What is Non-Denominational?

[Sixpence]

A note on how ND churches might handle internal strife without a governing body formally handling many different churches- in the Midwest, Bible Related Ministries is often where churches turn to. If asked to, they can send someone to act as an arbiter or referee, place an interim pastor or series of pastors who might become a permanent pastor if that’s what they want, or if it’s a different situation help with a church merger. It was started by Chuck Svoboda and now Dave Bauer has taken the lead there. They generally deal with ND churches or otherwise independent/self-governing churches that need outside assistance, but there have also been some surprise calls from places they would not have expected to hear from. They’ll do whatever they can for whoever asks for help, and that usually involves preventing some sort of unfriendly sectarian-type split.

biblerelatedministries.org/

Speaking from what both Chuck and Dave have consistently related over the years, these problems are almost never about doctrine or a quarrel over some interpretive difference. It’s pretty much always some form of conflict resolution resulting from a wide variety of interpersonal issues- but it’s almost never a disagreement over how a passage of Scripture ought to be interpreted. That kind of thing is relatively easy to work out over time without extra help. Incidentally, this relates to something that a Baptist guy said once about church government. Something like- sure, I guess we could invest our leaders with a tremendous amount of centralized power, but look at how we act already. Who could we place in those positions?

Yes I have gotten to know both of those guys along with some of their extended family. And yes, a good portion of their hands-on experience with how and why ND churches split and/or fail has been related to me. And yes, BRM is involved in church planting and the placement of pastors in new churches- the healthy, happy way for an ND church (or sometimes not ND) to begin its life. So I’ve had the chance to become familiar with the details of the life and death of ND churches in the full variety of situations, along with a good number of success stories that prevent one from splitting and/or dying.

And finally, because of all that, no I am not interested in having a Catholic tell me why and how it is that independent/ND churches split or fail. I do know what’s going on, I am familiar with the various problems and their likely solutions, and I couldn’t possibly get better information from any of you than what I’ve gotten from Chuck, Dave, and company over the years. You could tell me how you feel about it all, but that’s too far off topic, it doesn’t matter, and it’s likely to be disrespectful and hurtful. So I assume that’s not going to happen anymore.

 

[Journey322]

***It is quite simply a local church that is governed and regulated independently of any larger group, denomination, or church. Basically, it is (however it may be internally organized) its own ecclesiastical authority. ***"

I believe this poster said it best, IMO. Each non-denominational church does usually have certain leanings toward a particular denomination, however. For instance, there is a rather larger church in my city, that calls itself a non-denominational church. However, it is widely known throughout the city for its Pentecostal/Charismatic theology. We have others that also call themselves non-denominational but have leanings toward other denominations, such as Baptist, Methodist, and Lutheran. I think the idea behind the title is to maintain the freedom worship God as the people in the church feel led, without having to submit to denominational leadership and responsibility.

 

[Lucky7]

I would not draw that conclusion. It might be true (I don’t know), but it could just be that the church in question believes that baptism should be believer’s baptism. They would not classify infant baptism as a valid baptism. While the church might say that Catholics aren’t Christians, they probably are just saying that Christians should be baptized only when they are capable of making a confession of faith for themselves.

True. I do know that many other denominations do not perform infant baptisms.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Abide, I didn’t write the post in question, Jacob Morgan did.
Would I have stated it differently using more diplomatic language? Yeah, but I did read the post and, although gruff, there isn’t anything he stated that I did not experience myself.
There is a psychological underpinning to ND churches. It can’t be dodged.
Note this part of Jacob’s post:

My question when I was part of ND churches was always “where does the buck stop?” To say the Bible sounds great…but then we wouldn’t have “denominations” to begin with if everyone agreed on what the Bible said.
What Jacob stated was slam dunk. We can rationalize ourselves into almost anything.

