Start of the Non-Denominational church

[spedteacherita]

Well, first you need to realize the “non-denom” is a modern term with roots in older religious behavior.

“Anabaptists” in the Reformation might anticipate contemporary “non-denoms,” since they didn’t affiliate with either Lutheran or Catholics (mostly). Anabaptist and even Calvinist were eventually adopted as titles after being used in a derogatory fashion.

I think most of our “labels” were first derogatory in nature. The name Christian was not a positive name given to those who followed Christ - I think they were originally called “The Way.” We Lutherans got our name from others who disliked what was being taught and practiced by those who followed Luther. Both of these terms, for me, are not derogatory now and I’m happy with being called both - although Christian is the name which I am honored to be called.

Blessings,

Rita

 

[spedteacherita]

My mom has a Baptist background and only went to church when my dad would go…they almost got divorced when she became a Christian back in 1957.

One day I was talking about some of the things we discuss on here and I said something about how we (she and my family) are Protestants. She said, “No, I’m not.” She had no understanding about what I protestant was. I explained but I don’t think she likes to be categorized that way - call her a Baptist and that is it!

I suspect there are many Christians who are faithful to their beliefs and churches that they attend and really don’t understand the history of the church and how it got this way over the years. They’re very content to worship Jesus at their particular church and be fed by the Word of God there…

Blessings!

Rita

 

[Micosil]

I think most of our “labels” were first derogatory in nature. The name Christian was not a positive name given to those who followed Christ - I think they were originally called “The Way.” We Lutherans got our name from others who disliked what was being taught and practiced by those who followed Luther. Both of these terms, for me, are not derogatory now and I’m happy with being called both - although Christian is the name which I am honored to be called.

Blessings,

Rita

This is very true. Even the term “Roman Catholic”, coined by Anglicans, was originally meant to be a derogatory way to refer to the Catholic Church, as a way to take the word “Catholic”, as opposed to “Roman Catholic” for themselves.

 

[benhur]

Denominationalism is the result of churches (or split offs from them) started by men who broke away form the undivided, predenominational Church that Jesus Christ founded when He was incarnate on the Earth. You can generally tell a denominational church by tracing it’s chief pastors back to when it started. Here are a few examples:

If you are Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk who left the Catholic Church, in 1517.
If you belong to the Church of England (Anglican), your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.
If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded when John Knox brought the teachings of John Calvin to Scotland in the Year 1560.
If you are Unitarian, your group developed in Europe in the 1500s.
If you are a Congregationalist, your religion branched off Puritanism in the early 1600s in England.
If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1607.
If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.
If you are an Episcopalian, your religion came from England to the American colonies. It formed a separate religion founded by Samuel Seabury in 1789.
If you are a Mormon (Latter-day Saints), Joseph Smith started your church in Palmyra, N.Y. in 1830.
If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.
If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year your religion was founded by Mary Baker Eddy.
If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, your religion was founded by Charles Taze Russell in Pennsylvania in the 1870s.
If you are Pentecostal, your religion was started in the United States in 1901.
If you are Calvary Chapel, Chuck Smith founded your church in the 1960’s
If you worship in the non-denominational tradition, your faith tradition was started in the 1970’s.

and when did Roman Catholicism split from Orthodoxy ?

Yes, all names have a beginning. First was the Way, then “Christians” in Antioch, and who knows when the adjective "catholic’’ became a proper noun.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

This is very true. Even the term “Roman Catholic”, coined by Anglicans, was originally meant to be a derogatory way to refer to the Catholic Church, as a way to take the word “Catholic”, as opposed to “Roman Catholic” for themselves.

HI M

Do not want to be offensive so this is interesting. I know there is a Catholic church I go by and the big sign reads, “St.Mark’s Roman Catholic Church”. So I am not so sure anymore.

Blessings

 

[Ignatius]

and who knows when the adjective "catholic’’ became a proper noun.

Ignatius Of Antioch, born in A.D. 50 was the first to commit the use of Catholic to apply to The Church. But it was most certainly in common use well before he did this as he uses it in a fashion that makes it clear that his audience were familiar with The Catholic Church already.

 

[rfournier103]

and when did Roman Catholicism split from Orthodoxy ?

Yes, all names have a beginning. First was the Way, then “Christians” in Antioch, and who knows when the adjective "catholic’’ became a proper noun.

