What is Non-Denominational?

[JustaServant]

Steve & Manual,

I think we have the makings of genius. All we do is sit down and write the play…

We contact Stone and Parker and we call it…

Non-denominational…A Tower of Babylon Reprise…

Opening act…

Guy wandering down the streets of New York…Time Square…there on the billboard is The Book of Mormon…and then cut to the corner…the guy in his drawers, the singing cowboy…singing…to the tune of Amen…

I’m a Non…sing it brother
I’m a Non…come on over

Non, Non, Non, Non, Non…

And the guy answers back…singing to the to the tune of the Animals Don’t let me be misunderstood…

Hey man…do you understand me now…

I’m just a man whose intentions are good
you singing there…don’t let me be misunderstood…

Do you think we have a hit?

Sounds more like a rap song.

 

[CopticChristian]

I do indeed. :clapping::clapping::clapping:

Steve,

As co-producer what works better

Tower of Babylon reprise

or

Tower of Babel reprise

Hooray for Hollywood,…dah, dah, dah, dah, dah,dah, dah Hollyyyyywood…:extrahappy::clapping:

and the winner of the award for the best Off Broadway musical is…

 

[SteveVH]

Steve,

As co-producer what works better

Tower of Babylon reprise

or

Tower of Babel reprise

Hooray for Hollywood,…dah, dah, dah, dah, dah,dah, dah Hollyyyyywood…:extrahappy::clapping:

and the winner of the award for the best Off Broadway musical is…

I think the word “Babel” speaks volumes and would be the most appropriate.

I can already picture an episode on the meaning of “non”. Comparisons could be made between the Catholic sense of scripture and the non-sense of scripture. Only when one understands the “non” does nonsense begin to make sense.

 

[ltwin]

4Square,

I understand. Since the posting is about Non-Denominational and Abide with me has stated that Itwin has summarized everything so well…I took the time to review all of Itwins postings and see things clearly.

Itwin tells us what the Church is from Itwins point of view…

Itwin then states that labeling someone in these groups Protestant would be better served by asking what they believe and states that there a variety of beliefs.

Itwin says that they have a recognizable theology suggesting that the denononation of non is a denomination with a theology

Itwin also tells me that with that identifiable theology they are always Protestant

Itwin says that Protestants denominate…

Itwin then says that there is unsurety about denominating

Itwin has referred to the denomination of non as Protestant and uses the word over and over and then states “whatever that means”…

Itwin then declares what Protestanism is

Itwin earlier stated that the Church is the way by which slavation is known and by the following explanation has an exclusive definition that applies to Itwins theology.

Itwin then says that the Full Gospel Church is not the one true church, however if they are part of the Universal Church as Itwin describes, being a part must mean they are part of the whole and then what does this mean as to the Universal Church described earlier?

Itwin then tells me that the Church of Christ is not a non-denomational Church but they share the same practices, same Bible Colleges and fellowship.

So I understand it quite well now. Non-denominationals are Protestant but you must ask them what they believe because the beliefs vary, meaning that they do not adhere to the Bible being the Pillar and foundation of Truth as there are many truths. The non are a denomination unto themselves as they have a recognizeable theology but share the same stuff as the Church of Christ that is not a non. They are part of the Universal Church that is the way that salvation is known but the reality of that being the true Church as defined by Itwin is in question because Full Gospel is not the true church and is part of the Universal Church that Itwin describes so I am left to wonder…but hey it is Protestant…

Whatever that means…

Funny, I never thought I’d ever be quoted in distorted sound bite fashion.

 

[CopticChristian]

Funny, I never thought I’d ever be quoted in distorted sound bite fashion.

Itwin,

You were not distorted in quotation. Go back and read your own posts. If I am reading anything, I should be able to go back and forth and make sense out of that reading. You may want to spend some time reading all of my posts. There is a logical stream of thought.

You contradict yourself and say things that do not have a logical stream. I read it. You wrote it.

I have no malice and in fact have a question for you.

By the way…can you sing or act?

 

[SteveVH]

Funny, I never thought I’d ever be quoted in distorted sound bite fashion.