JustaServant–

Jacob Morgan’s post wasn’t “gruff”, it was disrespectful of the character of people who go to ND churches. Your quote from his post won’t show up in my quote of your post, but here is part of what you quoted which is an example of what I mean:

“…every person believes what they want and their behavior and actions are limited only to what they can rationalize. It isn’t so much Sola Scriptural as Sola Self.”. ( Jacob Morgan)

That sure sounds like a character judgment of ND Christians as self-centered, immature rationalizers. In reality, though there are, no doubt, people like that in ND churches, I’ve known plenty of mature, well-formed, godly people who belong to ND churches. And their maturity is due in part to their church experience, not despite it.

While I agree that ND churches can be very reasonably criticized (as well as praised for the things they do well), I believe these sorts of character judgments are offensive. And that—the character judgments in Jacob Morgan’s post----are why I initially commented to you about your own post, in which you were saying Sixpence was objecting to Jacob’s post because “the truth hurts” ( to summarise your post). I don’t believe Jacob’s post was full of truth, though it had some truthful parts—I think it was just plain disrespectful.

 

[peace2u2]

It is quite simply a local church that is governed and regulated independently of any larger group, denomination, or church. Basically, it is (however it may be internally organized) its own ecclesiastical authority.

Theologically, most non-denominational churches are evangelical Protestant in doctrine. There are some “liberal” Protestant non-denominational churches (but I think they are rare). While they may say they are “non-denominational” or “just Christian,” there usually can clearly be seen a dominant theology informing the pastor’s preaching and the churches culture. For example, many churches are almost identical to Baptist churches except that they do not call themselves Baptists. Many are identical to Pentecostal or charismatic churches but don’t call themselves those names. There are non-denominational Calvinist/Reformed churches, such as Mars Hill in Seattle pastored by Mark Driscoll. It isn’t part of any larger Presbyterian denomination, but its teaching is strongly Calvinist.

The Church is the body of Christ. It is the vehicle by which God makes salvation known to the world. But going to church or being a member of a church or a particular denomination will not save anyone. If we simply go to church but are not transformed by Jesus then our going to church was for nothing. Institutions will not save anyone. Only a transformative encounter with Jesus can do that.

Asking someone who goes to a non-denominational church these type of specific questions does a lot more toward explaining that church than labels like Protestant (whatever that means anyway).

Thank you to all who posted a response. Itwin, I think your post explained it without offending which I appreciate. Lets all just try to answer and carry on a dialogue with respect to all our brothers and sisters in Christ regardless of where they choose to worship God. And, I thank you for answering the 2nd question about so if Jesus can only save, then why do we need all these churches?

In doing so though, you piked my curiosity in your last paragraph. . .

Asking someone who goes to a non-denominational church these type of specific questions does a lot more toward explaining that church than labels like Protestant (whatever that means anyway).

So what exactly does the label Protestant mean anyway and what exactly does Catholic mean anyway? If we are all, Protestant Churches, Catholic Churches and Non-Denominational Churches, are the body of Christ, why do we need so many labels to identify who we are?

 

[peace2u2]

I would not draw that conclusion. It might be true (I don’t know), but it could just be that the church in question believes that baptism should be believer’s baptism. They would not classify infant baptism as a valid baptism. While the church might say that Catholics aren’t Christians, they probably are just saying that Christians should be baptized only when they are capable of making a confession of faith for themselves.

This is a good post because it points to how different each Church really is and why? I had to respond to it as infant baptism is dear to my heart, and this is why:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9584089#post9584089

I hope you were able to open the link which shows the beautiful picture of the infant baptism.