Blessings

The “East - West Schism” occurred in 1054 when the Eastern Orthodox Christians broke with the Universal (Catholic) Church.

The word “CATHOLIC” became a proper noun in AD 107. St. Ignatius of Antioch first used the term. If you feel like reading more: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_term_%22Catholic%22

HI M

Do not want to be offensive so this is interesting. I know there is a Catholic church I go by and the big sign reads, “St.Mark’s Roman Catholic Church”. So I am not so sure anymore.

Blessings

The term “Roman” Catholic is used by MANY Catholic parishes on signage and in print so that the reader can make NO mistake as to the affiliation of said parish. There are many “Lutherans” that will swear up and down that they are both “Catholic” and reformed; but the sign outside their church still reads “Lutheran”.

 

[eamonnroma]

The “East - West Schism” occurred in 1054 when the Eastern Orthodox Christians broke with the Universal (Catholic) Church.

The word “CATHOLIC” became a proper noun in AD 107. St. Ignatius of Antioch first used the term. If you feel like reading more: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_term_%22Catholic%22

The term “Roman” Catholic is used by MANY Catholic parishes on signage and in print so that the reader can make NO mistake as to the affiliation of said parish. There are many “Lutherans” that will swear up and down that they are both “Catholic” and reformed; but the sign outside their church still reads “Lutheran”.

Surely all people who affirm the Nicene creed are part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church. So therefore, in that sense they are catholics.

'C’atholic church, we can understand to be the Roman church - while 'c’atholic church is the universal church.

I am sure that some Catholics when at Mass and pray that they believe in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, think that they are saying the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church. But this is not so.

Although Roman Catholic started as a pejorative term, maybe we should use it, as it distinguishes us from the catholic (universal) churches.

 

[Micosil]

HI M

Do not want to be offensive so this is interesting. I know there is a Catholic church I go by and the big sign reads, “St.Mark’s Roman Catholic Church”. So I am not so sure anymore.

Blessings

Well, ever since, the term “Roman Catholic” has lost its original negative connotations and even the Catholic Church has used it in official documents, albeit less frequently than “Catholic Church”.

Ignatius Of Antioch, born in A.D. 50 was the first to commit the use of Catholic to apply to The Church. But it was most certainly in common use well before he did this as he uses it in a fashion that makes it clear that his audience were familiar with The Catholic Church already.

It is true that in many places, when Ignatius of Antioch states that, “Catholic Church” has two big C’s, though I’m not personally convinced he meant it as a way to refer to an institution that would only be clearly established by the 4th/5th century; I think he meant it was a way to refer to the “universal” church or assembly/community of churches that held to Apostolic tradition and claimed orthodoxy, which is why I think it would be perhaps more accurate to render it as “catholic church” when St. Ignatius is being quoted.

Now, it is true that what he refered to as “catholic church”, two small c’s, did develop, without a doubt, into what was later, and now, known as the “Catholic Church”, two big C’s, but I think it’s more historically accurate if Ignatius were quoted that way, imho

 

[HungerNThirst4R]

I’ve listened to many converts and form what I’ve gleaned from listening to them is this…Many are trying to restore some form of ancient Christianity. A pure form of the faith so to speak. Unfortunately this image they have of ancient Christians worship practices doesn’t exist.

I cant remember which pastor it was that converted when I find it ill post it here but he said he wanted to do what I just discussed with his church and as he got deeper into it he started reading the works of the early church. Needless to say they started taking communion a-lot and eventually he took the majority of his congregation into the Catholic church…So I think for most protestants if they were intellectually honest about all of this they would realize what that good pastor did…the past if actually studied is catholic and it always has been.

Deacon Alex Jones! What an amazing man, he led almost his whole Pentecostal Congregation into Catholicism. God Bless him.

He does Bible Studies on EWTN and Telecare now.

 

[benhur]

Ignatius Of Antioch, born in A.D. 50 was the first to commit the use of Catholic to apply to The Church. But it was most certainly in common use well before he did this as he uses it in a fashion that makes it clear that his audience were familiar with The Catholic Church already.

Yes, I think around 95 AD we see the adjective "universal’ before church. I am not so certain how common the adjective was used at this time from his one statement.