You are completely free to correct the distortions.

 

[CopticChristian]

I think the word “Babel” speaks volumes and would be the most appropriate.

I can already picture an episode on the meaning of “non”. Comparisons could be made between the Catholic sense of scripture and the non-sense of scripture. Only when one understands the “non” does nonsense begin to make sense.

Steve…

Just an idea…to the tune of Amazing Technicolor dream Coat…andrew lloyd weber…Any Dream Will Do…

I closed my eyes…I saw the non-sense
I knew for certain what I would do
Far Far away I heard the pleading
But no one was heeding
everything I do…

I had my book…with golden lining
Bright colors finding…nothing new
In the East the truth was aching
The news was breaking
everything I do

then in the middle…some guy comes in with two books…and starts singing

No sense…non-sense…what am I to do

then to the tune of We are the Champions

They want my dues…
time and again
I’m sentenced to Bible study
and commited no crime
they make mistakes
I’ve made a few
I’ve had my share of lies kicked in my face
But we will come through

They shall not Champion…my friends…
We keep on fighting till it ends
they have the non-sense
we have the good sense
they shall not champion…the world…

Wada ya think…

 

[SteveVH]

Steve…

Just an idea…to the tune of Amazing Technicolor dream Coat…andrew lloyd weber…Any Dream Will Do…

I closed my eyes…I saw the non-sense
I knew for certain what I would do
Far Far away I heard the pleading
But no one was heeding
everything I do…

I had my book…with golden lining
Bright colors finding…nothing new
In the East the truth was aching
The news was breaking
everything I do

Wada ya think…

Awesome! You’re hired.

 

[ltwin]

Itwin,

You were not distorted in quotation. Go back and read your own posts. If I am reading anything, I should be able to go back and forth and make sense out of that reading. You may want to spend some time reading all of my posts. There is a logical stream of thought.

You contradict yourself and say things that do not have a logical stream. I read it. You wrote it.

I have no malice and in fact have a question for you.

By the way…can you sing or act?

It’s hard to be logical when the order in which they were written was rearranged into an illogical stream. My thoughts do have a logical stream. But I realize confusion can result sometimes. As an evangelical myself, sometimes I forget that what makes sense to me might not always make sense to a Catholic or other type of Christian. Let me clarify.

You quoted me from post #3, #16, and #37 suggesting I was contradicting myself on whether non-denominational churches had a coherent theology.

Post #3 is in response to a the OP saying that a friend did not like being described as Protestant. I suggested that instead of trying to figure out what kind of Protestant he or his church was that the OP ask the friend to describe the church. Then, possibly the OP could learn if this church was an unaffiliated Pentecostal/charismatic church or an unaffiliated Baptist church or a Church of Christ or some other type of church, perhaps an unaffiliated Reformed/Calvinist church or something else.

In post #16 and #37, I was suggesting that non-denominationals as a whole were evangelical Protestant. Evangelicalism is a broad term, there are different kinds of evangelicals. Two prominent groups I used as examples were Baptists and Pentecostals. Some non-denominational churches are unaffiliated Baptist. Some non-denoms are unaffiliated Pentecostal. But non-denoms are certainly not limited to these two theologies. I was also suggesting that internally each non-denom church has a recognizable theology (which anyone can see and discover if they stick around long enough). Some comments characterized non-denoms as believing in a make-it-up-as-you-go-along doctrine or that they just can’t seem to make up their minds. This is not true. If you go to a non-denominational church, you will find that the individual church itself (not the entire non-denom world) will express a clear doctrinal point of view.

Then you say:

Itwin then says that there is unsurety about denominating

I’ve said no such thing. I’ve only noted two different (but related) meanings of the same word. One sense of the word refers to “denominational families” and the other refers to individual church bodies.

