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

[LaughingBoy1503]

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?

My Grandmother would disagree. I have heard her say many times that Christianity is not a religion. It is a Faith. “I don’t have a religion. I have a Faith. A religion is just a bunch of people who get together that believe the same thing” May not make sense, and I don’t agree with it but that is what I was always told growing up by her. Just my personal experience. Not trying to make a point of any kind. But yeah, I believe Christianity is a religion.

 

[Lek]

So walk me through this process, Lek, of how the early Christian church determined which books belong in the NT.

If we follow your model, which is a group as a “collective” discerned the canon…how did this work?

The letters and books that were included in the new testament were written by apostles or those closely associated with the apostles and were read and distributed among the various church bodies. As far as I can see, they came into into use in the churches without a magisterium dictating to them which writings they were to use. These writings were carried on through the first few centuries by the local churches. When the church came together to examine all the various writings they made decisions about whether these were authentically traceable to the apostles, had been in use by the churches up to that time, and if they agreed with one another. There were no different denominations at the time. These were the forefathers of all christians today; not just those who call themselves catholic. Obviously, the Holy Spirit was work in the church during this process, as he is always, but none of this would make me come to the conclusion that there is a group of leaders in the church that have the power arbitrarily define doctrine and establish morally binding laws for the church members. God is always using his church and leading them to further his kingdom. Look at all those who have come to Christ through the efforts of catholic and protestant missionaries and lay people.

 

[Lek]

Indeed. So would the Catholic Church.

But that still doesn’t solve the problem of how one discerns a correct belief from an incorrect belief.

If all one needs is the Bible and the Holy Spirit, it would appear using your paradigm that everyone can profess anything, and it would all be correct.

You would not be able to tell someone, “That is not a correct interpretation of the Bible” because all she has to do is say, “How do you know? I’m doing the exact same thing you did. I just came to a different interpretation. I prayed and read the Bible, and I believe that it is an abomination to have musical instruments in church services and any service that has one is paying homage to the devil.” And then she quotes a Bible verse to you that putatively supports this.

I don’t know if my beliefs are totally correct. I know what the bible says concerning my beliefs. I know that Jesus commanded me to be baptized, and I support infant baptism, but I can’t say for sure that someone who believes in “believers baptism” is incorrect. Both of us follow Jesus’ command to be baptized and are both followers of Christ. Jesus purposely didn’t say at which time to baptize, and maybe it doesn’t matter. Most baptisms in the new testament, where the timing was clearly defined, happened immediately after an individual had come to faith. The same reasoning applies to other matters of faith, in which the bible doesn’t make a clear statement concerning specific aspects of the doctrine. We are told to come together with other believers. It doesn’t say which day or how often. It also doesn’t say how often to come together for the lord’s supper, but we do know these are things we should do because the bible tells us to do so. When we do these things, we are obeying the word of God. I still have some other things to reply to, but I have to go for now.

 

[PRmerger]

The letters and books that were included in the new testament were written by apostles or those closely associated with the apostles and were read and distributed among the various church bodies.

Who wrote Hebrews?

 

[frobert]

So walk me through this process, Lek, of how the early Christian church determined which books belong in the NT.

if you study the history of Christianity, which you most likely have, you know that it was much more complicated than you want to admit. There were rival christain groups with winners and losers that resulted in catholicism, as we know it, becoming the state religion of the Roman Empire.

 

[PRmerger]

if you study the history of Christianity, which you most likely have, you know that it was much more complicated than you want to admit. There were rival christain groups with winners and losers that resulted in catholicism, as we know it, becoming the state religion of the Roman Empire.

More complicated than I “want to admit”?

Er, no. I haven’t admitted anything regarding its complexity or simplicity, frobert.

I have made no statement whatsoever about that.

 

[PRmerger]

As far as I can see, they came into into use in the churches without a magisterium dictating to them which writings they were to use.

Please tell me how this model worked. Did the “collective body” come together and vote on what texts to read?

Or was there a group of presbyters/elders who had received the kerygma, proclaimed it orally, discerned which of the over 400 early Christian writings were consonant with their preaching (that is, the Oral Tradition), and distributed these readings to their local churches?

