What is Non-Denominational?

[Publisher]

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.

For Friends, we have received the One Baptism…we have been baptized into the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit…the only baptism that actually cleanses us from the inside out…not with the washing of the body…but of a clear conscience before God.

I don’t believe in multiple baptisms…there is only One Baptism that cleanses from sin.

 

[peace2u2]

I’m not dismissing your experience, JustaServant.

The OP asked “what is a non-denominational church?” Itwin and Sixpence gave informative answers as to what they are and how they may arise. That’s all that’s required for this thread.

Some of the other posts border on being offensive because they try too much to discern ND church-goers’ inner motives and the state of their relationship with God and fellow men.

Lets remember that it is God who knows our hearts and will be the judge of same regardless of what Church we worship Him in.

I believe last week’s daily Mass readings touched on the “church goer” who goes in vain because he or she is uncharitable, unloving and does not try to walk humbly with God.

SO, as Catholics and Non-Catholics whereever you may worship the One, True God, lets Praise God that we know Him to the extent that we do, may God send His Holy Spirit with His wonderful gifts of wisdom, knowledge and understanding so that we may always do His will and build up His Church. We pray in His Holy, Precious Name, Jesus. Amen.

 

[ltwin]

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 haven’t been baptized twice, but as I said in an earlier post, if you believe in believer’s baptism then that necessarily follows that if you were baptized as an infant then that baptism was not valid. Your parents made a promise to God that they would raise you in the Christian faith, but baptism needs to be a personal initiative. So, those who do get “re-baptized” do not consider it getting “re-baptized.” Of course, if you were baptized as a Catholic at an age where you could make a conscious decision to be baptized then there is no need to be baptized again in my view because you underwent “believer’s baptism.” I’m not one of those who believes that one HAS to be dunked, though I’m glad that I was fully immersed because I believe it more fully captures the meaning of baptism.

 

[peace2u2]

I have a different kind of question. Why was your friend re-baptized? Even the Catholic Church doesn’t re-baptize other Christians.

Oh wait, let me guess. This non-denominational church doesn’t think Catholics are Christians!

His exact words were, He was rebaptized into a ND church because he left the Catholic church. I don’t think they told him that we Catholics were non-Christians. He does not agree with alot of the Catholic teachings which by the way are Jesus’ teaching, but I wasn’t going to be that bold and start a fight with him and he also feels like “the Catholic Church” didn’t teach him anything about who Jesus is through Bible study.

But the Church is not completely to blame because he owes part of that blame for not learning anything about his Catholic faith and for not learning about the Mass and his parents owe some of the blame also for not teaching him things to grow strong in the faith. I give the media some of that blame too for always pointing out the sinful members of the Catholic church instead of pointing out all the good members of the Church.

And now look at me, I sound like I’m judging. . .I feel like I need to go to Confession!

 

[fbl9]

For Friends, we have received the One Baptism…we have been baptized into the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit…the only baptism that actually cleanses us from the inside out…not with the washing of the body…but of a clear conscience before God.

I don’t believe in multiple baptisms…there is only One Baptism that cleanses from sin.

Thanks Publisher Now we just gotta figure out when it ought to be done. And just what sins are washed away, original and personal.

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.

Why get re-baptised most non-denoms beleive baptism is a symbollic thing and in essence does nothing for the soul.

Makes me laugh when you ask what religion and they answer “i am a christian!”
But they have their own set of beleifs, thus they are a religion unto themselves.
Some will claim Catholic communion as an empty ritual yet hold their own empty communion, it’s just a symbol thus deviod of any benifit to the soul.

