F
fbl9
Guest
AgreedThere are many things I could label “form without substance” but then I think we’ve beaten this horse to death and derailed the thread from its topic enough.
- Status
S
Sixpence
Guest
I doubt that you have grounds for saying this, as the “fullness of truth” is not synonymous with certitude in any one matter. But there is an active thread detailing what is meant by the phrase when Catholics use it, and I presume that can help you discern why it is that Protestants are not likely to use it at all.
J
JustaServant
Guest
A charismatic denomination is called “Full Gospel”.
What do you suppose they mean by that?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Fair enough.
So why is one Church proclaiming that it has the “fullness of truth” something that you find objectionable?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Would a whole bunch of “any one matters” make you claim that you have the “fullness of truth”?
Or would it just mean that you have certitude about “a whole bunch” of matters?
And if so, isn’t that just a quantitative, but not qualitative, difference than what Catholicism means by the “fullness of truth”?
P
peace2u2
Guest
I read what HighPoint Church believes and apparently they too, being Non-Denominational, also believe that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ. The following appears after the sentence about “the word Catholic” in “their Creed”.
This creed received its title because of its great antiquity, dating from the first centuries of the church.
Yes I have to agree that their definition of “Saints” to be all believers is puffing up their wings too soon. I prefer to behave as St. Paul did, that we are all called TO BE saints, not that we already are.
In fact, it has been said that there are two kinds of people in the world: sinners who think they are saints, and saints who know they are sinners.
But, now we are really getting off topic. I believe the questions have been answered about What is Non-Denominational and If Jesus saves, then why do we need all these different churches? Perhaps someone could start a new thread on the differences of those churches.
I will just touch on one more thing that someone said that they prefer “full immersion” Baptism because it is closer to Jesus’ own Baptism. First of all, when Jesus was Baptised, His Church was not established yet? Correct me if I am wrong. The Church was established at the First Pentecostal Sunday which we read about in Acts and the Sacrament of Confirmation was established by Jesus at that time as well. People at that time did not have access to a church that was built yet with baptismal fonts so because we need to be baptised with water, the place to go would logically be the nearest source of water, a river. I was also told that John the Baptist used a shell and poured the water from the Jordan on Jesus:
catholictradition.org/Passion/john-baptist.htm
Also, the following link is a beautiful detailed explanation on the Sacrament of Baptism and the effects of being “immersed” into Christ:
old.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2.shtml#1214
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9519127#post9519127
One last comment, someone also said that they walk by faith. So do I which allows God’s grace to work in me to understand things that by myself could not even come close to understanding like Infant Baptism and that all Baptisms are an indelible mark on our soul and cannot be repeated and also that only the Catholic Priest through his validated ordained priesthood that he shares with Jesus is given the power through the Holy Spirit to transform ordinary bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ and we really consume His Flesh and His Blood:
1381
"That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that ‘cannot be apprehended by the senses,’ says St. Thomas, ‘but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.’ For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 (‘This is my body which is given for you.’), St. Cyril says: ‘Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.’"212
Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore
Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more,
See, Lord, at thy service low lies here a heart
Lost, all lost in wonder at the God thou art.
Seeing, touching, tasting are in thee deceived;
How says trusty hearing? that shall be believed;
What God’s Son has told me, take for truth I do;
Truth himself speaks truly or there’s nothing true
youtube.com/watch?v=dEkh_KxKao0
Peace and Faith 2 all of you
M
manualman
Guest
Good response. I have a few thoughts on parts of it as excerpted and numbered above.
- In a sense, yes. The authority of the apostle (or as delegated to the bishop) in a local church was always in church history the way in which disputes were settled and clarity was restored. It was how regular folk could tell the real faith from the shucksters. We sure could use a bit of that today, no?
- That’s totally consistent with an apostolic church. As a lay catholic, I’m called to evangelize my family, friends and coworkers. And this isn’t new, it’s what catholics have been called to forever, even lay people. The apostolic identity of the church is one of headship, not replacement of the other parts of the body.
- Good, us either. But there is a difference between outright primitivism and looking for the principles established by the apostles in establishing governance of the church. The external structure certainly must adapt to cultural changes, but the principles must remain faithful to what was revealed to us.
