Such a thing as Non denominational?????

[Contarini]

Kevin Walker,

If other evangelicals call this guy’s church a cult, then it is almost certainly the “Boston” group. They began as just another Church of Christ, but then developed their own wacky doctrines. Many evangelicals are wary of the regular Church of Christ folks because of their emphasis on baptism and on good works, but they don’t usually use the “C” word about them. And when you implied that you lived in the Boston area I jumped to the conclusion that that was the group he belonged to. I admit that it isn’t certain, but it’s probable.

La Chiara,

As I said earlier on this thread, the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ (there are two different groups, non-instrumental and instrumental) are borderline nondenominational. By a loose definition, which you’re using, they are a denomination (or rather two denominations). But they deny being a denomination because they have no centralized authority structure and no bureaucracy. It all depends on how you define “denomination.” The third major group coming out of the “Campbellite” movement, the Disciples of Christ, is a denomination by any standard (and their move to develop a bureaucracy and other “denominational” trappings was one of the reasons why the “Independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ” split away in the mid-20th century; the noninstrumental “Churches of Christ” had already split in the 19th century).

I know it is very confusing. I went to a Christian Church college, and it took me years to get the different groups straight (and then only in a rather vague way). But my own “holiness” tradition is even more complicated . . . . .

Edwin

 

[scylla]

Considering whether or not a group is heretical or christian is not a doctrinal matter. I am not even sure this is an either or position, maybe either\and\possibly. This does not really constitute doctrine, but how we view other groups. I really don’t know much about it, as I said it is not a problem for me as I haven’t heard much about it . The more I read the more apparant it is to me how serious the divisions in Christianity are.

Here is what I found on heresy from the Catholic Encyclopedia

“A child is born in heretical surroundings: before it is able to think for itself its mind has been filled and fashioned by home, school, and church teachings, the authority of which it never doubted. When, at a riper age, doubts arise, the truth of Catholicism is seldom apprehended as it is. Innate prejudices, educational bias, historical distortions stand in the way and frequently make approach impossible. The state of conscience technically termed bona fides, good faith, is thus produced. It implies inculpable belief in error, a mistake morally unavoidable and therefore always excusable, sometimes even laudable.”
newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

The search for Christ, must include an open mind and charitable attitude towards all. We must listen and see if misunderstanding is caused by prejudice, a problem with communication or a lack of knowledge of one’s individual position.

So as I said previously there has not been doctrinal changes in the Church, practices and methods with how the Church interacts with others may change without affecting the deposit of faith. I think that link to the Maronite Catholics explains this also.

God Bless on your faith journey
Scylla

 

[CatherineofA]

Ignatius:

Not for over 1000 years.

I am not arguing that the church was undivided for a long time. I was stating that the church appears to change its position over basic tennants over the centuries. At one time, Eastern orthodox people could be excommunicated, right? At one time, Protestants could not be Christian and their beliefs were heresy, right? Now, in more recent times, there has been a changing view on excommunicating the Orthodox and seeing Protestants as heretics, right? Does that not indicate doctrinal change in the big T of tradition?

 

[CatherineofA]

scylla:

Considering whether or not a group is heretical or christian is not a doctrinal matter. I am not even sure this is an either or position, maybe either\and\possibly. This does not really constitute doctrine, but how we view other groups. I really don’t know much about it, as I said it is not a problem for me as I haven’t heard much about it . The more I read the more apparant it is to me how serious the divisions in Christianity are.

Here is what I found on heresy from the Catholic Encyclopedia

“A child is born in heretical surroundings: before it is able to think for itself its mind has been filled and fashioned by home, school, and church teachings, the authority of which it never doubted. When, at a riper age, doubts arise, the truth of Catholicism is seldom apprehended as it is. Innate prejudices, educational bias, historical distortions stand in the way and frequently make approach impossible. The state of conscience technically termed bona fides, good faith, is thus produced. It implies inculpable belief in error, a mistake morally unavoidable and therefore always excusable, sometimes even laudable.”
newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

The search for Christ, must include an open mind and charitable attitude towards all. We must listen and see if misunderstanding is caused by prejudice, a problem with communication or a lack of knowledge of one’s individual position.