Perhaps you were not aware that parents who bring their infants before God in this way, make a baptismal promise as do the godparents to bring the child up in the faith and to teach the child about the Most Holy Trinity: The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit teaching the child how to pray (traditional prayers and spontaneous prayer), bringing the child to Church to pray and worship God which prepares them for when they are in 1st grade and enter formal religious instructions and they do make a confession of faith when the make their First Holy Communion in 2nd grade and they are taught that they know receive Jesus in their hearts everytime they go to Mass and receive communion. Formal religious instruction is continued and in 9th grade, these children will make their confirmations and receive the fullness of the Holy Spirit to use the gifts of the Holy Spirit to build up the Church and to be witnesses to Christ. To many, unfortunately, it is looked upon as “I’m done” instead of asking God and allowing Him to use us as his vessels to bring about peace and healing in the world.

This is where the Catholic Church needs improvement because this is the age, 14, where the peer pressure and the work of the devil will try and lead you away from Christ. We, Catholics, I hope there are Priests and Bishops reading this because we need to continue the children’s religious education in the way of Bible studies like our Protestant (whatever that is) brothers and sisters so the devil will not prevail.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of misinformed Catholics who were not taught by their parents to know, love and serve God (the Church can only teach so much once a week for an hour or two) and when the parents are not teaching what they have been taught at Church, how can it be reinforced? So unfortunately the Church gets the blame when in reality we all hold a portion of that blame for being misinformed.

 

[ltwin]

So what exactly does the label Protestant mean anyway and what exactly does Catholic mean anyway? If we are all, Protestant Churches, Catholic Churches and Non-Denominational Churches, are the body of Christ, why do we need so many labels to identify who we are?

Because we like labels (some of us anyway, others clearly don’t). Protestantism is a form of Christianity that comes out of the Catholic Church in the 16th century. Therefore, it is a branch of Western Christianity, distinguished from Eastern Christianity (Eastern Orthodoxy or Oriental Orthodoxy). Protestantism is “any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth.” In Germany (where the Reformation began), Protestants called themselves and still call themselves the evangelische Kirche (evangelical Church). “Evangelical” came from the Greek evangelion meaning “gospel” or “good news” and in the sense the Protestants used it referred to their belief that they were standing for “gospel truth.” Later, moderate Christian fundamentalists in the USA began to call themselves the “new evangelicals” and the “two houses” of American Protestantism was born: the mainline (or liberal or progressive or “ecumenical”) and the evangelicals (theologically conservative Protestants).

 

[ltwin]

This is a good post because it points to how different each Church really is and why? I had to respond to it as infant baptism is dear to my heart, and this is why:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9584089#post9584089

I hope you were able to open the link which shows the beautiful picture of the infant baptism.

That is beautiful.

Perhaps you were not aware that parents who bring their infants before God in this way, make a baptismal promise as do the godparents to bring the child up in the faith and to teach the child about the Most Holy Trinity: The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit teaching the child how to pray (traditional prayers and spontaneous prayer), bringing the child to Church to pray and worship God which prepares them for when they are in 1st grade and enter formal religious instructions

Non-denominational churches and other evangelical Protestants will have what is called “baby dedication” around that age. It is similar to what you describe, without the baptism.

and they do make a confession of faith when the make their First Holy Communion in 2nd grade and they are taught that they know receive Jesus in their hearts everytime they go to Mass and receive communion. Formal religious instruction is continued and in 9th grade, these children will make their confirmations and receive the fullness of the Holy Spirit to use the gifts of the Holy Spirit to build up the Church and to be witnesses to Christ. To many, unfortunately, it is looked upon as “I’m done” instead of asking God and allowing Him to use us as his vessels to bring about peace and healing in the world.

This is where the Catholic Church needs improvement because this is the age, 14, where the peer pressure and the work of the devil will try and lead you away from Christ. We, Catholics, I hope there are Priests and Bishops reading this because we need to continue the children’s religious education in the way of Bible studies like our Protestant (whatever that is) brothers and sisters so the devil will not prevail.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of misinformed Catholics who were not taught by their parents to know, love and serve God (the Church can only teach so much once a week for an hour or two) and when the parents are not teaching what they have been taught at Church, how can it be reinforced? So unfortunately the Church gets the blame when in reality we all hold a portion of that blame for being misinformed.