- There are elements of truth to this, but the way you put it is more caricature than real. The historic catholic approach to vocation was shaped by the reality of the culture of the day (I’m going back centuries here). When just providing adequate shelter and food occupied the majority of society’s economic output, it was not viable for everyone to even be literate, much less educated in Scripture and theology. In such a culture, the adequate education and formation of those who spoke for the church was absolutely critical and religious orders and monasteries filled that role. This DID probably have an effect to a certain extent of siphoning the on-fire believers out of the ranks of the laity and into segregated religious orders. But don’t forget that this system was also the origin of the university system and the source of whatever education was available to the common man. It’s easy to tsk-tsk the people of the past, because we take so much for granted today when one can put 8 hours in at the office and still have plenty of time to drive over after work to lead bible study at church. It was rather harder when you were physically exhausted from plowing all day and had to walk. As we both agreed in #3 above, you adapt strategies for most effectively evangelizing the world based on circumstances. But I humbly suggest that presenting thousands of (at least partially) contradictory visions of christianity to the world is NOT one of those effective strategies. Humans are a fractious bunch and I’m pretty sure God was smart enough to foresee that, which is why Christ left us a visible church with the authority of the apostles to resolve disputes and make hard decisions.
L
ltwin
Guest
They mean that they (unlike some Christians who believe that God has virtually ceased performing the miraculous through human servants) believe that God does endow people with miraculous gifts today and that those gifts never ceased. They believe (again unlike some people) that the miracles and healings Jesus and the apostles and others in the New Testament church is a continuing ministry of the church and this dimension of ministry should be emphasized more and not “spiritualized” (i.e. the blind see, the lame walk becoming metaphors by which we explain the spiritual condition of those touched by Jesus but downplay the physical consequences of such action). “Full Gospel” is a reaction against Protestants who basically ignore or spiritualize the miraculous stuff in the Bible. Full Gospel Christians believe we should teach and embrace the Full Gospel and not just the stuff we like or we’ve experienced ourselves. Full Gospel is just another way for them to say “we preach the entire Bible, we don’t try to explain away the miraculous, or try to come up with excuses as to why things happened in the early church that don’t happen now. If we obey Jesus and have faith in him, these things will happen.”A charismatic denomination is called “Full Gospel”.
What do you suppose they mean by that?
It has nothing to do with believing that one particular group who describes themselves as “Full Gospel” has the complete fullness of truth and therefore should be listened to without hesitation. Full Gospel churches have no magisterium, and they claim no infallibility. They also do not claim to be the “one true church”.
M
manualman
Guest
We have that struggle in the catholic church too. I think it’s Fr. Bob Barron who insightfully said “the divide in the church today is not really between liberals and conservatives, but between those who believe in a personal and supernatural God and those who really don’t.”
S
Sixpence
Guest
Comes from Romans 15:18-19. Paul talks about (I’m paraphrasing) making the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, through mighty signs and wonders by the power of the Holy Spirit so that round and about everywhere, he will have Fully preached the Gospel of God.A charismatic denomination is called “Full Gospel”.
What do you suppose they mean by that?
This is taken to mean that performing mighty signs and wonders is inextricably linked to accomplishing the goal of preaching the Full Gospel.
Was that what you got too?
@Itwin- I agree, it’s not as if they claim infallible teaching authority or a deposit of faith as a result. It mostly amounts to looking at a particular set of verses that talks about fully preaching the gospel, noting that most Christians are relatively unfamiliar with that passage for whatever reason, and deciding to place a greater amount of emphasis than usual on it and perhaps some related passages. The general idea is that the most effective way to evangelize is by trying to give people the opportunity to see a miracle, and I don’t think that has much similarity with what fullness of truth is- even if they do have the word “full” somewhere in there.
I can tell you from a bit of experience- the most jarring thing for someone unfamiliar with it is the method of delivery when evangelizing. I promise you will not be jarred at how similar any of it is to Catholicism.
C
crazzeto
Guest
It’s more marketing designed to appeal to a certain Christian ideal. Some protestants have become acutely aware that denominations are a problem with respect to “that there should be one”, as well as feel that there are "too many denominational hangups’. So the story goes, they’re going to drop denominations and “just follow Jesus”.