 

[peace2u2]

Non-Denom is a rationally necessary solution to the reality that after 500 years of fracturing, it’s not possible for any protestant group anymore to claim with a straight face to be THE church Christ established. Even the Simpsons poke fun at this! (Picture the Simpsons pastor guy saying “Come to the ONE true Church: the west branch of Presbo-Lutheran Methodism (reformed)!” )

The solution is to propose that Jesus founded an INVISIBLE church. One in which believers of all sorts seem to be divided, but really aren’t at the important level. That resolved the problem of dozens of competing protestant churches, but eventually created a new problem. Combine ‘invisible church’ with Sola Scriptura and pretty soon anybody with a bible and a guitar can start his own ‘church’ and it’s as valid as anybody else’s. And so they have!

***The problem, of course, is that Jesus DIDN’T found an invisible church. He selected 12 apostles and gave them explicit authority the likes of which had never been seen on earth before. Those apostles clearly (Book of Acts) established precedent of delegating their authority to local bishops they ordained, replacing their number when an apostle died (first with Judas), expanding beyond 12 (adding St. Paul), etc. He established a clearly VISIBLE Church. One that still exists. ***The trick is figuring our which of the claimants really IS that church. (Pretty obvious which one I’m sure of!)

I agree that Jesus found a visible Church. Is it a belief of Protestants that “the Church” spoken of in Sacred Scripture is “invisible”?

 

[peace2u2]

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.

Yes I agree with your post about our separated brethren and don’t you just feel like how St. Paul felt when he spoke of his separated brethren in Romans?

 

[ltwin]

Why get re-baptised most non-denoms beleive baptism is a symbollic thing and in essence does nothing for the soul.

If the church he goes to now practices believer’s baptism, then they wont accept infant baptism (assuming the friend was baptized as an infant).

As to why it would be important to “re-baptize” (though the church in question wouldn’t consider it a “re-baptism”):

*the Bible says we should be baptized
*baptism is a public proclamation of a private commitment to Christ
*just as Christ rose from the grave, in baptism we declare that in Christ we too rise from death to newness of life
*baptism is a faith strengthening act

 

[fbl9]

If the church he goes to now practices believer’s baptism, then they wont accept infant baptism (assuming the friend was baptized as an infant).

As to why it would be important to “re-baptize” (though the church in question wouldn’t consider it a “re-baptism”):

*the Bible says we should be baptized
*baptism is a public proclamation of a private comm itment to Christ
*just as Christ rose from the grave, in baptism we declare that in Christ we too rise from death to newness of life
*baptism is a faith strengthening act

Done in the privacy of said fellowship.
Sorry gotta go more later if you don’t mind.

 

[ltwin]

I agree that Jesus found a visible Church. Is it a belief of Protestants that “the Church” spoken of in Sacred Scripture is “invisible”?

Most Protestants believe that “the Church” cannot be narrowed down to an institutional reality, like say the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church or the Anglican Church. These churches are just visible parts of a larger reality. The invisible church is all people who have been truly born again throughout the world. No matter their ecclesiastical affiliation or membership in a denomination, all true Christians are members of one body, the body of Christ.

 

[ltwin]

Done in the privacy of said fellowship.
Sorry gotta go more later if you don’t mind.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Baptisms are often conducted out in the open. I was baptized in a lake on a camp ground, and people in the South regularly come out to see a good baptism whether they know you or not! Even those that are done inside a church are open to the public and friends and family are invited to witness the important moment in the believer’s life. What should we do, get a kiddy pool and place it on the courthouse steps and proceed to baptize people? Would that make it not private enough for you?

 

[fbl9]

If the church he goes to now practices believer’s baptism, then they wont accept infant baptism (assuming the friend was baptized as an infant).

As to why it would be important to “re-baptize” (though the church in question wouldn’t consider it a “re-baptism”):

*the Bible says we should be baptized
*baptism is a public proclamation of a private commitment to Christ
*just as Christ rose from the grave, in baptism we declare that in Christ we too rise from death to newness of life
*baptism is a faith strengthening act

Christ commanded we be baptised.

But this new life is not an effect of the baptism. Some but not all will agree with my statement
How can getting wet convince me any more than staying dry?

 

[manualman]

I agree that Jesus found a visible Church. Is it a belief of Protestants that “the Church” spoken of in Sacred Scripture is “invisible”?