The concerns you mention above about Christian education are not just a Catholic problem. Protestant churches have a horrible time keeping their kids in church to. It helps when the child’s parents actively go to church, but my church has a ton of “drop off” parents. These parents drop their kids off Sunday mornings, Wednesday nights, or Tuesday nights (youth service) so that they can get a break from them, but will not step in the door themselves. Oh and don’t announce any kind of field trip activities because these parents will know about it before the active church members know. It’s really sad. Once these kids get old enough its really hard to retain them because their parents never encouraged their faith.

Transitions are hard. Anytime a child goes from being a “little kid” to being a teenager it is difficult to transition them successfully to youth ministry. And then once that teenager becomes a young adult if they are not deeply engaged with their faith and church they will stop attending church. I’ve seen many high school kids deeply involved in our youth programs, and once they graduate you rarely see them anymore. However, a lot of times they do come back once they’ve had kids of their own. So, I don’t know. I think all churches have these problems to some degree.

 

[manualman]

So what exactly does the label Protestant mean anyway and what exactly does Catholic mean anyway? If we are all, Protestant Churches, Catholic Churches and Non-Denominational Churches, are the body of Christ, why do we need so many labels to identify who we are?

This is a great question, but to answer it you first need to grapple with an issue I raised in an earlier post. Did Jesus intend to establish a visible church or merely an invisible one? Your question presupposes the total validity of all sorts of churchs and implies their equality. This may sound like hubris (and would be if the Church were merely a human idea), but Jesus intentionally founded “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.” This was a VISIBLE thing. He selected particular men to be his apostles. Those men understood the authority they had been vested with and were particular about who they delegated it to via ordination.

So what is the status of protestant christians? If they’ve been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and HS, they belong to THE church, but their membership is wounded by the divisions that have come arisen over the centuries. Catholic theologians use the term “separated brethren” to describe the way other believers are part of the family, but estranged from the fullness of what God wills Church to be. So yes, in a sense, we are all the body of Christ. But that body isn’t functioning the way it is supposed to. We’ve handicapped the body of Christ in the world. Go team.

 

[Sixpence]

This is a great question, but to answer it you first need to grapple with an issue I raised in an earlier post. Did Jesus intend to establish a visible church or merely an invisible one? Your question presupposes the total validity of all sorts of churchs and implies their equality. This may sound like hubris (and would be if the Church were merely a human idea), but Jesus intentionally founded “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.” This was a VISIBLE thing. He selected particular men to be his apostles. Those men understood the authority they had been vested with and were particular about who they delegated it to via ordination.

Could you please take a look at the book of Acts, chapter 8, verses 1 through 4 and let us all know what you think. Verse 4 in particular, please.

So what is the status of protestant christians? If they’ve been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and HS, they belong to THE church, but their membership is wounded by the divisions that have come arisen over the centuries. Catholic theologians use the term “separated brethren” to describe the way other believers are part of the family, but estranged from the fullness of what God wills Church to be. So yes, in a sense, we are all the body of Christ. But that body isn’t functioning the way it is supposed to. We’ve handicapped the body of Christ in the world. Go team.

This thread has to do with what non-denominational churches are. Here, let me rank items in order of importance. Of first-order importance is the ND identity on its own terms. Of second-order importance is who/what ND, independent, and generally Protestant churches are to the Catholic Church. It does have bearing, particularly since the OP is Catholic. But let’s remember that this is of secondary importance and not the exclusive focus. And let’s also remember that it makes more sense for you to instruct other Catholics about who Protestants are to them, knowing that Protestants still see what you post and how you’re thinking while avoiding unnecessary and fruitless argument. You can hardly expect a Protestant to simultaneously adopt a Protestant identity while taking to calling themselves “separated brethren.” This is something that necessitates a Catholic outlook, and basically Catholic membership. So in order to press this point and make it possible for a Protestant to agree with you, you basically have to convert them to Catholicism. On most threads, that gets off topic pre-tty quickly.