Problem is, this is a denomination in it’s self and they do have a certain informal doctrine just like all the rest. The problem is, because they carry the “no-denominational” monicer they’re good at advertsing in situations like freshman attending college for the first time.
“Hey, it doesn’t matter what kind of Christian you are, we’re a non-denonimnational group. We accept everyone”.
So the Catholic might join belieiving this to be an eccumenical group, when in fact it’s a particular brand on protistantism and they’re going to want you to leave your church and join up with their group.
Problem is, this is a denomination in it’s self and they do have a certain informal doctrine just like all the rest. The problem is, because they carry the “no-denominational” monicer they’re good at advertsing in situations like freshman attending college for the first time.
“Hey, it doesn’t matter what kind of Christian you are, we’re a non-denonimnational group. We accept everyone”.
So the Catholic might join belieiving this to be an eccumenical group, when in fact it’s a particular brand on protistantism and they’re going to want you to leave your church and join up with their group.
L
ltwin
Guest
I’ve never heard of Barron, but what he says makes a lot of sense and puts into compact words something that I’ve thought for a while now.
N
novusCatholic
Guest
Fr. Barron has posted many videos on YouTube about faith and culture. You should check him out. Click here for Fr. Baron’s “Word on Fire” YouTube page.I’ve never heard of Barron, but what he says makes a lot of sense and puts into compact words something that I’ve thought for a while now.
Now back to the conversation…
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
Back to the topic please.
R
racing59
Guest
I skimmed through this thread, but must admit, I did not read everyones post. To me Non-Denominational would be what I am. I refure to myself a a Christian, but do not subscribe to any particular denomination. I follow the Word of God, Jesus Christ and Scripture. I do not consider myself Protestant, because I do not protest against any Church, even RCC. I see beauty in the Mass, I see beauty in a Chritian service. I have found many( Not all) RCR, find may way of viewing the Church, as the Body of Christ, being people and not in any particular instatution, slightly offensive.Then every one gets in debate of petra, petros,and Kepha. I’m not here to tell any one what to believe. I believe in the Trinity, Father, Son(Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit. Many mainstream denominations have a hang up when it comes to the Holy Spirit, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and us being Body, Soul, and Spirit, the annointed of Jesus Christ. That his sacrifice on the Cross was complete atoinment for all sin for those that believe.Being Non-Denominational is looking into the power Christ gave to all of us, his Church. It isn’t to try to take something away from any one else church, but to come to understand that all Christian have the Holy Spirit, dwelling within their spirit. It is a free gift we all have, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, all this was purchased on the Cross. We are all one third Holy Spirit, we can tape into that power through the Blood of Jesus. Elijah and Elisha understood this in the OT even before Jesus came down( The Word made flesh John 1:1-14). Jesus instituded this power to all the church.He told the 70 who were not Apostles to go out and preform miracles. Non_Denominationals are not protesting any one, we believe strongly in the power and gifts Jesus gave to all, to go out and preform miracles in Jesus name in the power of the Holy Spirit.
L
ltwin
Guest
Sounds like you are non-denominational charismatic or full gospel then. I’d steer clear of claiming that all non-denominationals believe what you said above. They don’t. Many non-denominational churches don’t have a Pentecostal/charismatic bone in their body.I skimmed through this thread, but must admit, I did not read everyones post. To me Non-Denominational would be what I am. I refure to myself a a Christian, but do not subscribe to any particular denomination. I follow the Word of God, Jesus Christ and Scripture. I do not consider myself Protestant, because I do not protest against any Church, even RCC. I see beauty in the Mass, I see beauty in a Chritian service. I have found many( Not all) RCR, find may way of viewing the Church, as the Body of Christ, being people and not in any particular instatution, slightly offensive.Then every one gets in debate of petra, petros,and Kepha. I’m not here to tell any one what to believe. I believe in the Trinity, Father, Son(Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit. Many mainstream denominations have a hang up when it comes to the Holy Spirit, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and us being Body, Soul, and Spirit, the annointed of Jesus Christ. That his sacrifice on the Cross was complete atoinment for all sin for those that believe.Being Non-Denominational is looking into the power Christ gave to all of us, his Church. It isn’t to try to take something away from any one else church, but to come to understand that all Christian have the Holy Spirit, dwelling within their spirit. It is a free gift we all have, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, all this was purchased on the Cross. We are all one third Holy Spirit, we can tape into that power through the Blood of Jesus. Elijah and Elisha understood this in the OT even before Jesus came down( The Word made flesh John 1:1-14). Jesus instituded this power to all the church.He told the 70 who were not Apostles to go out and preform miracles. Non_Denominationals are not protesting any one, we believe strongly in the power and gifts Jesus gave to all, to go out and preform miracles in Jesus name in the power of the Holy Spirit.