 

[PDXSeeker_1975]

I’ve listened to many converts and form what I’ve gleaned from listening to them is this…Many are trying to restore some form of ancient Christianity. A pure form of the faith so to speak. Unfortunately this image they have of ancient Christians worship practices doesn’t exist.

I cant remember which pastor it was that converted when I find it ill post it here but he said he wanted to do what I just discussed with his church and as he got deeper into it he started reading the works of the early church. Needless to say they started taking communion a-lot and eventually he took the majority of his congregation into the Catholic church…So I think for most protestants if they were intellectually honest about all of this they would realize what that good pastor did…the past if actually studied is catholic and it always has been.

I believe the pastor you are thinking of is Alex Jones… Significant to me as I came from a “Non-denominational” Charismatic tradition as well.

 

[benhur]

Now, it is true that what he refered to as “catholic church”, two small c’s, did develop, without a doubt, into what was later, and now, known as the “Catholic Church”, two big C’s, but I think it’s more historically accurate if Ignatius were quoted that way, imho

Actually i think latin (or greek) only had capital letters ( or they did not have upper and lower case as we do today).

 

[benhur]

The word “CATHOLIC” became a proper noun in AD 107. St. Ignatius of Antioch first used the term. If you feel like reading more: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_term_%22Catholic%22

Thank you . Saw nothing that states Ignatius meant it as a proper noun but as an adjective.

 

[benhur]

Surely all people who affirm the Nicene creed are part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church. So therefore, in that sense they are catholics.

'C’atholic church, we can understand to be the Roman church - while 'c’atholic church is the universal church.

I am sure that some Catholics when at Mass and pray that they believe in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, think that they are saying the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church. But this is not so.

Although Roman Catholic started as a pejorative term, maybe we should use it, as it distinguishes us from the catholic (universal) churches.

I think so . very honest of you to state and appreciated. Just that I think CC teaches their is no Church outside the one universal Catholic church.

 

[Contarini]

As benhur has pointed out, the capital/small letter distinction didn’t exist in ancient Greek. So that whole line of argument is silly.

On the other hand, I don’t get benhur’s distinction between a “proper noun” and an “adjective.” When we say “the Catholic Church” the word “Catholic” is obviously being used as an adjective. I think benhur means “a proper adjective.” And in English “a proper adjective” means one that is capitalized. Which benhur has admitted ancient Greek didn’t do. So the distinction is dubious.

Of course Catholic/catholic means universal. But what does universal mean?

To hear many Protestants talk, it means “including everybody”? But every who? Not every human being on the planet, surely? Every Christian? But how then are we defining Christian?

Historically, from the beginning, “Catholic” meant “the true, universal Church.” But it was always, from the beginning, set in contrast to other groups who claimed to be Christian. In that sense it was always a “proper adjective” and benhur is just plain wrong. The term first appears in Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnaeans, chapter 8, whose heading is “Let nothing be done without the bishop.” In context, this is polemic against various other groups claiming to be Christian in second-century Syria and Asia Minor. He is emphatically not saying, “all those other groups are part of the Catholic Church because they believe in Jesus too.”

In the early Church, people who were outside the Church were not considered Christians in any salvific sense–“you can’t have God for your father if you don’t have the Church for your mother.” Then in the third century Rome began recognizing baptisms outside the Catholic Church. But at least in Augustine’s later interpretation, this didn’t imply that people could be saved outside the Church.

Gradually, reluctantly, the Catholic Church has had to admit that yes, people not in full communion with the Church are genuine believers. And yes, that creates some daylight between “Church as body of all believers” and “Church as those in communion with Rome.” From Rome’s perspective, the term “Catholic Church” applies most fully to the latter, but all believers are to some extent members of the Church.

The Protestant perspective, at least the ecumenical Protestant perspective (some conservative Protestants would exclude Catholics and many other Protestants as well from the Church) is that the Catholic Church consists of all those who believe in Jesus as basically defined in the Creeds, and are baptized in the name of the Trinity (or some of the more broad-minded of us might include those who are baptized just in the name of Jesus, since there is NT warrant for this alternative practice). But this is still to treat “Catholic” as a proper adjective referring to a particular defined community of people. So I continue to disagree with, or to fail to get, benhur’s point and the point of a lot of other people in this discussion.

Edwin

 

[spedteacherita]

All of Protestantism is that way unity of belief is non existent. Honestly its not conducive to that kind of environment anyway.