So as I said previously there has not been doctrinal changes in the Church, practices and methods with how the Church interacts with others may change without affecting the deposit of faith. I think that link to the Maronite Catholics explains this also.

God Bless on your faith journey
Scylla

Does it affect the standpoint that the church is not the all knowing, all encompassing truth holder? If they have it all together as it was intended to be without an error, why have any changes?
If the church’s foundation is scripture AND church and much of the rest of Christianity says ONLY scripture, how can the church accept them as Christians for their only accepting half truths? Does this not somewhat “ok” Sola Scriptura and thus say that that is really all you are required to have as a basic? How can you be within the rhelm of truth and no truth and the same time? If non Catholics can go to be with Christ in Heaven, whata re they doing that gets them there that makes them pass on into it?

 

[scylla]

I have never hear the Church call itself all knowing and am pretty sure it never presents itself as such. The Church just maintains the truth handed down from the Apostles, only God can see the future, but society changes, the Church must maintain the truth, but also be relevent to current society. That is why it changes practices, but not doctrine.

Now regarding scripture, just because some people have separated from the Church and have their own faith traditions doesn’t mean the Church will compromise on the truth. The Catholic Church won’t fault someone for not knowing the truth, or not being able to accept it, but to reject it, is then not something the Church should do also to accept it.

But the truth is Jesus created a Church here on earth, some people have rejected it in favor of creating their own Church based on the Bible, which was made canon by the Church. This is similar to making a Church based on the 10 commandments only. If I base a Church only on the 10 commandments, would that make it based on some truth? Yes, but it wouldn’t be the fullness of the faith.

On salvation.
We have to leave it up to God’s mercy, here a Catholic apologist sums it up better than I can,
“salvation is ONLY by the Grace of God through Jesus Christ and ultimately, through His Body, the Church. Recently the reassertion of this position cause great public contraversy. However, the part that doesn’t reach the press was the understanding that we cannot assume that anyone is outside God’s mercy nor that God’s mercy is limited to those who have the fullness of the Gospel. Those who have received the Revelation of Christ are responsible for their response, those who have not we leave to God’s infinite mercy and justice. It is presumption to assume that anyone is included or excluded from God’s mercy.”

We are called to preach the truth though and just not leave everyone as they are, with the thought that they are good enough.

Take care
Scylla

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Contarini:

Kevin Walker,

If other evangelicals call this guy’s church a cult, then it is almost certainly the “Boston” group. They began as just another Church of Christ, but then developed their own wacky doctrines. Many evangelicals are wary of the regular Church of Christ folks because of their emphasis on baptism and on good works, but they don’t usually use the “C” word about them. And when you implied that you lived in the Boston area I jumped to the conclusion that that was the group he belonged to. I admit that it isn’t certain, but it’s probable.

Hello Edwin,

Thanks for this information. You obviously know more about the non-denominationals existing in the Boston area than do I.

Also, just for the sake of accuracy and pride, I do not live in the Boston ‘area’, I live in Boston itself and consider myself a Bostonian and nothing else. So if there are non-denom ‘Christian’ churches outside the Boston area, such as in Cambridge, Brookline, Newton, Quincy, Medford, Watertown, etc., than I wouldn’t be aware of their existance.

Just a question: As a mainstream Protestant yourself, how often do you encounter non-denom ‘Christians’? Thanx!

 

[mikie]

It is a place where people who didn’t like the “rules” of their former denomination. It’s a “feel good” church basically. Without claiming to belong to any particular denomination, they can act as they please until Sunday or other church day when they hypocritically act like Christians.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

mikie:

It is a place where people who didn’t like the “rules” of their former denomination. It’s a “feel good” church basically. Without claiming to belong to any particular denomination, they can act as they please until Sunday or other church day when they hypocritically act like Christians.

Welcome Mikie!

I dont know why but here is what I think of when I hear the term Non-Denominational

First

Second

(both from stupidvideos.com)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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

Yes, I see what you are saying. But in general those 8 points hold up. Your stating the exception not the rule.

Ahimsa:

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.

Same as above. There are exceptions, but at the heart of this issue those eight points prevail.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Catholic Dude:

Yes, I see what you are saying. But in general those 8 points hold up. Your stating the exception not the rule.

Same as above. There are exceptions, but at the heart of this issue those eight points prevail.

