Such a thing as Non denominational?????

[Contarini]

Kevin Walker:

Hi Edwin,

Yes, maybe. But the non-denominational ‘Christians’ I have met all deny the tenets of Martin Luther and John Calvin. They are truly trying to make a break from Protestanism and achieve their own identity as ‘Christian’.

But of course their desire to “make a break” simply marks them as particularly radical Protestants! Protestant is a historical, not a primarily theological term. Of course, it’s all semantics. But semantics are important. They want to forget about Protestantism because they want to pretend that it’s possible to be “just Christian,” cut loose from history to follow the Bible alone.

Edwin

 

[Catholic_Dude]

UKcatholicGuy:

To be a non-denom church, these requirements must be met:

1. white members only
2. americans only
3. “God likes america more than any other country” must be believed
4. once saved always saved is a core belief
5. you must agree that rock music is the best way to worship
6. communion is symbolic, so is baptism
7. divorce is a-ok
8. anything Jesus tells your heart is ok, is ok!

When your right your right! The eight points of non-D are summed up right here.

 

[boppysbud]

SouthCoast:

Same here.

In fact, the pastor went to a Baptist Theological Seminary, and the church gives donations to the missionaries in the Southern Baptist Convention. Also, the pastor’s father is the pastor of a very large Baptist church.

The non-denom church I speak of has between 12,000-25,000 people attending per week. I think that qualifies as mega-church! But, don’t dare call it Baptist!

-Michael

If they are members of the Baptist Cooperative program they ARE Baptists. No matter what they call themselves.

Here in Texas, in Austin there is a huge Baptist church that calls itself the Riverview Church. They merely dropped Baptist from the name Riverview Baptist Church and changed nothing else. They are still Baptists even though they have dropped the word from thier name.

 

[Contarini]

Catholic Dude:

When your right your right! The eight points of non-D are summed up right here.

Quite to the contrary, the “eight points” are sheer nonsense. I’m sure it wouldn’t be hard to find nondenominational churches that contradict any of these points–except perhaps the symbolic view of the sacraments. But even there I’m sure such churches exist.

Edwin

 

[ahimsaman72]

boppysbud:

If they are members of the Baptist Cooperative program they ARE Baptists. No matter what they call themselves.

Here in Texas, in Austin there is a huge Baptist church that calls itself the Riverview Church. They merely dropped Baptist from the name Riverview Baptist Church and changed nothing else. They are still Baptists even though they have dropped the word from thier name.

You are correct. If they push money into the cooperative program, they are indeed Baptist, specifically Southern Baptist.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Contarini:

Quite to the contrary, the “eight points” are sheer nonsense. I’m sure it wouldn’t be hard to find nondenominational churches that contradict any of these points–except perhaps the symbolic view of the sacraments. But even there I’m sure such churches exist.

Edwin

The eight points are indeed nonsense as you pointed out. The white men members only is really over the top. A non-denom church we attended was made up of people from all colors and walks of life. It was a simple organization with few principles to live by - principles taught in Scripture.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

BOANERGES21:

Curious what everyones thoughts are about this. Is there really such a thing as non denominational? Non denominational bible studies? Non demoninational churches? Maybe some of you belong to such a church. I always figure that such a church would have some aggregate belief within therefore actually making it a denominational church? Just some deep thought I had about it recently Your (name removed by moderator)ut & help on it???

Thanks

There is such a thing as non-denominational. It is simply a label. It generally means lack of affiliation with other mainline denoms. The basic idea is to get away from cultural bias and have the freedom to express themselves as a “people” without the threat of censure or disfellowshipping .

My experience attending one is that it is rather simple in views and practice. It appeals to the masses - particularly the previously un-churched demographic. So, it consists of the un-churched and also of people that wanted to shed their previous affiliations for a variety of reasons. The biggest reason for “churched” members to become non-denominational is to return to simplicity and basic Bible preaching and teaching instead of dress codes and how much money you can put in the offering plate.

The pastor of the church we attended had a masters degree in theology and his intent on starting the church was to minister to those often neglected by mainstreamers who expected (like I said above) a certain type of apparel, a certain amount of income, a certain amount of influence that many simply were unable to give.