I disagree to a certain extent. You will normally find the basic truths of Christianity in every Protestant church (those like Westboro baptist aside). In any that my family have belonged to or attended they were taught Christ crucified, resurrection, assumption into heaven and the promise that Christ will return to collect His believing children.

They may not teach the Real Presence in communion, baptism of babies, and other important doctrines but those members (for the most part) love the Lord with all their heart, soul and mind. This must be remembered as we discuss these churches. They are not just buildings with teachings that do not line up with what Catholics understand as important to salvation but people who are diligent about attending every Sunday, Sunday evenings and Wednesdays keeping themselves in the Word of God.

God bless all!

Rita

 

[Micosil]

As benhur has pointed out, the capital/small letter distinction didn’t exist in ancient Greek. So that whole line of argument is silly.

On the other hand, I don’t get benhur’s distinction between a “proper noun” and an “adjective.” When we say “the Catholic Church” the word “Catholic” is obviously being used as an adjective. I think benhur means “a proper adjective.” And in English “a proper adjective” means one that is capitalized. Which benhur has admitted ancient Greek didn’t do. So the distinction is dubious.

Of course Catholic/catholic means universal. But what does universal mean?

To hear many Protestants talk, it means “including everybody”? But every who? Not every human being on the planet, surely? Every Christian? But how then are we defining Christian?

Historically, from the beginning, “Catholic” meant “the true, universal Church.” But it was always, from the beginning, set in contrast to other groups who claimed to be Christian. In that sense it was always a “proper adjective” and benhur is just plain wrong. The term first appears in Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnaeans, chapter 8, whose heading is “Let nothing be done without the bishop.” In context, this is polemic against various other groups claiming to be Christian in second-century Syria and Asia Minor. He is emphatically not saying, “all those other groups are part of the Catholic Church because they believe in Jesus too.”

In the early Church, people who were outside the Church were not considered Christians in any salvific sense–“you can’t have God for your father if you don’t have the Church for your mother.” Then in the third century Rome began recognizing baptisms outside the Catholic Church. But at least in Augustine’s later interpretation, this didn’t imply that people could be saved outside the Church.

Gradually, reluctantly, the Catholic Church has had to admit that yes, people not in full communion with the Church are genuine believers. And yes, that creates some daylight between “Church as body of all believers” and “Church as those in communion with Rome.” From Rome’s perspective, the term “Catholic Church” applies most fully to the latter, but all believers are to some extent members of the Church.

Good explanation.

…(or some of the more broad-minded of us might include those who are baptized just in the name of Jesus, since there is NT warrant for this alternative practice). …

The problem with baptism in solely the name of Jesus, as it’s referenced to in the NT, doesn’t mean baptism in only His name, but rather in the authority of. When someone is properly baptized, they’re baptized by the authority of Jesus, and that is as He commanded: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

To baptize in solely the name of Jesus, as opposed to in the name of the Trinity, would be rejecting a whole plethora of evidence of the practices of the first Christian communities, such as the Didache, the testimony of early Church Fathers, and the practices of ancient Christian communities that still exist to this day; the Assyrian Church of the East, which developed during the 1st century AD baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; the Armenian Apostolic Church, an Oriental Orthodox church, was established by the Apostles Jude Thaddaeus and Bartholomew, also baptize using the Trinitarian formula.

 

[commenter]

I think so . very honest of you to state and appreciated. Just that I think CC teaches their is no Church outside the one universal Catholic church.

Actually the Church teaches that there is the “Catholic Church” (headed by the Pope, including Eastern Churches in union); the Eastern Orthodox Churches; and possibly very few others, with apostolic ties. Protestant denominations, which may include non-denoms, are recognized as “ecclesial communions”.

 

[Contarini]

The problem with baptism in solely the name of Jesus, as it’s referenced to in the NT, doesn’t mean baptism in only His name, but rather in the authority of. When someone is properly baptized, they’re baptized by the authority of Jesus, and that is as He commanded: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

That’s one possible explanation, but I find it a stretch. Also, Aquinas doesn’t go there. He admits that baptism in the name of Jesus occurred in the earliest Church, but says that it is no longer valid. I find that unconvincing.

Just to be clear–I absolutely believe that baptism should use the Trinitarian formula. I simply hesitate to say that baptism in the name of Jesus is invalid baptism. Any other formula clearly is something other than Christian baptism.

Edwin