There is no cookie-cutter template for non-denominational churches, so it’s really fruitless to try to make one up. There are no exceptions to the rules because there are no cookie-cutter rules. It’s simply a cultural phenomenon that those eight points you presented would ever be true.

Peace…

 

[BOANERGES21]

I am yet to see anyone here say, “I attended a ND service this weekend which almost resembled a Catholic Mass.”

 

[CatherineofA]

scylla:

I have never hear the Church call itself all knowing and am pretty sure it never presents itself as such. The Church just maintains the truth handed down from the Apostles, only God can see the future, but society changes, the Church must maintain the truth, but also be relevent to current society. That is why it changes practices, but not doctrine.

Now regarding scripture, just because some people have separated from the Church and have their own faith traditions doesn’t mean the Church will compromise on the truth. The Catholic Church won’t fault someone for not knowing the truth, or not being able to accept it, but to reject it, is then not something the Church should do also to accept it.

But the truth is Jesus created a Church here on earth, some people have rejected it in favor of creating their own Church based on the Bible, which was made canon by the Church. This is similar to making a Church based on the 10 commandments only. If I base a Church only on the 10 commandments, would that make it based on some truth? Yes, but it wouldn’t be the fullness of the faith.

On salvation.
We have to leave it up to God’s mercy, here a Catholic apologist sums it up better than I can,
“salvation is ONLY by the Grace of God through Jesus Christ and ultimately, through His Body, the Church. Recently the reassertion of this position cause great public contraversy. However, the part that doesn’t reach the press was the understanding that we cannot assume that anyone is outside God’s mercy nor that God’s mercy is limited to those who have the fullness of the Gospel. Those who have received the Revelation of Christ are responsible for their response, those who have not we leave to God’s infinite mercy and justice. It is presumption to assume that anyone is included or excluded from God’s mercy.”

We are called to preach the truth though and just not leave everyone as they are, with the thought that they are good enough.

Take care
Scylla

Maybe you can clarify something for me. The church says, and has always said, that there is scripture and then there is the church set up by Christ. In previous centuries, the church saw both together as the only way to be a true Christian. Scripture and church. In recent decades, they changed their mind about people who have scripture but not the church. They still think their way is the correct way-scripture and church. However, people not following this correct way using “scripture only” can be Christians too. How was this major change not a major alteration of what is Christian and what is not Christian? At one time, being a part of the church was part of what you HAD TO have to be Christian. Now it’s not. How is that not a doctrinal change?

 

[scylla]

You know what I am not sure how to answer that, as I have not really studied the history of how the Catholic Church has taught regarding people who reject it or who grow up belonging to other Christian Churches. I have only returned to the Catholic Church about 6 or so months ago, but I have found answers to every question posed with the Catholic Church just sometimes it takes some digging. Every time the Catholic Church has a logical answer to everything that was an issue for me in order for me to return to the Church. Every one of us has our own individual things we need to work out with the faith, but since I might not be able to answer this question to satisfy you why don’t you start a new thread. No-one will really notice this probably as it is buried within this thread.
I do know that the Bible and the Catholic Church do not teach an invisible Church made up of believers. Or just people who profess belief in Jesus Christ regardless of doctrine. This is a new innovation which was proposed by the Protestant Reformers in order to justify starting new Churches on their own authority.
“For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid down, which is Jesus Christ.” 1 Corinthians 3:11
scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html
I have started to read a book called the Catholic Contraversy, this book is written close to the time of the Reformation and sheds some light on the times after the Reformation. And gives some interesting perspective on Sola Scriptura.

Now I didn’t really answer your question too well and again I suggest you start a new thread, which I will respond to and look into to so I can give you a quality answer instead of this one I am just quickly typing out.

But quickly, I don’t believe this is a doctrinal change at all, if it is a change, it is a change in practice in how we address people separated from the Church. I will elaborate on this this weekend, now I am off to bed as I am going to the beach tomorrow.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

CatherineofA:

Maybe you can clarify something for me. The church says, and has always said, that there is scripture and then there is the church set up by Christ. In previous centuries, the church saw both together as the only way to be a true Christian. Scripture and church.