The concept is a good one. It has its problems just like any other ideology, but its purposes are noble and worthy of respect. Hope this helps.

Peace…

 

[David_Oatney]

SouthCoast:

Same here.

In fact, the pastor went to a Baptist Theological Seminary, and the church gives donations to the missionaries in the Southern Baptist Convention. Also, the pastor’s father is the pastor of a very large Baptist church.

The non-denom church I speak of has between 12,000-25,000 people attending per week. I think that qualifies as mega-church! But, don’t dare call it Baptist!

-Michael

My experience with these churches is that most of them are doctrinally Baptist. When you start asking the minister or informed members about what doctrines are taught there, what they tell you sounds suspiciously like the Southern Baptist Convention’s statement of doctrine.

That’s not to say that they all accept what we would classify as Baptist doctrine (which is a divergence by itself, because frequently you’ll find differences in some points of doctrine from Baptist church to Baptist church-some may or may not be part of the SBC or the other Baptist bodies), but the vast majority of them do. In many cases, parishioners are hopelessly unaware that in joining such a church, they are often becoming Baptists without the name itself.

I would advise treating these people with great charity. Many of them (even the former Catholics in their ranks) are so steeped in the lingo and culture of denominational Protestantism that they think every church with a name on it is a denomination, including Holy Mother Church. Therefore, by this logic, lack of official affiliation with a church makes them non-denominational. They mistakenly view the Catholic Church as a denomination, just like the Protestant churches are. They do not have the depth of knowledge to be aware that all of these other denominations which they have grown to dislike being affiliated with can all trace their roots back to a split with the Catholic Church.

It is really a case of Ignorance on a Grand Scale.

I am not sure how to begin to evangelize such people, but I do know that mere appeals to Church history won’t do it.

 

[CatherineofA]

geezerbob:

Non-D’s around here are usually Baptists who are trying to omit the name and lure in people who don’t like the Baptist church.

Southern Baptist churches can “exit” themselves from their affiliation with the Southern Baptist denomination or official structure associated with Southern Baptists. This is because each Southern Baptist church is an independent operating unit within the group. If they “exit”, they are no longer a part of the old affiliation. However, they may carry on some of the same denominational standpoints and/or mix in other ideas as a nondenominational church. Southern Baptists are just one group with the name “Baptist.” Example outside of them-Freewill Baptists. Baptist is a generic term and that term does not mean everyone with Baptist in their name are the same denomination.

 

[CatherineofA]

Genesis315:

AZTeri,

Well, we agree on the really big basics so that’s good of course. However one of the huge basics is the Eucharist. I mean, the Mass is the highest form of our worship. It’s one of the central mysteries of our Faith, Jesus is really present. That’s huge. Plus, we don’t want to do things the displease God greatly. We believe using contraception, for example, is a grave sin. That’s a big deal. Stuff like that are important.

Haha, this threads are for discussion! Ask away! The Church has never changed what is in what’s called the deposit of faith and morals. Tradition with a big T has not changed; it has been true always and everywhere (the Bible is the Word of God, the Trinity, Purgatory, transubstantiation, salvation by grace through faith and works, the necessity of confession, as well as morality–contraception is the most obvious. Do you ever wonder why the Catholics are the only Church not to change their stance on this even though every Protestant church has changed their position on it since the 1930s?). Traditions with a little t can change since they are more about practice and not Truth(ie the language of the Mass, no meat on Friday, etc; these are just practices that depending on the culture, may or may not be helpful). Those councils may have defined things more clearly, but they did not change anything. Here’s an example: in one of the councils in the 4th century (Nicea I believe) Christ’s divinity was defined. Did that mean that it wasn’t always believed and taught that Christ was divine? Of course not, but clarification was needed since some people were starting to think otherwise. Nothing has changed and nothing will.