Here’s an example of a non-denominational jumbo (not quite mega) church:
highpointchurch.org/HPC_Statement_of_Faith.ihtml?id=340744

They cite the apostle’s creed in their statement of faith with this asterisk:
“*The word “catholic” refers to all who believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.”

What they’ve essentially done is alter the meaning of ‘catholic’ from the VISIBLE definition christianity understood it to be taken for 1,500 years to one that is invisible. Their redefinition makes little sense when one considers that they also define ‘saints’ to be all believers. You’d think they’d eventually wonder why the creed is repetitive in citing the communion of saints AND the holy catholic church if those things really just both mean the same thing.

 

[fbl9]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Baptisms are often conducted out in the open. I was baptized in a lake on a camp ground, and people in the South regularly come out to see a good baptism whether they know you or not! Even those that are done inside a church are open to the public and friends and family are invited to witness the important moment in the believer’s life. do, get a kiddy pool and place it on the courthouse steps and proceed to baptize people? WouldWhat should we that make it not private enough for you?

Never seen a baptism outside,in the open, of any fellowship. Why isn’t standing there good enough afteer all i am only getting wet for no real benifit of my soul.
If you would kindly do so that would great:thumbsup:

 

[Sixpence]

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.

It may be slightly off topic, but I think I can bring it around to perspectives on authority and what the church is. You were emphasizing a visible church, apostles with authority, and apostles delegating authority. Apostles (and apostolic succession) are central to what the visible aspect of this “visible church” is all about, to the point where you could just about say that where you see the apostles (or successors), that is where you see the church.

ND Christians have a different perspective- to us, where you see Christians is where you see the church. I point out Acts 8 for a couple of reasons- one, all of these non-apostles operated in a situation quite apart from the apostles that strongly suggests they were all expected to evangelize as a general rule. The principle was “Every Christian should go evangelize,” and they did. The principle was not “You should not evangelize unless” followed by something to do with apostolic authority being delegated to certain people and not others. If any one of those non-apostles had been asked by what authority they were preaching, it seems doubtful that many or perhaps even any of them would have talked about laying on of hands and being commissioned to do so by an apostle. And when they went and evangelized anyway, they spread Christianity and caused the church to grow. Also, when Philip showed up in Samaria, the church showed up and Christianity showed up- even if he was not an apostle. Furthermore, if I could quickly reference Mark 8 where the apostles ask Jesus about the guys that they’ve never met, but they’re driving out demons in Jesus’ name. By what authority? Probably not apostolic authority, and Jesus responds to their concerns by saying whoever is not against you is for you. Then in Acts 8, when everyone except the apostles scatters and evangelizes in the name of Christ, it stands to reason that a fair number of those evangelists were also not directly connected to an apostle. It also stands to reason that the apostles would have remembered what Jesus said about who is with them and who is for them.

Second, I’m not a primitivist, meaning I don’t believe in modeling the modern church’s structure and behavior after everything that was done in the earliest Christian church. Situations constantly change in ways that require something different, and additionally I do not look at the earliest church through a pair of rose-colored glasses that lets me believe they did everything perfectly given the situation they were in. That’s just me, though, and I will refrain from an attempt to describe and analyze your perspective. Knowing this, you should not expect me to be arguing that the apostles were essentially Protestants. What I am arguing is that they weren’t very much like Western European Catholics, post Schism, high middle ages.

Third, to your point that apostolic succession does not mean the laity sits in pews and does nothing else of value to Christianity- in some centuries, it has meant that. Not this century, not right now, but this idea came from somewhere- and it came from a place and time when that was much more the case.

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.

I can be a tad blunt sometimes too. I try not to be disrespectful or show contempt, though, and I don’t think that you have done this either. Some other people, maybe. But not you.

 

[PRmerger]

I agree that Jesus found a visible Church. Is it a belief of Protestants that “the Church” spoken of in Sacred Scripture is “invisible”?