Well first of all there was no Scriptures other than the Jewish (Old Testament) when Jesus was on earth, He never said anything about a Bible, but He did mention leaving a Church. The Church came first, the bare bones basic thing anyone who wanted to be called a Christian had to do was be Baptized. Later on a canon of books were laid out creating The Book. Im pretty sure that there never was a teaching saying you had to be able to read the Scriptures to be Christian. But that didnt mean Scripture wasnt important. When you say they saw both together as the ONLY way, Im not quite sure what you mean. They didnt mean that each person had to own their own Bible, rather they meant that the two work hand in hand.

In recent decades, they changed their mind about people who have scripture but not the church. They still think their way is the correct way-scripture and church. However, people not following this correct way using “scripture only” can be Christians too. How was this major change not a major alteration of what is Christian and what is not Christian? At one time, being a part of the church was part of what you HAD TO have to be Christian. Now it’s not. How is that not a doctrinal change?

They didnt change their mind. They never accepted what the Protestants did, but werent going to punish future generations for it. They can still be “Christians too” in a general use of the term, mostly because they do what the Church has ALWAYS done and that was Baptizing in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Any truth regarding Christ came to Protestants from the one true Church. Protestantism is an incomplete/flawed version of the Truth.
There was no doctrinal change. Being Baptized is something you didnt mention and that is more important than only having the Scriptures.

 

[Contarini]

Catholic Dude:

Yes, I see what you are saying. But in general those 8 points hold up. Your stating the exception not the rule.

I’ll grant you that most nondenominational churches are made up of white people. But that’s a problem all Protestant churches have (and Catholics aren’t as free from it as they would like to think–at least the Catholic churches in Durham NC where I used to live were heavily segregated). Most of the rare exceptions to the rule of segregation–that is, most of the churches that contain a genuinely mixed congregation racially–are nondenominational. Which is why your accusation is so unfair. I’m sure plenty of nondenominational churches fit your stereotype. But there’s a particularly kind of (usually charismatic) nondenominational church that does better than any other kind of Christian church with regard to racial integration. Go to any town in this country and hunt for a racially integrated church, and chances are it will be nondenominational.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Kevin Walker:

Hello Edwin,

Thanks for this information. You obviously know more about the non-denominationals existing in the Boston area than do I.

Also, just for the sake of accuracy and pride, I do not live in the Boston ‘area’, I live in Boston itself and consider myself a Bostonian and nothing else. So if there are non-denom ‘Christian’ churches outside the Boston area, such as in Cambridge, Brookline, Newton, Quincy, Medford, Watertown, etc., than I wouldn’t be aware of their existance.

Just a question: As a mainstream Protestant yourself, how often do you encounter non-denom ‘Christians’? Thanx!

Kevin,

I don’t know the Boston area–I just know that this particular group originated in Boston.

I know something about nondenominational churches because I grew up nondenominational (though with a Wesleyan/holiness background). My family in fact did not even belong to an organized local church–we had a Bible study at home and visited various churches regularly without joining them. My family publish devotional books and we often traveled around the country visiting churches and bookstores, often nondenominational ones. Then I went to Duke and got involved with the graduate InterVarsity group there. It included people from a bunch of different denominations (even the occasional Catholic), but there was always a nondenominational presence. So I’ve always been around nondenominational folks (at least until I moved to New Jersey–I’ve only met one such person since moving here), even though I myself have rejected that approach to Christianity.

Edwin

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Contarini:

I’ll grant you that most nondenominational churches are made up of white people. But that’s a problem all Protestant churches have (and Catholics aren’t as free from it as they would like to think–at least the Catholic churches in Durham NC where I used to live were heavily segregated). Most of the rare exceptions to the rule of segregation–that is, most of the churches that contain a genuinely mixed congregation racially–are nondenominational. Which is why your accusation is so unfair. I’m sure plenty of nondenominational churches fit your stereotype. But there’s a particularly kind of (usually charismatic) nondenominational church that does better than any other kind of Christian church with regard to racial integration. Go to any town in this country and hunt for a racially integrated church, and chances are it will be nondenominational.

In Christ,

Edwin

This is directed at all who dont like the 8 points. The thing that people are missing is that there are 8, but you concentrate on 1 or 2. How about we look at it as a whole, especially #3-8 and you will see that it really makes sense.