You were saying that the church has not changed the deposit of faith and morals or the big T in tradition. Maybe you can clarify something for me. Is it correct that in earlier centuries the Catholic Church felt that you had to be Catholic to be Christian? At one time, didn’t the Catholic Church in the west excommunicate the Eastern Orthodox Church in the East? Was there not a wide period of time in which anything but Catholic could only be heresy? Hasn’t it only been in recent decades since Vatican II or so that other faiths besides Catholic could be regarded as Christian? What is the controversy concerning Mel Gibson’s father? He is supposedly a Catholic who believes the church has changed so much since Vatican II or so that it is no longer the church? Perhaps you can explain this to me or clarify this. Maybe I am not clear about it. If this is true this is a change in the big T.

Some Protestant churches have changed their stance on birth control because birth control was seen as a denominational standpoint and not a scriptural standpoint. Denominations often have guides or policies that are separated from scripture. Culture and geography or collective views can affect denominational views and they may be altered. However, the scriptual standpoints are what remain constant. Example-Southern Baptists don’t approve of drinking. This is not what the Bible says. The Bible does not tell you not to drink. It is a denominational standpoint because drinking may cause others to stumble based on how you act with alcohol and alcohol can affect the user and the user’s family. The drinking policy is a guide or collective view on how to act with a particular substance. It is denominational and is not passed off as direct scripture as in “Do not drink.”. So, denominations don’t necessarily change their big T. They change their little t.

 

[Ignatius]

CatherineofA:

You were saying that the church has not changed the deposit of faith and morals or the big T in tradition. Maybe you can clarify something for me. Is it correct that in earlier centuries the Catholic Church felt that you had to be Catholic to be Christian?

No, actually the early, undivided Church was the selfsame Catholic Church. So, there was no other christian church for over 1000 years.

God Bless.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Contarini:

But of course their desire to “make a break” simply marks them as particularly radical Protestants! Protestant is a historical, not a primarily theological term. Of course, it’s all semantics. But semantics are important. They want to forget about Protestantism because they want to pretend that it’s possible to be “just Christian,” cut loose from history to follow the Bible alone.

Edwin

Hi Edwin,

Yes, I agree with you. The knowledable college ‘Christian’ student with whom I spoke said the Protestants call his church a cult. He was a member of the ‘Church of Christ’.

But on several Boston area campuses which I frequent I have been taking notice of all the Christian flyers posted on the boards, and they all identify with themselves as ‘Christian’ and not Protestant or Catholic.

We also have ‘universal’ churches here in Boston, they are simply churches were anyone can perform their services (Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Wicca, and so on). This was a concept developed in the early 70s yet appears to be dwindling.

 

[scylla]

When there was one Church anybody separated from it logically would be a heretic. Were the Marcionites considered heretics by the early Church or just Christians?
ancienthistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=ancienthistory&zu=http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Marcion.htm (I believe this is a secular viewpoint.)
This changed over time as people were born into these denominations, which begat others, which begat others. These people then were not the ones separating themselves they grew up knowing only their separate theology.
This isn’t a change in the big T as in tradition. This is in regards to understanding about our separated bretheren. This does not modify my understanding about the deposit of faith.

I can think of the denominations differently without affecting my understanding of the Catholic faith. Not a change in the big T, but a better way of encouraging dialog and unity.

Your right, denominations generally don’t change their big T, they do not have to, if someone has a different understanding of the big T then they separate, which leads to more denominations. The scriptural basis’s remain the same the interpretation is what changes and that leads to new denominations.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Contarini]

Kevin Walker:

Hi Edwin,

Yes, I agree with you. The knowledable college ‘Christian’ student with whom I spoke said the Protestants call his church a cult. He was a member of the ‘Church of Christ’.

But on several Boston area campuses which I frequent I have been taking notice of all the Christian flyers posted on the boards, and they all identify with themselves as ‘Christian’ and not Protestant or Catholic.

We also have ‘universal’ churches here in Boston, they are simply churches were anyone can perform their services (Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Wicca, and so on). This was a concept developed in the early 70s yet appears to be dwindling.

Aha. This “Boston Church of Christ” now called “International Church of Christ” is very different from most Churches of Christ. Unlike the movement from which it came, it has adopted a centralized authority structure. So I’d say that those guys really are a denomination (in other words, they have a number of congregations all under one authority structure). They have thus rejected one of the basic tenets of the Christian Church/Church of Christ movement.

