why do some Christians reply to the question "What denomination are you?" with...

[Lek]

Ok. Then help me out here.

It really *sounded *like you were making the point, in response to my question about where the Bible tells us something is essential, that “strong statements” = essential beliefs. Homosexuality (is bad) is an essential belief because the Bible makes strong statements about it.

That wasn’t your point?

I didn’t mean that, but I an understand why it came across that way to you.

 

[Lek]

Well, that’s not the Catholic position. The Catholic position is that there are numerous interpretations.

There can be only true interpretation. Either it is the interpretation of the catholic church that is correct or some other interpretation is correct.

But one ought not take just 1 piece of the Word of God and ignore the rest.

We ought to take the Word of God in its entirety, no?

Here is how Catholicism proclaims we are saved:

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

By eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6)

By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By his Cross (Eph 2:16; Col 2:14)

And these all proceed from the working of the Holy Spirit in us when we believe and are baptized in Christ.

 

[Lek]

But, Lek, none of the above addresses this very important point: you object to the Catholic Church making some assertions regarding Scripture–she says, “This is the correct way to interpret Bible Verse A”.

You don’t think the Church should do this.

And yet you also say, “Lek believes that there is a correct way to interpret Bible Verse Z”.

Why do you reserve for yourself what you object to in the CC?

I don’t reserve that right for myself, but rather for the Holy Spirit who lives in me. The Spirit will reveal truth to me as I pursue it and on his time schedule. I do get what you are saying about identifying essential doctrines though. We must be careful about deciding that certain doctrines are necessary for salvation while others are not. Maybe I’m going too far in that respect. I’m sure that the pope and bishops that make up the magesterium have the Holy Spirit working in them, but not in a way that they an make infallible pronouncements concerning biblical doctrine and make morally binding rules for church members to follow. I still say that, when it comes down to it, you must accept their authority by faith, because there is no clear doctrine in the bible calling for it, just as we must accept the authority of scripture by faith.

 

[PRmerger]

I didn’t mean that, but I an understand why it came across that way to you.

Ok.

So how is it that you know whether something is an essential belief or not?

And can you give this list of essential beliefs, please?

 

[PRmerger]

There can be only true interpretation.

No. There can be many interpretations sometimes.

And these all proceed from the working of the Holy Spirit in us when we believe and are baptized in Christ.

Amen!

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t reserve that right for myself, but rather for the Holy Spirit who lives in me. The Spirit will reveal truth to me as I pursue it and on his time schedule. I do get what you are saying about identifying essential doctrines though. We must be careful about deciding that certain doctrines are necessary for salvation while others are not. Maybe I’m going too far in that respect. I’m sure that the pope and bishops that make up the magesterium have the Holy Spirit working in them, but not in a way that they an make infallible pronouncements concerning biblical doctrine and make morally binding rules for church members to follow. I still say that, when it comes down to it, you must accept their authority by faith, because there is no clear doctrine in the bible calling for it, just as we must accept the authority of scripture by faith.

If the magisterium is fallible, then how do you know that their decision on what books belong in the NT is correct?

Maybe they erred and the Gospel of John is not inspired.

Each and every time you quote from the NT you are saying that you’re not really sure that the Church got it right?

Is that your position?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t reserve that right for myself, but rather for the Holy Spirit who lives in me. The Spirit will reveal truth to me as I pursue it and on his time schedule. I do get what you are saying about identifying essential doctrines though. We must be careful about deciding that certain doctrines are necessary for salvation while others are not. Maybe I’m going too far in that respect. I’m sure that the pope and bishops that make up the magesterium have the Holy Spirit working in them, but not in a way that they an make infallible pronouncements concerning biblical doctrine and make morally binding rules for church members to follow. I still say that, when it comes down to it, you must accept their authority by faith, because there is no clear doctrine in the bible calling for it, just as we must accept the authority of scripture by faith.

So how is it that the HS works and lives in you, and allows you to make correct interpretations of Scripture, but not the Catholic magisterium?