So you can ask someone to come with you to a thread where the topic is Petrine supremacy or apostolic succession (which is the off-topic that we’re headed for right now), but I’m not even sure that you’ve properly engaged anyone to the point where they would go and do that with you. You can give it a try, but this might be looking like a steadily-more-intractable argument which avoids that item of first-order importance rather than something that’s going anywhere. We could address our differences as far as what we say the/a church is, as that would specifically address the back half of the OP. But it might be better to compare/contrast rather than expecting to argue for victory on this one. Look more closely at what the OP wants- are we looking for the best types of arguments that can shut down what it is that ND Christians say about the church as a whole and their churches in particular? Or are we looking for a better understanding of what ND Christians say about the same? Maybe we let the OP answer that one.

Oh, a third item. There are also things which have no bearing or value whatsoever- things which manualman is not at all responsible for, but we know what those things are.

 

[manualman]

1. Could you please take a look at the book of Acts, chapter 8, verses 1 through 4 and let us all know what you think. Verse 4 in particular, please.
2. …You can hardly expect a Protestant to simultaneously adopt a Protestant identity while taking to calling themselves “separated brethren.” This is something that necessitates a Catholic outlook, and basically Catholic membership. So in order to press this point and make it possible for a Protestant to agree with you, you basically have to convert them to Catholicism. On most threads, that gets off topic pre-tty quickly…
3. Oh, a third item. There are also things which have no bearing or value whatsoever- things which manualman is not at all responsible for, but we know what those things are.

1. Surely you can comprehend the difference between the geographical scattering of the apostles and the fracturing of christianity into groups who denounce each other and don’t even recognize the validity of each other’s baptisms? (see the OP) Are you really suggesting this passage endorses a ‘create your own christianity’ model of church structure?
2. You are correct that I’m not writing a journalistic description and I can hardly expect an evangelical to agree with me (short of converting). That’s not my purpose. My purpose is to help a fellow catholic OP understand what the heck his friend is talking about. You are free, of course, to explain and defend the other side. As long as we are both clear about where we are coming from we surely can do that and disagree civilly.
3. What the heck are YOU talking about in this one? I honestly completely lost you.

 

[Lucky7]

Jacob Morgan’s post wasn’t “gruff”, it was disrespectful of the character of people who go to ND churches. Your quote from his post won’t show up in my quote of your post, but here is part of what you quoted which is an example of what I mean:

“…every person believes what they want and their behavior and actions are limited only to what they can rationalize. It isn’t so much Sola Scriptural as Sola Self.”. ( Jacob Morgan)

That sure sounds like a character judgment of ND Christians as self-centered, immature rationalizers. In reality, though there are, no doubt, people like that in ND churches, I’ve known plenty of mature, well-formed, godly people who belong to ND churches. And their maturity is due in part to their church experience, not despite it.

While I agree that ND churches can be very reasonably criticized (as well as praised for the things they do well), I believe these sorts of character judgments are offensive. And that—the character judgments in Jacob Morgan’s post----are why I initially commented to you about your own post, in which you were saying Sixpence was objecting to Jacob’s post because “the truth hurts” ( to summarise your post). I don’t believe Jacob’s post was full of truth, though it had some truthful parts—I think it was just plain disrespectful.

It’s interesting that you took that post the way you did. I took it in a completely different fashion. I took the “Sola Self” not as a character judgment (as in self-centered, etc) but the logical result of following Sola Scriptura and the idea that all Bible interpretation should be left to the individual (ie. the Self).

 

[minkymurph]

A friend of mine who left the Catholic church some years ago was re-baptized into his new church which he calls non-denominational. When I mentioned to my friend that basically means he joined a Protestant church, I was rebuked and told that they who consider themselves “non-denominational” means that they don’t conform to any religion because there is no religion and no church that can save a person that only Jesus saves.

