MrS–Why is that? So why don’t Protestants don’t like to be called Protestants? Because they don’t view themselves as “protesting” something? Or is it like a new wife who hates it when her husband tells her “you are just like your mother!” No matter if it is true or not, the young wife hates to be told that because she views herself as unique or different.
Of course they won’t TELL you that…but that’s what they think deep down. Its not a stereotype. I always thought my interpretation was more correct than the Methodist or Episcopalian down the street…or perhaps I should say the interpretation of ‘my Pastor’ at the time was closer to the ‘real’ interpretation of the Bible…and I found that true of other Protestants as well…
This is close to what I was going to post, so I won’t repeat.Non-denominational churches are really individual denominations in and of themselves. They are offshoots of offshoots of offshoots and, while they don’t expressly claim the theology of any mainline denomination, the theology espoused by the pastor is necessarily the theology embraced by the church.
In short, each pastor of each non-denominational church is pope of his own flock.
In Christ,
Nancy
CD4 said:
With all due respect mango, I think the misconceptions may come from you in a couple of areas.This is the single most repeated misconception that Roman Catholics have about Protestants.
I will repeat…for the last time.
WE DO NOT HAVE POPES. NO MAN IS INFALLIBLE NOR HAS INFALLIBLE TEACHINGS. ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALLED SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD!!!
deep breath in
I feel better now!
~mango~
I understand everything you say. I said what I said because of the “fall short” line.With all due respect mango, I think the misconceptions may come from you in a couple of areas.
I think it’s possible that you have a misconception about what papal infallibility is and is not. Since it has nothing whatsoever to do with sin, the fact that you equated the two leads me to believe that you misunderstand what infallibility is.
Also, I think you may misunderstand what I meant what I said that individual non-denominational pastore are popes of their own flocks. Again, it has nothing whatsoever to do with sin. The fact that you thought sin was pertinent to my comment leads me to believe that you misunderstood my comment. Let me explain.
Individual non-denominational pastors are the ultimate authority in their church. THEY decide what is true and false doctrine. THEY decide what is a true or false interpretation of scripture. The people in their churches are looking to THEM for the answers. They, in turn, look to the holy Spirit for guidance (I hope). There is no person in authority over them. They ARE the authority. When it comes to truth the buck stops with them. That is precisely how Catholics view the pope. It’s in this way that I mean that individual non-denominational pastors are popes of their own flocks.
If you feel I’m still holding a misconception in this regard please help me understand where my thinking is flawed. Thanks!
In Christ,
Nancy
You’re right, La C., evangelical is not a demonination. It is an approach to Christian beliefs that emphasizes the primacy and sufficiency of the Bible, – Sola Scripture – and a personal (direct and unmediated) relationship with Jesus Christ.
Your experience is different from mine. I remember once my husband mentioning to our Pastor at the time about something a certain tv Pastor had said. Our then Pastor said 'a little bit of truth mixed with error is a dangerous thing. So how could he claim the other person was in error without also claiming that what he he taught was correct? I have found this in various forms in almost every Protestant church I have attended. I remember another one when asked if a certain scripture could be interpreted a certain way it was met with…“No…it doesn’t mean that!” The conversation was shut down with NO discussion.
Wow, I love that point–a little bit of truth mixed with error is a dangerous thing. Dangerous because it is so hard to effectively counter. I think that is why it is so hard to counter some of the criticisms that other Christians make about Catholics and the Catholic Church. Thanks for sharing that anecdote. Your Pastor was insightful.
This is exactly why I could never convert to Roman Catholicism. I’d have to put my faith into a man made instituion, something I could not do (yes I realize we’re going to differ on the idea the the RCC isn’t man made in your eyes). I’m sorry that was your experience. That’s too bad.