There is no such thing as “belief of Protestants”, peace2u2. Protestantism is a behemoth of tens of thousands of different denominations, each claiming that their own version of Christianity is the correct one.

 

[SteveVH]

If the church he goes to now practices believer’s baptism, then they wont accept infant baptism (assuming the friend was baptized as an infant).

As to why it would be important to “re-baptize” (though the church in question wouldn’t consider it a “re-baptism”):

*the Bible says we should be baptized
*baptism is a public proclamation of a private commitment to Christ
*just as Christ rose from the grave, in baptism we declare that in Christ we too rise from death to newness of life
*baptism is a faith strengthening act

Itwin, may I ask where you arrived at the idea that *"baptism is a public proclamation of a private commitment to Christ". I must admit that I have not read through all of the posts in this thread and so if this has already been discussed I beg your pardon.

I am sure that others have informed you that in the Catholic Church we believe that baptism, being a sacrament, actually has an effect on the soul, purely through the grace of God. While the mere act of being baptised in the presence of others would certainly be a public proclamation, that would not be considered even a secondary purpose for baptism, but rather a consequence of others witnessing the event.

Everything you state above is true, in one sense or the other. Yes the Bible says we should be baptized. As I have state above it is a public proclamation simply because it is usually done in the presence of the faith community. The outer signs of the sacrament (especially in cases of full immersion) signify our dying to sin and rising to new life in Christ (although this is not the only thing signified). And yes, it is most definately faith strengthening.

But it is so much more. What is signified by the water actually happens to us. It signifies cleansing, and in reality our souls are cleansed of all sin. It signifies dying and rising to new life, and in reality we have died to sin and we will rise to new life. This is possible because the Holy Spirit takes up his home within us and infuses us with supernatural life, the very thing that we lost as a consequence of Adam’s sin.

There is nothing that we can do to bring this about. It is a complete gift from God made possible through the passion, death and resurrection of his Son. Because it is a gift from God it requires no action on our part. It is God who performs the action. This is why infant baptism is not only possible, but preferable. Why would one wish to wait to have their soul cleansed from sin and be infused with supernatural life so that they may live with God forever? You will find no biblical verses which condemn or speak against infant baptism. You will find many that suggest that it was the norm (i.e. entire households being baptised). One reason that it was never specifically focused upon is because there was no need to inform people about a practice that was accepted from the beginning and was not in dispute.

I guess my only point is that baptism is more than just a public proclamation or a declaration on our part that we will rise with Christ. It truly has an effect on our soul and accomplishes that which it signifies.

God bless.

 

[Sixpence]

Never seen a baptism outside,in the open, of any fellowship. Why isn’t standing there good enough afteer all i am only getting wet for no real benifit of my soul.
If you would kindly do so that would great:thumbsup:

Maybe this has more to do with which Christians you fellowship with than the actual prevalence of such baptisms. As for why public, I think the idea is that it can act as a witness to anybody who’s around. It makes a statement, much like a habit does. Why wear a habit, I ask with my tongue in cheek, if it has no real benefit to your soul and it only clothes you in a way that says Look At Me? Well, that’s the point- the purpose is to make yourself visible so people will look at you.

 

[Sixpence]

There is no such thing as “belief of Protestants”, peace2u2. Protestantism is a behemoth of tens of thousands of different denominations, each claiming that their own version of Christianity is the correct one.

We don’t tend to stake claims to the fullness of truth at the detriment of every other fellowship of believers. That would be silly.

 

[ltwin]

Christ commanded we be baptised.

But this new life is not an effect of the baptism. Some but not all will agree with my statement
How can getting wet convince me any more than staying dry?

It’s not convincing you. If you’re in the process of being baptized, I’d hope you’d already be convinced. For people watching, however, actually being submerged and then rising out of the water could be a powerful image. It doesn’t really matter to me, for some people it does likely because they think that full immersion was the way it was done in the early church.