 

[Contarini]

No, the only one that has much validity that I can see is no. 6. Even there you can find exceptions, but I’ll grant the rule. With regard to the others, there are so many different kinds of nondenominational churches that your rules simply fail to achieve anything remotely like accuracy. Plenty of nondenominational churches, for instance, think that rock music is evil. And among Protestants who condemn divorce, many of them are likely to be nondenominational.

The problem is that you have a very specific type of nondenominational church in mind and you’re illegitimately extending its characteristics to all nondenoms. Your rules don’t work for charismatic nondenom churches, of which there are many. They don’t work for house groups, which I would classify as nondenominational churches even though they don’t meet in formal church buildings. They only work for those nondenom churches that are basically Baptist in their theology but are essentially too Baptist to call themselves Baptist! I grant that this is one prominent, major category of nondenominational church. But only one. (And you might find other churches that have distanced themselves from the SBC, and hence become effectively nondenominational, because the SBC is too conservative . . . . so even there the rules don’t apply entirely.)

Edwin

 

[CatherineofA]

Catholic Dude:

Well first of all there was no Scriptures other than the Jewish (Old Testament) when Jesus was on earth, He never said anything about a Bible, but He did mention leaving a Church. The Church came first, the bare bones basic thing anyone who wanted to be called a Christian had to do was be Baptized. Later on a canon of books were laid out creating The Book. Im pretty sure that there never was a teaching saying you had to be able to read the Scriptures to be Christian. But that didnt mean Scripture wasnt important. When you say they saw both together as the ONLY way, Im not quite sure what you mean. They didnt mean that each person had to own their own Bible, rather they meant that the two work hand in hand.

They didnt change their mind. They never accepted what the Protestants did, but werent going to punish future generations for it. They can still be “Christians too” in a general use of the term, mostly because they do what the Church has ALWAYS done and that was Baptizing in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Any truth regarding Christ came to Protestants from the one true Church. Protestantism is an incomplete/flawed version of the Truth.
There was no doctrinal change. Being Baptized is something you didnt mention and that is more important than only having the Scriptures.

I was not saying that anyone ever thought you had to “read” the scriptures to be Christian. What I meant by combining scripture and church was that the Catholic church of the past saw Christianity as following the scriptures AND belonging to the church. They went hand in hand. Even though the church may have decided what would be put together in “the book”, they still regarded what was included as the true word of God. Right? I grew up Southern Baptist with a primary focus on scriptures. None of us ever thought the Bible was around at the time of Christ. We knew a selection was made later. I didn’t mention Baptism because that is seen as part of following the scriptures. It is considered necessary or important. I brought all this up because during the Reformation era, those in rebellion against the church were seen as heretics. So, they obviously saw church observance as necessary. It isn’t today. It looks like a change in what it means to be Christian.

 

[CatherineofA]

scylla:

You know what I am not sure how to answer that, as I have not really studied the history of how the Catholic Church has taught regarding people who reject it or who grow up belonging to other Christian Churches. I have only returned to the Catholic Church about 6 or so months ago, but I have found answers to every question posed with the Catholic Church just sometimes it takes some digging. Every time the Catholic Church has a logical answer to everything that was an issue for me in order for me to return to the Church. Every one of us has our own individual things we need to work out with the faith, but since I might not be able to answer this question to satisfy you why don’t you start a new thread. No-one will really notice this probably as it is buried within this thread.
I do know that the Bible and the Catholic Church do not teach an invisible Church made up of believers. Or just people who profess belief in Jesus Christ regardless of doctrine. This is a new innovation which was proposed by the Protestant Reformers in order to justify starting new Churches on their own authority.
“For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid down, which is Jesus Christ.” 1 Corinthians 3:11
scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html
I have started to read a book called the Catholic Contraversy, this book is written close to the time of the Reformation and sheds some light on the times after the Reformation. And gives some interesting perspective on Sola Scriptura.

Now I didn’t really answer your question too well and again I suggest you start a new thread, which I will respond to and look into to so I can give you a quality answer instead of this one I am just quickly typing out.

But quickly, I don’t believe this is a doctrinal change at all, if it is a change, it is a change in practice in how we address people separated from the Church. I will elaborate on this this weekend, now I am off to bed as I am going to the beach tomorrow.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.