I don’t understand that.

 

[Thorolfr]

If the magisterium is fallible, then how do you know that their decision on what books belong in the NT is correct?

Maybe they erred and the Gospel of John is not inspired.

Each and every time you quote from the NT you are saying that you’re not really sure that the Church got it right?

Is that your position?

I certainly have doubts that some parts of the Bible were inspired by God. For example, in 1 Samuel 15:1-3 it says: 1 Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

How could a just God tell the Israelites to commit genocide and kill not only the men but also the women and even the children and infants and animals? How could an infant have been guilty of anything? Maybe God did not inspire some of what is in Samuel. And if that is the case, maybe He didn’t inspire other parts of the Bible either.

 

[PRmerger]

I certainly have doubts that some parts of the Bible were inspired by God. For example, in 1 Samuel 15:1-3 it says: 1 Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

How could a just God tell the Israelites to commit genocide and kill not only the men but also the women and even the children and infants and animals? How could an infant have been guilty of anything? Maybe God did not inspire some of what is in Samuel. And if that is the case, maybe He didn’t inspire other parts of the Bible either.

So how do you determine whether something is inspired or not? What it the measuring stick you use for discernment?

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

Being a ex protestant (First non-denominational, then Pentecostal, back to non denominational with Pentecostal leanings then Lutheran, all while still unbaptized) I would say from my experience, it is simply out of Ignorance that God established just one church. To most non-denominational’s all that matters is that you believe in jesus and that you follow The Bible. Of course, for every denomination pointing fingers at another saying “You are not teaching “X” from The Bible Correctly” there are hundreds of other denominations pointing the same finger at them saying the same thing. To the overwhelming majority of protestants, The Church is a invisible thing made up of all Christians. That is it. Not something also visible that Christ left on Earth, like what Catholics believe.

Being someone who always told while growing up, by my Pentecostal grandmother “Religion wont save you” That is another guess of mine. Lots of non-denominationals view “religion” as a bad thing. Or even make up their own definition of Religion. Funny enough, I have never really heard anyone say that religion is what saves you. Protestant or Catholic lol.

Depending on my mood, I may just shine it on when someone give me the “Im just a Christian” answer, or I may tell them “Oh, you are a non-denominational. Well non-denominational, is a denomination” Like I said… depending on my mood

I have never met non-denominational that became non-denominational because they wanted to separate themselves from mainline Christian Churches because some mainline churches have come to accept gay marriage, abortion and other un-Christian things. Not once that I can think of. My experience has been that most non-denominations know very little about mainline Christian Churches. They may have heard of Baptists or even Methodists, but Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans? Nah. So that was interesting to hear for me. Im sure that does happen though.

 

[PRmerger]

Depending on my mood, I may just shine it on when someone give me the “Im just a Christian” answer,

But that’s really not saying anything at all about your beliefs.

If you met a man on a bus who told you he wanted to come preach at your church and he simply said, “I’m just a Christian”, would you let him?

(Please go with the hypothetical. There is no need to give specific negations, like, “I never ride on buses” or “I don’t talk to strange men” or “I don’t have the authority to tell people they can preach at my church”)

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

Paul spoke of christians being freed from the law, but it seems that catholics have given up their christain freedom and have traded one set of laws for another.

Well I don’t mean to be insulting either but I want you to think of this. I am a ex protestant. We follow The rules set forth by The Church that Christ left us. To many non-Catholic Christians it may look like we are simply following a bunch of rules that are a burden, or doing a bunch of things that we don’t really need to do. But what people have to understand is that devout Catholics are never the type that only want to do the bare minimum

When people decided those rules were too hard, or wrong by their own interpretation of Gods will, the end result was thousands of denominations with each people becoming their own pope. I have never felt more free that as a Catholic. Sure, it was easier to be a protestant, but I realized how arrogant to think that God would lead me into truth by my own personal interpretation of scripture or choosing a pastor and Church that interprets scripture the way I like. I have to take faith that The Church God used to GIVE US The Bible, will know better than me. If God does not work Through The Catholic Church any more than the average Christian who simply asks to be lead into all truth, then how do we know The books of The Bible are really God inspired? After all, whether people like it or not, History records the The New Testament cannot came from God THROUGH his Catholic Church. What if a new protestant Church is formed and The pastor says “I think the book of James and Jude are not God inspired” and he gets rid of them? All the while, saying it is ok because he asked God to lead him into all Truth?