I think evangelicals ought not to use the word “cult” so readily. Groups like the “Boston Church of Christ” point up the flimsiness of standard evangelical ecclesiology, so evangelicals react in outrage. But the BCC does seem to have some rather manipulative practices.

Edwin

 

[CatherineofA]

Ignatius:

No, actually the early, undivided Church was the selfsame Catholic Church. So, there was no other christian church for over 1000 years.

God Bless.

You do not consider the Eastern Orthodox Church of the Middle Ages a separate church apart from Catholicism at that time? What I mean by separate is that they had different leadership and disagreements without unity. Not neccesarily a major theological difference. This is a division. They had their own head of the church and did not recognize the Catholic pope. Wasn’t there excommunication in earlier time periods?

 

[La_Chiara]

Contarini:

Aha. This “Boston Church of Christ” now called “International Church of Christ” is very different from most Churches of Christ. Unlike the movement from which it came, it has adopted a centralized authority structure. So I’d say that those guys really are a denomination (in other words, they have a number of congregations all under one authority structure). They have thus rejected one of the basic tenets of the Christian Church/Church of Christ movement.

I think evangelicals ought not to use the word “cult” so readily. Groups like the “Boston Church of Christ” point up the flimsiness of standard evangelical ecclesiology, so evangelicals react in outrage. But the BCC does seem to have some rather manipulative practices.

Edwin

Now I am getting really confused. I have seen threads on the forums that talked about Church of Christ (not United Church of Christ, which comes from the Congregationalists) as being anti-Catholic. Yet in the last two days in my local area, I have heard two separate references to Church of Christ being non-denominational. Seems to me that is like saying that Presbyterians are non-denominationals. How can the Church of Christ call itself non-denominational? If there are a bunch of them, seems to me that makes a denomination.

 

[scylla]

I think the poster in referring to the 1000 years meant the first 1000 years of Christianity, in which there was one Church, the schism started about 1054AD. It is division, though now we pray for the rest of the Orthodox Churches to come into full communion with the Catholic Church.
usamaronite.org/heritage/faqs.html#h
This might explain a little better.

Scylla

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Contarini:

Aha. This “Boston Church of Christ” now called “International Church of Christ” is very different from most Churches of Christ. Unlike the movement from which it came, it has adopted a centralized authority structure. So I’d say that those guys really are a denomination (in other words, they have a number of congregations all under one authority structure). They have thus rejected one of the basic tenets of the Christian Church/Church of Christ movement.

I think evangelicals ought not to use the word “cult” so readily. Groups like the “Boston Church of Christ” point up the flimsiness of standard evangelical ecclesiology, so evangelicals react in outrage. But the BCC does seem to have some rather manipulative practices.

Edwin

Hi Edwin,

Do you know something I don’t? I am not familiar with the Boston Church of Christ, and have never heard of it before.

The individual who professed to being a ‘Christian’ as opposed to being a Protestant or Catholic said his church was called the “Church of Christ”, he did not say where it was located.

I agree with you that these ‘Christians’ are just another non-denominal Protestant sect, and I am not trying to validate their claim. I just want people to understand that they are identifying themselves as ‘Christian’ totally separate from other members of Christiandom.

 

[CatherineofA]

scylla:

I think the poster in referring to the 1000 years meant the first 1000 years of Christianity, in which there was one Church, the schism started about 1054AD. It is division, though now we pray for the rest of the Orthodox Churches to come into full communion with the Catholic Church.
usamaronite.org/heritage/faqs.html#h
This might explain a little better.

Scylla

This clarifies that there was disagreement and attempts at excommunication at one time.
I asked about this as part of one poster stating earlier that the Catholic Church did not have any big changes in regards to the Big T in Tradition. On another note I also mentioned earlier: Haven’t there not been big doctrinal changes in the faith when groups that were outside of the Catholic fold were considered heresy and non Christian in the past and now are considered Christian and not heretical?

 

[Ignatius]

CatherineofA:

Ignatius:

Originally Posted by Ignatius

*No, actually the early, undivided Church was the selfsame Catholic Church. So, there was no other christian church for over 1000 years.

God Bless.*

They had their own head of the church and did not recognize the Catholic pope.

Not for over 1000 years.