 

[badnewsbarrett]

why don’t they just ‘pick’ the church that Jesus started, and be done with it? if they love Him, don’t they want to obey Him?

Maybe it’s because Jesus started a church in the Middle East, specifically Jerusalem, and in the time between then and now there’s barely any Christians in that entire region and hardly any Western church-going availability that links directly back to that region. Also, perhaps this person lives in America and goes to church with Americans and doesn’t know any Christians of Middle Eastern descent.

Although non-denominational people are relatively more likely to get involved with Messianic Judaism, so maybe that is being done in an effort to fulfill a perfectly honorable desire to connect with the roots of Christianity.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

“I’m Christian, I don’t believe in a label, I’m Christian and believe in Jesus.”, sometimes they seem defensive.

Speaking as an Evangelical and a non-denominational Christian, I think I can help you with the thought process that tends to happen. If you’re talking to someone like me, I am probably making some assumptions about why you question me so, and these assumptions may or may not be correct. But here is what they are.

Assumption one- you are asking me for a more specific label so that you can associate me with a particular group of Christians in a historical context. Once you do that, I somehow doubt that you are going to say a bunch of nice things about that group of Christians. I would probably tend to assume that you want to pigeonhole me and then find things to say about a particular group that are critical. I might even tell you I don’t like being pigeonholed, which I realize is a purely pejorative term and no one really goes up to someone with the goal of pigeonholing in their mind.

Assumption two- I might think of you as someone who is fishing for sectarian dirt. Or maybe I don’t even know that much about sectarianism. I remember when I was still in middle school, and I was participating in a broadly multi-church event for a particular charity. As I was mingling and talking with people, I started a conversation with a middle-aged man from another church, if he gave me any clues as to which one I can’t remember, and we sort of cut that part of the conversation short before we got there. I do remember that he asked me what sect I belonged to- “What sect are you a part of?” he said. And I remember saying “Ummmm, ahhh, it’s non-denominational, does that answer your question?” And he said, “No, I mean, what sect is it, sect- I’m sorry, maybe that’s a bad question.” And he kind of looked like he regretted getting into this with a kid as young as I was. So I said “No, wait, what did you mean by sect? I’ve heard the word but I haven’t really talked about it or broken down what it means for me.” And he basically said never mind, I just thought of something else we could be talking about, it means what branch of Christianity or maybe what part of Christianity broke off into another part but let’s quickly transition to a different topic.

That was kind of a long story, but it gets to a family of sect-related assumptions. First and foremost, it may be good to understand this- I did find out a lot more about sects and sectarianism as I got older, but not all non-denom people do that so much. When you ask a question that seems to be angled that way, that might be taking them into unfamiliar territory. They don’t know exactly what sects have to do with them, and they either don’t feel like they want to or have to. The second possibility is that they do know quite a bit about sects and sectarianism, but they are quite sure that the negative meaning tied to sectarian (a division resulting from conflict) has nothing to do with their particular church.

Additionally, if a line of denominational questioning turns sectarian in nature, it is probably good to familiarize yourself with the full range of what sect/sectarian can mean. Specifically, it can mean a narrow-minded and bigoted person, which tends to be the exact opposite of the mindset that a big-tent-Christianity non-denominational person tends to have. If that is the case (and it likely is), you may find that this person feels that they are being asked to define themselves on the basis of what they reject and disagree with instead of the thing that they generally like to do as a life goal- embrace all of Christianity and all Christians as much as they are able to do.

I hope this helps clarify one or two things, at least.

 

[PRmerger]

Speaking as an Evangelical and a non-denominational Christian, I think I can help you with the thought process that tends to happen. If you’re talking to someone like me, I am probably making some assumptions about why you question me so, and these assumptions may or may not be correct. But here is what they are.

Assumption one- you are asking me for a more specific label so that you can associate me with a particular group of Christians in a historical context. Once you do that, I somehow doubt that you are going to say a bunch of nice things about that group of Christians. I would probably tend to assume that you want to pigeonhole me and then find things to say about a particular group that are critical. I might even tell you I don’t like being pigeonholed, which I realize is a purely pejorative term and no one really goes up to someone with the goal of pigeonholing in their mind.