 

[Faxero]

Being someone who always told while growing up, by my Pentecostal grandmother “Religion wont save you” That is another guess of mine. Lots of non-denominationals view “religion” as a bad thing. Or even make up their own definition of Religion. Funny enough, I have never really heard anyone say that religion is what saves you. Protestant or Catholic lol.

But…Christianity *is *a religion. It is self-contradictory for a Christian to voice such a statement. I’m not sure If should laugh or frown?

 

[ltwin]

Being a ex protestant (First non-denominational, then Pentecostal, back to non denominational with Pentecostal leanings then Lutheran, all while still unbaptized) I would say from my experience, it is simply out of Ignorance that God established just one church.

But that doesn’t make any sense. If they are ignorant of the fact that there is only one church, wouldn’t you expect them not to be defensive when asked about their denomination?

To most non-denominational’s all that matters is that you believe in jesus and that you follow The Bible. Of course, for every denomination pointing fingers at another saying “You are not teaching “X” from The Bible Correctly” there are hundreds of other denominations pointing the same finger at them saying the same thing. To the overwhelming majority of protestants, The Church is a invisible thing made up of all Christians. That is it. Not something also visible that Christ left on Earth, like what Catholics believe.

Well, not exactly. It is true that many non-denominational churches are evangelical churches and that evangelicals believe that all who profess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and have truly repented of their sins are part of the one Church, which is invisible. Nevertheless, evangelicals do believe in a visible church. The visible church is a congregation of faithful men and women in which the Word of God is preached. In other words, the visible church is the local church.

Being someone who always told while growing up, by my Pentecostal grandmother “Religion wont save you” That is another guess of mine. Lots of non-denominationals view “religion” as a bad thing. Or even make up their own definition of Religion. Funny enough, I have never really heard anyone say that religion is what saves you. Protestant or Catholic lol.

Well, like most words in the English language, “religion” can have multiple meanings. What many Christians object to when they say “Religion won’t save you” is that outward conformity and “adherence to an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods” will not save you no matter how faithful you are to such institutionalized religion. What saves is being truly converted into a disciple of Jesus Christ. When that happens, we won’t just conform outwardly to a religious system but we will be changed internally, God’s law will be written on our hearts.

Religion as defined in Merriam-Webster:

: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

:1
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Depending on my mood, I may just shine it on when someone give me the “Im just a Christian” answer, or I may tell them “Oh, you are a non-denominational. Well non-denominational, is a denomination” Like I said… depending on my mood

Well, you are using a rather restrictive definition of “denomination.” That word has come to mean a specific organization or “church body” with general rules and at least minimal subscription to basic shared beliefs that unites individual congregations together. Non-denominational churches are in fact non-denominational for their lack of affiliation or subordination to any higher level “church body.”

Church or denominational bodies or organizations can be structured in different ways. There are generally said to be 3 “pure” types of church polity: episcopal (probably purest in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches), presbyterian (which features a hierarchy of church councils consisting of lay and ordained elders: (local) church session, presbytery, synod, and General Assembly), or congregational (where congregational voting is practiced, like in the Southern Baptist Convention). Some denominations feature a hybrid of 2 or even all 3 of the “pure” church polity models.

I have never met non-denominational that became non-denominational because they wanted to separate themselves from mainline Christian Churches because some mainline churches have come to accept gay marriage, abortion and other un-Christian things. Not once that I can think of. My experience has been that most non-denominations know very little about mainline Christian Churches. They may have heard of Baptists or even Methodists, but Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans? Nah. So that was interesting to hear for me. Im sure that does happen though.