So basically my question is what is non-denominational and if only Jesus saves than why do we need all these churches? I was taught that “the Church” is the doorway that leads to salvation in Christ.

I used to refer to myself as ‘non-denominational’ because I believed in God, and believed Jesus was the Son of God, but I didn’t belong to a Church or follow the teaching of any one denomination. My faith was a mixture. I was brought up JW and did not go to their meetings or believe what they taught, but had not converted to any another faith.

For this reason and as I live in Ireland, people categorized me as ‘Protestant.’

 

[Sixpence]

1. Surely you can comprehend the difference between the geographical scattering of the apostles and the fracturing of christianity into groups who denounce each other and don’t even recognize the validity of each other’s baptisms? (see the OP) Are you really suggesting this passage endorses a ‘create your own christianity’ model of church structure?
2. You are correct that I’m not writing a journalistic description and I can hardly expect an evangelical to agree with me (short of converting). That’s not my purpose. My purpose is to help a fellow catholic OP understand what the heck his friend is talking about. You are free, of course, to explain and defend the other side. As long as we are both clear about where we are coming from we surely can do that and disagree civilly.
3. What the heck are YOU talking about in this one? I honestly completely lost you.

Did you notice that it was not the apostles who scattered? It was everyone except the apostles. Verse four is where I point out what everyone-except-the-apostles was doing. And then if we go a little further down the page, it gets into Philip and the Samaritans for a bit, where I would note two things- one, Philip is not an apostle, and two, what he did there as an evangelist was the first contact between Jewish Christians and the Samaritans- moreover, between Christians and non-Jews.

The first recorded efforts in Christian evangelism to “all the world” (as opposed to “the Jew first”) were carried out by everyone except the apostles, while the apostles remained in Jerusalem. This is what I’m getting at.

Have you talked about this much with other Catholics? Is this something that comes up sometimes when you’re talking about your framework for understanding how the Gospel ought to be shared throughout the world?

 

[manualman]

The first recorded efforts in Christian evangelism to “all the world” (as opposed to “the Jew first”) were carried out by everyone except the apostles, while the apostles remained in Jerusalem. This is what I’m getting at.

We’re diverting from the topic a bit, no? That said, you aren’t really claiming that this verse demonstrates that from that time forward gentile christians established their own affairs independently of the apostles and their delegated/ordained appointees, are you? Surely not, because that would be one of the most egregious examples of ludicrously out of context proof texting I’ve ever heard of. Why do you suppose St. Paul wrote all those letters? To live out his vocation as an apostle. You appear to be asserting that Phillip is a self-appointed evangelist independent of the apostles. No way. As far as I know, Phillip was in full communion with the church headed by the apostles and Scripture would make it clear if that were NOT the case. Apostolic succession doesn’t mean that everybody not an apostle sits in a pew with his mouth shut. It means that the apostles and their successors have a special role providing headship for the body of Christ. Your citation in no way demonstrates anything otherwise.

Tone is difficult on the internet, and I should make clear that I never mean to belittle the beliefs and convictions of other christians. I just value clarity and that means I end up blunt sometimes. We disagree and that’s OK. We can each say to the other “you’re wrong” and here’s why and still respect each other at the same time. Ideas and persons are different things.

 

[AbideWithMe]

It’s interesting that you took that post the way you did. I took it in a completely different fashion. I took the “Sola Self” not as a character judgment (as in self-centered, etc) but the logical result of following Sola Scriptura and the idea that all Bible interpretation should be left to the individual (ie. the Self).

Lucky7–

I’ll try to catch up with you tomorrow.