R
racing59
Guest
Hi Itwin, sorry I must correct you, I never said all Non-Denominationals believe the way I believe. All the Non Denominational churches I have attended do believe Jesus left us the gifts of the Holy Spirit. I can not answer for all Non denominational churches, about the same as a RCC member answering for every single parish or member. Every one has a diffrent level of spirituality, I have seen this in diffrent RCC parishes and different churches period. The OP question was “What is a Non Denominational Church?” I was only answering that question by my personal experences. I can give a list of Non- Denominational churches that believe what I said. If it sounds Charasmatic to you, I’m sure there are Charasmatics in RCC also. I saw a show, on the Church Channel that had a Charasmatic Catholic priest.In my experence, Charasmatics are very controversual in RCC and appears to me even fround upon by many mainstream Catholics. You need to be carefull telling some one their beliefs are. You stating sounds like Full Gospel, Penticostal/ Charimatic. There i nothing wrong with their beliefs, personaly I follow Jesus, his Word, the Holy Spirit. If that sounds like a denomination it is not. It is the Body of Christ, the People in His Church, which includes all Christian Faiths. It is not exclusive, it is all inclusive.
L
ltwin
Guest
I meant no offense. I just think that in a world where there are a billion Christians, labels are helpful. The reality is that while it is true that every genuine Christian is a member of the body of Christ, beliefs matter. We might be Christians, but we believe different things among ourselves. I believe we should be honest about that and try to understand where we differ so that we can better appreciate where we agree. So, I don’t think labels are divisive if they describe actual differences. Divisions are divisive, but they are a reality among us. I just think that labels help us to situate and understand where people are coming from.Hi Itwin, sorry I must correct you, I never said all Non-Denominationals believe the way I believe. All the Non Denominational churches I have attended do believe Jesus left us the gifts of the Holy Spirit. I can not answer for all Non denominational churches, about the same as a RCC member answering for every single parish or member. Every one has a diffrent level of spirituality, I have seen this in diffrent RCC parishes and different churches period. The OP question was “What is a Non Denominational Church?” I was only answering that question by my personal experences. I can give a list of Non- Denominational churches that believe what I said. If it sounds Charasmatic to you, I’m sure there are Charasmatics in RCC also. I saw a show, on the Church Channel that had a Charasmatic Catholic priest.In my experence, Charasmatics are very controversual in RCC and appears to me even fround upon by many mainstream Catholics. You need to be carefull telling some one their beliefs are. You stating sounds like Full Gospel, Penticostal/ Charimatic. There i nothing wrong with their beliefs, personaly I follow Jesus, his Word, the Holy Spirit. If that sounds like a denomination it is not. It is the Body of Christ, the People in His Church, which includes all Christian Faiths. It is not exclusive, it is all inclusive.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Peace,
It is the denomination of “non”…I look at it this way
We are born male and female.
To call a female a non-male is the same as calling her female…it does not change the sexuality.
The “non” group are trying to say we are not a denomination…Oh Yes You are…just do a search for the “denomination of non”…
It is a Protestant group that for the most part is distant from Protestant thought and may or may not be dispensational…just me, Jesus and the Bible…an attempt to coerce those that do not know that it is Protestant in nature into Protestant thought…just examine a statement of Faith from a non-denominational Church and you will see…
Faith alone
Scripture alone…
L
ltwin
Guest
Many non-denominational churches will openly admit they are Protestant. It isn’t an attempt to trick anyone, but to accurately reflect that the church is not affiliated with any larger denominational body like the SBC, the AG, the UMC, etc.
- Status