That poster is actually correct. You probably won’t find too many individuals who specifically left mainline churches for non-denominational ones for those reasons. Nevertheless, there is a broad historical trend that indeed has worked out that way.

Non-denominational churches are mainly either fundamentalist or evangelical in doctrinal orientation. The fundamentalists and evangelicals split from the mainline churches over the prevalence of modernist or liberal theology within those historic churches.

Look up the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy for some historical context if the topic interests you. This process of American Protestantism dividing between mainline and evangelical has occupied the entire 20th century.

 

[Lek]

Ok.

So how is it that you know whether something is an essential belief or not?

And can you give this list of essential beliefs, please?

I think that maybe you got me on that one. After pondering my thoughts on what is essential doctrine or not, the only one I can be sure about is having faith in Jesus Christ. If you have faith in Christ and truthfully seek him, God, through the Holy Spirit, will lead you to him.

 

[Lek]

If the magisterium is fallible, then how do you know that their decision on what books belong in the NT is correct?

Maybe they erred and the Gospel of John is not inspired.

Each and every time you quote from the NT you are saying that you’re not really sure that the Church got it right?

Is that your position?

No. That’s not my position. I believe that God worked through his church to ensure that the bible is made up of the correct inerrant books. I believe that process was still working when Luther removed the aprocypha from the bible which was translated into the words of the common people.

 

[Lek]

So how is it that the HS works and lives in you, and allows you to make correct interpretations of Scripture, but not the Catholic magisterium?

I don’t understand that.

If the members of the magisterium are christians, then the Holy Spirit does live in them. That doesn’t mean that he gives them the power to comprehend the full meaning of scripture any more than he gives it to you or me. I believe the christian life is a process of gaining understanding of God and becoming closer to him as we mature as christians. God commanded us to be baptized. If I follow his command, understand that to mean that we should wait until we reach the age of reason and make the decision to follow Christ to be baptized, will I be condemned because of that? If I participate in the lord’s supper as he commanded, but believe that he was using a metaphor when he spoke of his body and blood, will I be condemned to hell for that? I believe that even the apostles were possibly not aware of the doctrine of the Trinity when they died. Are they also condemned?

 

[Lek]

I certainly have doubts that some parts of the Bible were inspired by God. For example, in 1 Samuel 15:1-3 it says: 1 Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

How could a just God tell the Israelites to commit genocide and kill not only the men but also the women and even the children and infants and animals? How could an infant have been guilty of anything? Maybe God did not inspire some of what is in Samuel. And if that is the case, maybe He didn’t inspire other parts of the Bible either.

Maybe this perspective will help you out. Because of Adam’s sin we all received the sentence of death. Which is more cruel or unjust–to be killed quickly by the sword or to be burned at the stake, fed to hungry lions, or crucified, as happened to many of God’s followers. Or how about dying a slow, painful death from cancer or a serious injury, as christians and others do. The Amalekites opposed the Israelites at every turn and were bent on their destruction. In order for God to work out his plan for bringing forth the Messiah, he decided he would have to eliminate the Amalekites. Saul, by the way, decided to spare some, and this resulted in the survivors’ descendants coming back and attempting to exterminate the Israelites. Those Amalekites who may have been right with God, including the children, are with God now–the same as with anyone else who has died by any means.

 

[PRmerger]

I think that maybe you got me on that one. After pondering my thoughts on what is essential doctrine or not, the only one I can be sure about is having faith in Jesus Christ. If you have faith in Christ and truthfully seek him, God, through the Holy Spirit, will lead you to him.

So how do we know when a pastor is preaching something that is true and correct?

 

[PRmerger]

No. That’s not my position. I believe that God worked through his church to ensure that the bible is made up of the correct inerrant books. I believe that process was still working when Luther removed the aprocypha from the bible which was translated into the words of the common people.

So you do believe, under the assistance of the Holy Spirit, that decisions can be made by people that were without error?