You then take quote from my post #3 again and suggest I’m contradicting myself by saying that Protestantism has no definite meaning and then in other posts giving a definite meaning to Protestantism. In post #3, I wrote “whatever that means” because the word “Protestant” does not do a good job of describing a non-denominational church. Names like “Victory World Outreach Center” or “Community Church” give no clues as to what kind of Protestantism a church adheres to. However, a name like “Lutheran Church” or “1st Baptist” actually give clues. My point was that its not important whether the OP’s friend admits that he goes to a “Protestant Church” (we all know he does). Whats important is what kind of Protestant church it is. To find that out, you’d need to ask questions like I suggested.

The OP then asked if there was a definition for Protestantism. I provided one.

If you read my posts on the full gospel from a Protestant viewpoint, I’m sure anyone can understand it. But don’t try understanding using Catholic logic because it just wont make sense to you. You sort of have to live into your Protestant alter ego to understand that the name “Full Gospel” does not imply some exclusive perfect and infallible teaching institution.

About the Church of Christ comment, I think you’ve misunderstood what I wrote. I wrote,

See I think that’s where the confusion comes from. I don’t consider Churches of Christ “non-denominational”. To me, they are a (admittedly loosely organized) denomination (whether they use that term or not). They do (if I’m not mistaken) share the same practices and the same Bible colleges and they fellowship together. I reserve the non-denominational label for churches that are independent and not associated with a larger distinct group.

The bolded part is referring exclusively to Churches of Christ. I am specifically NOT including non-denominational churches in this. Churches of Christ articulate a coherent understanding of themselves as a distinct religious group despite their loose inter-church relationships. This is not the case for non-denominational churches.

Hope that helped.

 

[CopticChristian]

It’s hard to be logical when the order in which they were written was rearranged into an illogical stream. My thoughts do have a logical stream. But I realize confusion can result sometimes. As an evangelical myself, sometimes I forget that what makes sense to me might not always make sense to a Catholic or other type of Christian. Let me clarify.

You quoted me from post #3, #16, and #37 suggesting I was contradicting myself on whether non-denominational churches had a coherent theology.

Post #3 is in response to a the OP saying that a friend did not like being described as Protestant. I suggested that instead of trying to figure out what kind of Protestant he or his church was that the OP ask the friend to describe the church. Then, possibly the OP could learn if this church was an unaffiliated Pentecostal/charismatic church or an unaffiliated Baptist church or a Church of Christ or some other type of church, perhaps an unaffiliated Reformed/Calvinist church or something else.

In post #16 and #37, I was suggesting that non-denominationals as a whole were evangelical Protestant. Evangelicalism is a broad term, there are different kinds of evangelicals. Two prominent groups I used as examples were Baptists and Pentecostals. Some non-denominational churches are unaffiliated Baptist. Some non-denoms are unaffiliated Pentecostal. But non-denoms are certainly not limited to these two theologies. I was also suggesting that internally each non-denom church has a recognizable theology (which anyone can see and discover if they stick around long enough). Some comments characterized non-denoms as believing in a make-it-up-as-you-go-along doctrine or that they just can’t seem to make up their minds. This is not true. If you go to a non-denominational church, you will find that the individual church itself (not the entire non-denom world) will express a clear doctrinal point of view.

Then you say:

I’ve said no such thing. I’ve only noted two different (but related) meanings of the same word. One sense of the word refers to “denominational families” and the other refers to individual church bodies.

You then take quote from my post #3 again and suggest I’m contradicting myself by saying that Protestantism has no definite meaning and then in other posts giving a definite meaning to Protestantism. In post #3, I wrote “whatever that means” because the word “Protestant” does not do a good job of describing a non-denominational church. Names like “Victory World Outreach Center” or “Community Church” give no clues as to what kind of Protestantism a church adheres to. However, a name like “Lutheran Church” or “1st Baptist” actually give clues. My point was that its not important whether the OP’s friend admits that he goes to a “Protestant Church” (we all know he does). Whats important is what kind of Protestant church it is. To find that out, you’d need to ask questions like I suggested.

The OP then asked if there was a definition for Protestantism. I provided one.

If you read my posts on the full gospel from a Protestant viewpoint, I’m sure anyone can understand it. But don’t try understanding using Catholic logic because it just wont make sense to you. You sort of have to live into your Protestant alter ego to understand that the name “Full Gospel” does not imply some exclusive perfect and infallible teaching institution.

