everything?
2. Did Paul and Peter agree on every thing all the time or did they have disputes? How about Paul and Barnabas? Paul and Silas?
3. If the Catholic Church is perfect, then has it ever killed anyone? Would Jesus ever kill anyone?
4. The bible states that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Brother, that is me and you and we ARE the Church.
5. You basically said that if Christ is the Head then the church is in fallible? If not Jesus is a false prophet. The first few chapters of book of Revelation reads like a report card. Some things, ( docterines and practices) were good and some bad. Were any churches perfect? NO. far from it. They needed to repent. Were they His? Absolutely. We (god’s people) are the church and are being transformed from glory to glory.
6. If we are honest will will acknowledge that the Roman Catholic church split from the eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[Aramis]

I’ve come to this discussion late…

Don’t you think God wanted some people on earth to have authority over others?

Will you read Numbers 16 and comment on it for us?

In John 20, Christ himself establishes the authority of the 12 to determine what is sin and what isn’t;

19
11 12 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
20
When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. 13 The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.
21
14 (Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”
22
15 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit.
23
16 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”
24
Thomas, called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came.
… annotations below]
11 [19-29] The appearances to the disciples, without or with Thomas (cf John 11:16; 14:5), have rough parallels in the other gospels only for John 20:19-23; cf Luke 24:36-39; Mark 16:14-18.

12 [19] The disciples: by implication from John 20:24 this means ten of the Twelve, presumably in Jerusalem. Peace be with you: although this could be an ordinary greeting, John intends here to echo John 14:27. The theme of rejoicing in John 20:20 echoes John 16:22.

13 [20] Hands and . . . side: Luke 24:39-40 mentions “hands and feet,” based on Psalm 22:17.

14 [21] By means of this sending, the Eleven were made apostles, that is, “those sent” (cf John 17:18), though John does not use the noun in reference to them (see the note on John 13:16). A solemn mission or “sending” is also the subject of the post-resurrection appearances to the Eleven in Matthew 28:19; Luke 24:47; Mark 16:15.

15 [22] This action recalls Genesis 2:7, where God breathed on the first man and gave him life; just as Adam’s life came from God, so now the disciples’ new spiritual life comes from Jesus. Cf also the revivification of the dry bones in Ezekial 37. This is the author’s version of Pentecost. Cf also the note on John 19:30.

16 [23] The Council of Trent defined that this power to forgive sins is exercised in the sacrament of penance. See Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18.

usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john20.htm

The transition of authority by election of the synod is clear in Acts; others have posted it, so I shan’t. Denying the transmitted authority, however, is clearly ignoring the historicity of the Catholic and Orthodox episcopates, with unbroken lineages and preserved traditions, as well as being incompatible with Gospel Literalism, let alone whole-bible literalism.

As to the posts that the CC is “non-denominational”, no. The church currently is about 30 denominations in union, 22 of them formal churches united under the Grand Synod, and several more informal national variations, e.g. the various latin-ritual groups still in union. It is hopeful that progress on two more churches has been slowly advancing since the 1980’s, to wit, a Lutheran-Uniate and an African Rite; at present, both are part of the Roman Chuch; it is quite possible we may also see some Tridentine Rite Uniate system established, either as a formal Latin-Bishop dependant (such as the Russian-Byzantine Catholics outside Russia), or possibly as a separate hierarchy, such as the Ruthenian Byzantines have.

But as to the non-denominational churches, the one’s I’ve encountered all are essentially scismatic from other denominations. Many are founded in ignorance, arrogance, or hubris, but not all. The CC teaches that Catholic and Orthodox churches have the fullness of Truth AND descended authority (see Vatican II post-conciliar documents on the eastern rites/churches), with Catholic and Orthodox differing on the matter of Petrine Authority, but not on transmission, nor the authority of the Papacy as Patriarch of the West.

It is important to find Christ, but more so to find Christ in such a way as to come to the fullness of what Christ teaches, both in sacred ritual and in personal belief.

I had a bumper sticker that was a good reminder: “Going to Church no more makes you a Christian than Going to a Garage Makes you a Car!” Salvation requires intent, action, AND the grace of God, including submission to the authorities Christ himself put forth.

 

[rockyankeeswon]

Can I ask what is non-denominational Christianity?

Thank you.

C.

Non denominational Christianity is a self determining fellowship with out any teaching authority or obligation to subscribe to any thing that each individuals spirit doesn’t sanction as the truth!

 

[jmcrae]

It is important to find Christ, but more so to find Christ in such a way as to come to the fullness of what Christ teaches, both in sacred ritual and in personal belief.

I had a bumper sticker that was a good reminder: “Going to Church no more makes you a Christian than Going to a Garage Makes you a Car!” Salvation requires intent, action, AND the grace of God, including submission to the authorities Christ himself put forth.

That was so excellently well-put that I thought it could bear repeating.

If Jesus Christ is indeed “Lord of my life” then His hierarchy (the Pope and his Bishops) also need to be authorities in my life.

I don’t get to tell Jesus how He will be Lord of my life - I don’t get to make myself King and Pope and President of the United States, and Chief of Police, without His say-so. For as long as He is appointing others to these offices, my job, as an obedient servant of His, is to obey His appointed authorities, in the knowledge that they represent Him to me in the world, through the offices that they hold, and that I must treat them with the same respect that I would treat Him if He were here in person.

 

[rockyankeeswon]

I just don’t like exclusivism for the sake of exclusivism - I see too much pride in being one thing or the other, and not enough emphasis on the central issues. Too much holding on to baggage.
Why equate non-denominational with picking and choosing? That seems to be the standard Catholic accusation for virtually everything - “cafeteria” Christian? It’s a big turn away.
I’ve asked plenty of questions and faced resentment or deletion of the threads for asking them. Why assume that people join churches other than the Catholic because it’s “easier”? We all know people in the Catholic church who only fulfil the obligations and no more.