Assumption two- I might think of you as someone who is fishing for sectarian dirt. Or maybe I don’t even know that much about sectarianism. I remember when I was still in middle school, and I was participating in a broadly multi-church event for a particular charity. As I was mingling and talking with people, I started a conversation with a middle-aged man from another church, if he gave me any clues as to which one I can’t remember, and we sort of cut that part of the conversation short before we got there. I do remember that he asked me what sect I belonged to- “What sect are you a part of?” he said. And I remember saying “Ummmm, ahhh, it’s non-denominational, does that answer your question?” And he said, “No, I mean, what sect is it, sect- I’m sorry, maybe that’s a bad question.” And he kind of looked like he regretted getting into this with a kid as young as I was. So I said “No, wait, what did you mean by sect? I’ve heard the word but I haven’t really talked about it or broken down what it means for me.” And he basically said never mind, I just thought of something else we could be talking about, it means what branch of Christianity or maybe what part of Christianity broke off into another part but let’s quickly transition to a different topic.

That was kind of a long story, but it gets to a family of sect-related assumptions. First and foremost, it may be good to understand this- I did find out a lot more about sects and sectarianism as I got older, but not all non-denom people do that so much. When you ask a question that seems to be angled that way, that might be taking them into unfamiliar territory. They don’t know exactly what sects have to do with them, and they either don’t feel like they want to or have to. The second possibility is that they do know quite a bit about sects and sectarianism, but they are quite sure that the negative meaning tied to sectarian (a division resulting from conflict) has nothing to do with their particular church.

Additionally, if a line of denominational questioning turns sectarian in nature, it is probably good to familiarize yourself with the full range of what sect/sectarian can mean. Specifically, it can mean a narrow-minded and bigoted person, which tends to be the exact opposite of the mindset that a big-tent-Christianity non-denominational person tends to have. If that is the case (and it likely is), you may find that this person feels that they are being asked to define themselves on the basis of what they reject and disagree with instead of the thing that they generally like to do as a life goal- embrace all of Christianity and all Christians as much as they are able to do.

I hope this helps clarify one or two things, at least.

I think the main reason it is asked is because we want to know what your beliefs are. Do you believe in Sunday worship? Soul sleep? Liturgical worship? Female pastors? Infant baptism?

Identifying helps clarify things. Or, at least narrow it down and eliminate some beliefs.

 

[Lek]

Please tell me how this model worked. Did the “collective body” come together and vote on what texts to read?

Or was there a group of presbyters/elders who had received the kerygma, proclaimed it orally, discerned which of the over 400 early Christian writings were consonant with their preaching (that is, the Oral Tradition), and distributed these readings to their local churches?

Because God worked through his church to ensure that we have a new testament, and that a certain group of christians gathered together with the purpose of coming up with a canon, it doesn’t follow that the church can make infallible proclamations concerning the interpretation of doctrine and make morally binding laws on members. God also brought forth prophets to write the old testament. He uses the church for his purposes and he was obviously guiding the church in the formation of the bible canon.

 

[PRmerger]

Because God worked through his church to ensure that we have a new testament, and that a certain group of christians gathered together with the purpose of coming up with a canon, it doesn’t follow that the church can make infallible proclamations concerning the interpretation of doctrine and make morally binding laws on members. God also brought forth prophets to write the old testament. He uses the church for his purposes and he was obviously guiding the church in the formation of the bible canon.

Let’s make this clear. This “certain group” of Christians was not the collective body of all Christians, right?

It was a special group of men–presbyters (AKA elders or bishops), right?

 

[Lek]

Let’s make this clear. This “certain group” of Christians was not the collective body of all Christians, right?

It was a special group of men–presbyters (AKA elders or bishops), right?

The participants of the councils that announced the canon may have been elders and bishops, but they were not defining doctrine, but were rather ratifying what had already become accepted by the church over the years. Again, because this “certain group” was chosen for this task, it doesn’t follow that there is a magisterium who has authority to define all doctrine and make morally binding laws for the laity. Because the apostles in the Book of Acts chose a group of men, including Stephen, to oversee the daily distribution to the widows, it doesn’t mean that every church will have a group of individuals with the task of overseeing a distribution to widows. They were chosen by the apostles for a specific task. The participants in the formalization process were also performing a specific task–to put together a new testament canon, which had already been brought forth by the church as a whole. I see the church as the totality of the followers of Christ with Jesus as its head. You seem to view it as an institution with a structured hierarchy to govern it.