About the Church of Christ comment, I think you’ve misunderstood what I wrote. I wrote,

The bolded part is referring exclusively to Churches of Christ. I am specifically NOT including non-denominational churches in this. Churches of Christ articulate a coherent understanding of themselves as a distinct religious group despite their loose inter-church relationships. This is not the case for non-denominational churches.

Hope that helped.

Itwin,

You clarified and confirmed my summary. Thank you.

You did not answer the question as to whether you can sing and act?

 

[manualman]

I’m down with whimsical fun and song, but it’s too close to mocking in this case for my taste. I’m sure you guys didn’t mean it that way, but count me out. I stand by the Tower of Babel comment, but I mean that as sincere critique, not mocking.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m down with whimsical fun and song, but it’s too close to mocking in this case for my taste. I’m sure you guys didn’t mean it that way, but count me out. I stand by the Tower of Babel comment, but I mean that as sincere critique, not mocking.

Manual,

Then the singing and fun should stop.

 

[SteveVH]

Manual,

Then the singing and fun should stop.

 

[ManOnFire]

I’m down with whimsical fun and song, but it’s too close to mocking in this case for my taste.

I hear what you are saying, but all of this portable-entertainment-at-our-fingertips which has conditioned people means that our church needs to get Christ’s message across in a more down-to-earth and entertaining manner like many of the protestant churches. The message is just too sweet to be presented in a bland form relative to said pushbutton entertainment on demand.

 

[andrewstx]

To go back to the beginning I find members of “non-denominational” denominations offensive, along with people who charectorise themselves as “christians” only.

I kind of see where they are comming from, and it would be nice if there were no denominations, and just one church.

That is exactly what we have in the Catholic Church.

The “Non-denominational” people are mostly fundamental Protestants, which IS a mingling of different denominations. It’s just that plain.

The “Christians only” crowd is offesive because they are not just Christians Only, but often think they are the only Christians.

They have their own “Christian” subculture, with their own schools, universities, media, and retail outlets, and their own “christian” music.

You won’t find a complete Bible with all the books in a “christian” bookstore.

BTW they even print “Christian” yellow pages so you will know to avoid non-fundamentalist bussinesses.

Last weekend locally these “Christians only” had a rock festival called “Rock the Desert”, with tons of heavy metal and rap bands, the only thing Christian was the words, and you could not understand them!

 

[ltwin]

To go back to the beginning I find members of “non-denominational” denominations offensive, along with people who charectorise themselves as “christians” only.

I kind of see where they are comming from, and it would be nice if there were no denominations, and just one church.

That is exactly what we have in the Catholic Church.

The “Non-denominational” people are mostly fundamental Protestants, which IS a mingling of different denominations. It’s just that plain.

The “Christians only” crowd is offesive because they are not just Christians Only, but often think they are the only Christians.

They have their own “Christian” subculture, with their own schools, universities, media, and retail outlets, and their own “christian” music.

You won’t find a complete Bible with all the books in a “christian” bookstore.

BTW they even print “Christian” yellow pages so you will know to avoid non-fundamentalist bussinesses.

Last weekend locally these “Christians only” had a rock festival called “Rock the Desert”, with tons of heavy metal and rap bands, the only thing Christian was the words, and you could not understand them!

Why does that offend you? They are just labels. I’m not offended that the Catholic Church considers itself the “true” church. I personally don’t believe it, but I’m not offended that the Catholic Church believes that about itself. And if a Christian prefers to consider him or herself a “Christian only” without any adjectives then what is so wrong with that? As long as they treat me with respect why should I get offended over what they choose to call themselves?

 

[SteveVH]

Why does that offend you? They are just labels. I’m not offended that the Catholic Church considers itself the “true” church. I personally don’t believe it, but I’m not offended that the Catholic Church believes that about itself. And if a Christian prefers to consider him or herself a “Christian only” without any adjectives then what is so wrong with that? As long as they treat me with respect why should I get offended over what they choose to call themselves?