 

[peace2u2]

The concerns you mention above about Christian education are not just a Catholic problem. Protestant churches have a horrible time keeping their kids in church to. It helps when the child’s parents actively go to church, but my church has a ton of “drop off” parents. These parents drop their kids off Sunday mornings, Wednesday nights, or Tuesday nights (youth service) so that they can get a break from them, but will not step in the door themselves. Oh and don’t announce any kind of field trip activities because these parents will know about it before the active church members know. It’s really sad. Once these kids get old enough its really hard to retain them because their parents never encouraged their faith.

Transitions are hard. Anytime a child goes from being a “little kid” to being a teenager it is difficult to transition them successfully to youth ministry. And then once that teenager becomes a young adult if they are not deeply engaged with their faith and church they will stop attending church. I’ve seen many high school kids deeply involved in our youth programs, and once they graduate you rarely see them anymore. However, a lot of times they do come back once they’ve had kids of their own. So, I don’t know. I think all churches have these problems to some degree.

Thank you for informing me that its not just the Catholic Church that has these problems.

I agree with you that it does help when the parents actively go to church weekly but also engage their children in talking about their faith and praying together.

I have found in my own walk, the more I speak (and not keep silent in my heart) the name of Jesus, the easier His name rolls off my tongue and sometimes I surprise myself and bring His name up in a situation that I wouldn’t have otherwise if I didn’t take the time to increase my faith. I recall a time when I was uncomfortable speaking His name in casual conversation and I remember when I read His Words, “Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.” I immediately thought, What am I teaching my children that will be of importance to them when I am no longer here to teach them? The only thing I could thing of was to know, love and serve Jesus with all their hearts and all their minds and all their souls and that everything else is of little importance in this world.

I don’t know how we “wake up” those in slumber. I recall someone telling me to just pray for the conversion of sinners and let God do all the heavy lifting.

Peace 2U

 

[johnnyjones]

Non denominational = not aligned with a denomination of the Protestant faith. Non denominational participants are hooked into a “bible only” approach. If your Christian and don’t suscribe to the catholic church, your a PROTEST-TANT.

 

[peace2u2]

Indeed. That is the essence of creating a god in one’s own image. That is, finding all the parts of the Gospel that agree with one’s own ideology, and then creating a church that matches this.

The correct paradigm is, of course, finding the Church that Christ established and then conforming one’s views to Christ’s.

I daresay that if you’re a Christian who’s in a church that conforms to all your own views, that hasn’t made you change your beliefs/ideology/morality at all, then you’re in a church of the Almighty Self.

If you’ve left a church because it taught something you disagreed with, then shopped for a church that matches your POV, what kind of church is this???

I have to say that as a cradle Catholic before I went through my second conversion and received my baptism in the Spirit, I did just this, creating a god in one’s own image even though I was Catholic and practicing my faith in the Catholic church yet like you said I was “in a church of the Almighty Self.”

I truly didn’t understand Apostolic Succession, the Teaching Authority of the Magesterium or the Pope’s Infallibilty. I conformed my beliefs to my own way of life and called myself a Catholic but certainly you would never have thought that if you knew me before my conversion. I suppose our relationship with God is a process and Praise God for revealing to me the people who would teach me about His Holy Spirit and how He desires to help us and to teach us and give us good gifts!

 

[peace2u2]

Funny you mention this, because a recent reading was from Ephesians, and St. Paul tells us there is ONE Faith, ONE Baptism, ONE God, ONE Church, etc, etc, etc.

If there is one faith, it disproves the Protestant basis for being apart from the Catholic Church.

Yes, I recall the Mass Readings over the past couple of weeks and wondered about the ONE Baptism part and how do non-Catholics, or those that are re-baptized, think when they hear those words or read those words about there being just ONE Baptism? Perhaps some people on this thread who have been baptized twice can inform us how they felt when the heard or read those words after being “dunked” again?

I know that we need to be renewed like when we renew our baptismal promises at Easter and some Catholic Churches in my area have a special “Pentecostal Sunday” Mass Service which I missed this past year but will be there next year to be renewed in the Holy Spirit which we do need to keep us Christ-centered and Christ-filled.