The thing is…RC’s, for the most part, think more of these divisions than we do. Often times it is merely a difference in worship styles that divides us. We still are in communion with one another. Even if the division is over something theological, usually it’s not so bad that we don’t fellowship.
let me guess…crossroads in hyde park and vineyard in tri-county. yes, they are churches that are growing like crazy, but (and this is more for the crossroads folk) they have a variety of beliefs imbedded in the congregation. maybe it is because crossroads is such a young church (they just moved into their new building like 3 or 4 years ago and met in a school for about 10 years prior) and is so flashy (have you been in that building, it’s pretty cool in a “not trying to advertise crossroads” way of saying that) that many people are very new and don’t know exactly what to believe. crossroads is much more made up of “former” catholics (i say it that way because i doubt they ever really knew, believed, or practiced what the catholic church taught and i heard fr. pacwa say that would make them non-catholic). the pastors at crossroads don’t attack catholicism themselves but there are a few members there who like to state that they didn’t know Jesus in the catholic church but they found Him at crossroads. the vineyard, on the other hand (and there are 6 different vineyards in cincinnati alone, all with different views on certain issues especially catholicism so i am only talking about tri-county) doesn’t say anything negative about catholicism and has repeatedly partnered with catholic churches (especially in their servant evangelism, they have gone so far as to print cards with the name of the catholic church on them and directions and service times). they try very hard to discourage people from church hopping (i have known of a few people being told to continue to go to their home church and just get more involved). long story short, i would have a much bigger issue with crossroads than vineyard tri-county (i won’t go into the other vineyards in depth, but none of the other ones are as “friendly” to catholics except maybe the one in norwood). just some fyi for anyone else from cincinnati.
While I wouldn’t put things quite that way: most Protestants distiguish between ‘core’ doctrinal issues–such as one finds in the early creeds, though American-bred Protestant churches often reject the idea of ‘Creedalism’–and ‘peripheral’ issues. The Trinity is a core doctrinal issue; Eschatology is usually deemed a peripheral issue. Non-denominational churches–and the idea was tried at least as early as the Campbellite movement–are an attempt to communicate the core doctrines in a more relevant fashion while leaving the peripheral doctrines to the individual.
This is a rather unfair assumption. I’m not certain Protestants are any more irregular in their attendance than are Catholics. Protestants often go to church for up to three hours on Sunday morming (at least an hour of Sunday School, at least ninety minutes of worship services). They often attend Sunday and mid-week services which can last up to two hours. They are typically involved in other para-church ministries (cell-group home bible studies or prayer groups, for instance; or evangelization outreaches; or outreaches to the community; or general service to the church such as housekeeping–many Protestant churches don’t hire janitors or maintenance people) which can take between two and four hours per week. This in addition to personal devotions and so forth.
I suspect you’re describing churches in a town in general decline, which happened to already have a strong ethnically-Catholic presence. In the small Missouri town from whence I come-- the community is growing and the hundred year-old Christian, Baptist, Presbyterian, and similar churches all hold three morning services: an 8:00 AM and a 10:00 AM service for the general congregation, as well as a 10:00 AM ‘youth’ service; all are well-attended. This in addition to the evening and midweek worship services I mentioned earlier. In fact, it is the Catholic church which has trouble justifying it’s full-time priest and multiple worship services.
“Full Gospel” distinguishes from 'New Testament Christian Church". The ‘Full Gospel’ churches don’t want to imply that the Old Testament is totally irrelevant. The ‘New Testament’ churches see the New Testament as the sole rule-and-standard of Christian teaching and practice (though they revere the Old Testament as giving valuable insights into the background and symbology of the N.T.). These are theological terms, though I grant that not everyone who picks a double-jointed jawbreaker of a name for a church knows quite what they’re trying to really say.
I am pleased to report that Catholic homolists can be trusted by the faithful to cite accurately and in context, to the point where a presumption otherwise is entirely inappropriate.
flameburns623 said:
I attended churches that discouraged having fellowship with other churches…even though they were all Baptists. They were "Bob Jones’ Baptists and they didn’t want us to have fellowship with those "Jerry Fallwell’ Baptists…or Southern Baptists or anyone who had anything to do with Billy Grahm. Willow Creek and other non-denom Christians…forget about it. They called it 'secondary separation…and oddly enough…the other groups didn’t try to fellowship with us either.
At my non-denominational church and the many different youth groups I was involved in (including Campus Crusade and Youth for Christ), we always brought our own Bibles to services and meetings with us. This was partly for convenience (so that the church did not have to supply them for us), and partly so we could highlight, underline, and write in the margins during Bible studies. We almost all used the NIV version of the Bible, but we weren’t required to do so. So sometimes people would be reading out of various versions during the sermon. The pastor would acknowledge this by reading the verse in his own version (usually NIV) and then saying something along the lines of, “In some of your versions, it may say ‘this’ instead of ‘that’.”