I don’t think the real issue is respect or tolerance. It is an objective truth that we are free to believe whatever we choose. This doesn’t offend me but I may very well think one is a fool for believing what they believe. And this is not just about labels. It is about the truth and therefore about one’s salvation. There are many who choose to believe that it really matters not what one believes, that we have a really understanding God and that he wouldn’t be so mean as to allow me to loose my salvation. But Christ told us that the road is narrow and there are few that find it. Yes, I believe in a merciful God and I believe that it is his desire that all be saved, just as he told us. But one who finds himself in mortal sin at the time of death may very well wish he had not believed in the error of “once saved - always saved” and had found a confessional instead.

The point is that non-Catholic Christians have found themselves, many times through no fault of their own, walking away from the truth promised to the Catholic Church and into error to one degree or another. The Church is not simply where we find salvation, but it is, in the truest sense, salvation itself because it is the Body of Christ and Jesus is its head. It is Christ’s presence on earth. So the farther one walks away, the greater the danger.

 

[ltwin]

I don’t think the real issue is respect or tolerance. It is an objective truth that we are free to believe whatever we choose. This doesn’t offend me but I may very well think one is a fool for believing what they believe. And this is not just about labels. It is about the truth and therefore about one’s salvation. There are many who choose to believe that it really matters not what one believes, that we have a really understanding God and that he wouldn’t be so mean as to allow me to loose my salvation. But Christ told us that the road is narrow and there are few that find it. Yes, I believe in a merciful God and I believe that it is his desire that all be saved, just as he told us. But one who finds himself in mortal sin at the time of death may very well wish he had not believed in the error of “once saved - always saved” and had found a confessional instead.

The point is that non-Catholic Christians have found themselves, many times through no fault of their own, walking away from the truth promised to the Catholic Church and into error to one degree or another. The Church is not simply where we find salvation, but it is, in the truest sense, salvation itself because it is the Body of Christ and Jesus is its head. It is Christ’s presence on earth. So the farther one walks away, the greater the danger.

That is all well and good. We should show concern for people we believe are in error. But that’s not what I got from the post. It seemed to me that instead of showing concern for people’s spiritual well being, the poster was just offended that someone would consider themselves non-denominational Christians or “Christian only” Christians. My point is as long as a person is not being offensive by their actions, what they choose to call themselves should not offend you. You are perfectly free to lead them into all truth, but why be offended because they choose to not give their version of Christianity a label?

 

[SteveVH]

That is all well and good. We should show concern for people we believe are in error. But that’s not what I got from the post. It seemed to me that instead of showing concern for people’s spiritual well being, the poster was just offended that someone would consider themselves non-denominational Christians or “Christian only” Christians. My point is as long as a person is not being offensive by their actions, what they choose to call themselves should not offend you. You are perfectly free to lead them into all truth, but why be offended because they choose to not give their version of Christianity a label?

What is offensive is when you tell someone that you are “Catholic” and they respond with, “Oh, I’m Christian”. When you belong to the original Christian Church with 2000 years of history and someone who belongs to a “church” that just rented out space in the mall last week tells you that they are just “Christian” and may question your claim to the title, yes, it gets a little offensive.

 

[CopticChristian]

That is all well and good. We should show concern for people we believe are in error. But that’s not what I got from the post. It seemed to me that instead of showing concern for people’s spiritual well being, the poster was just offended that someone would consider themselves non-denominational Christians or “Christian only” Christians. My point is as long as a person is not being offensive by their actions, what they choose to call themselves should not offend you. You are perfectly free to lead them into all truth, but why be offended because they choose to not give their version of Christianity a label?

Itwin,

So here we have the problem. The word Catholic is not in the Bible. The word Christian is not in the Bible. The word denomination is not in the Bible. The word non-denominational is not in the Bible. So here we have to resort to something Extra-biblical. The question becomes what extrabiblical source are you going to used to define and incur the meaning and what extrabiblical authority do you turn to? Let me know how you do with that in the world of non.