Many Christians both catholic and protestant frequently take their child hood faith for granted and just assume that the faith that they grew up in and their parents and grandparents lived and died in and was good enough to get them to heaven so why should it not be so for them also? To consider another faith as more salvific would in essence cast a Shadow on their departed family members. traditional family pride and relegating god’s truth to a secondary position will generally be enough to put any new religious truth on hold!

 

[guanophore]

I see too much pride in being one thing or the other, and not enough emphasis on the central issues. Too much holding on to baggage.

What makes you think that, just because certain things are more important to you, that they are “central issues”. Isn’t that being self centered? Holding to the teachings of the church is not “baggage”. It is the gift of the Divine Deposit of Faith. It is a treasure. It only seems like baggage to you because you do not see the value of it.

You do not accept that the gift of revelation was given both orally, and in writing, so you miss half of it.

2 Thess 2:15
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. "

1 Cor 11:2
“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.”

Why equate non-denominational with picking and choosing? That seems to be the standard Catholic accusation for virtually everything - “cafeteria” Christian? It’s a big turn away.

It’s a big turn off when Catholics do it too, but pretending it isnt’ happening won’t make it go away.

I’ve asked plenty of questions and faced resentment or deletion of the the threads for asking them.

It was not asking questions that was the problem. It was making insulting comments and being rude that got you those reactions.

Why assume that people join churches other than the Catholic because it’s “easier”? We all know people in the Catholic church who only fulfil the obligations and no more.

Don’t you think it is the expectations of the Catholic Church that are too much for people? why do you think they go elsewhere?

 

[arcadia]

Janet S. You said "Don’t you think God wanted some people on earth to have authority over others?

Yes of course. I have authority over my children. If the authority is in submission to Jesus it can be honored.

Someone once said that power corrupts. Man has a tendency to abuse power. There was a movement in Christianity in the 1970’s called “sheparding”. I am not an expert but what started out people helping each other by being accountable to each other ended up in some cases in situations where a person had given all their power over to the extent that a person in authority was deciding who they were to marry etc. Extreme example but of course authority and submission are part of our daily lives.

PS Why do you want me to comment on number 16?

Still posting
arcadia

 

[mgupta]

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?

I am a liberal Catholic. I see nothing wrong with non-denominational Christianity. Many of my friends were non-d. Christians. I think that some Catholics view it as dangerous because sometimes non d. Christians may become confused on how to interpret the Bible. Catholics have the Pope along with many other educated Catholics who interpret the Bible.

In general I see nothing wrong with non d. Christians as long as you are careful about choosing a good church which has a well informed interpretation of the Bible. This shouldnt be a problem there are many great non d. churches. The most imporatnt thing is to love and serve God.

 

[guanophore]

I am a liberal Catholic. I see nothing wrong with non-denominational Christianity. Many of my friends were non-d. Christians. I think that some Catholics view it as dangerous because sometimes non d. Christians may become confused on how to interpret the Bible. Catholics have the Pope along with many other educated Catholics who interpret the Bible.

In general I see nothing wrong with non d. Christians as long as you are careful about choosing a good church which has a well informed interpretation of the Bible. This shouldnt be a problem there are many great non d. churches. The most imporatnt thing is to love and serve God.

How do you determine which church has “a well informed interpretatin of the Bible”? I agree that the most important thing is to love and to serve God. However, the deposit of faith communicated to us from Jesus about how He wanted to be shown love and service is found in the Catholic Church.

 

[jmcrae]

I am a liberal Catholic. I see nothing wrong with non-denominational Christianity. Many of my friends were non-d. Christians.

Just because your friend is doing something, doesn’t make it “okay.”

I have a very dear friend who is in a homosexual relationship. I don’t suddenly think, “Oh - homosexual relationships must be okay with God, then!”

We live in a world of sinners. It is, therefore, entirely possible that people we know and even people we are actually related to are sinning, too.

 

[Janet_S]

Janet S. You said "Don’t you think God wanted some people on earth to have authority over others?

Yes of course. I have authority over my children. If the authority is in submission to Jesus it can be honored.

Someone once said that power corrupts. Man has a tendency to abuse power. There was a movement in Christianity in the 1970’s called “sheparding”. I am not an expert but what started out people helping each other by being accountable to each other ended up in some cases in situations where a person had given all their power over to the extent that a person in authority was deciding who they were to marry etc. Extreme example but of course authority and submission are part of our daily lives.

PS Why do you want me to comment on number 16?

Still posting
arcadia

Arcadia,

Please read Chapter 16 in the Book of Numbers. That’s what I would like you to comment on.

Janet

 

[Janet_S]

I am a liberal Catholic. I see nothing wrong with non-denominational Christianity. Many of my friends were non-d. Christians. I think that some Catholics view it as dangerous because sometimes non d. Christians may become confused on how to interpret the Bible. Catholics have the Pope along with many other educated Catholics who interpret the Bible.

In general I see nothing wrong with non d. Christians as long as you are careful about choosing a good church which has a well informed interpretation of the Bible. This shouldnt be a problem there are many great non d. churches. The most imporatnt thing is to love and serve God.

There’s not much difference between liberal Catholics and non-demoninational Christians, so I’m not surprised that you are not concerned. Actually many non-demoninational Christians are more Catholic than liberal Catholics.

Usually non-denominational Christians believe in Truth and are genuinely seeking the Truth. I certainly respect them for that.