 

[PRmerger]

The participants of the councils that announced the canon may have been elders and bishops, but they were not defining doctrine, but were rather ratifying what had already become accepted by the church over the years. Again, because this “certain group” was chosen for this task, it doesn’t follow that there is a magisterium who has authority to define all doctrine and make morally binding laws for the laity. Because the apostles in the Book of Acts chose a group of men, including Stephen, to oversee the daily distribution to the widows, it doesn’t mean that every church will have a group of individuals with the task of overseeing a distribution to widows. They were chosen by the apostles for a specific task. The participants in the formalization process were also performing a specific task–to put together a new testament canon, which had already been brought forth by the church as a whole. I see the church as the totality of the followers of Christ with Jesus as its head. You seem to view it as an institution with a structured hierarchy to govern it.

Fair enough.

I hope that through this discussion you have been able to see a few things about your belief system:

1. You are NOT a Bible Alone advocate. This is manifested through your acknowledgement that there are numerous things you believe that are NOT found in the Bible–one in particular is the canon of the NT.
2. You believe that God can guide men to some truths. And you submit to the decision these men made.

 

[Lek]

Fair enough.

I hope that through this discussion you have been able to see a few things about your belief system:

1. You are NOT a Bible Alone advocate. This is manifested through your acknowledgement that there are numerous things you believe that are NOT found in the Bible–one in particular is the canon of the NT.
2. You believe that God can guide men to some truths. And you submit to the decision these men made.

Okay. Thanks for the good discussion.

 

[PRmerger]

Okay. Thanks for the good discussion.

Well, there’s still a lot of unanswered questions I have for you!

 

[PRmerger]

The participants of the councils that announced the canon may have been elders and bishops, but they were not defining doctrine, but were rather ratifying what had already become accepted by the church over the years.

Can you now acknowledge that you are a believer in Sacred Tradition?

Bible Alone advocates seem to reject that the Word of God was given to us in 2 forms: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

And yet what you profess above that there was a set of teachings or doctrines that had “become accepted by the Church over the years” is nothing more than a profession of belief in Sacred Tradition.

You are willing to acknowledge this, yes?

 

[Lek]

Can you now acknowledge that you are a believer in Sacred Tradition?

Bible Alone advocates seem to reject that the Word of God was given to us in 2 forms: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

And yet what you profess above that there was a set of teachings or doctrines that had “become accepted by the Church over the years” is nothing more than a profession of belief in Sacred Tradition.

You are willing to acknowledge this, yes?

 

[PRmerger]

Because God worked through his church to ensure that we have a new testament, and that a certain group of christians gathered together with the purpose of coming up with a canon, it doesn’t follow that the church can make infallible proclamations concerning the interpretation of doctrine and make morally binding laws on members. God also brought forth prophets to write the old testament. He uses the church for his purposes and he was obviously guiding the church in the formation of the bible canon.

Just wondering where you get the idea that God worked through his Church–granting them the charism of infallibility in discerning the canon of the NT–but stopped using the Church for this.

When did He stop?

Because the canon was discussed at the Council of Rome in 382; the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).

So God “worked with His Church” at these councils, with different bishops, and because of that we have the assurance and CERTITUDE that what the discerned was correct, right? (You have the assurance that the Gospel of Mark is theopneustos but that the Gospel of Barnabas is not…and you are quite certain of this, right?)

But He stopped administering this charism to His Body after the council of Trent? Is that your position?

 

[Lek]

Can you now acknowledge that you are a believer in Sacred Tradition?

Bible Alone advocates seem to reject that the Word of God was given to us in 2 forms: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

And yet what you profess above that there was a set of teachings or doctrines that had “become accepted by the Church over the years” is nothing more than a profession of belief in Sacred Tradition.

You are willing to acknowledge this, yes?

Now I understand why you asked me who the writer of Hebrews was. If I accept that Hebrews is inspired and he wasn’t an apostle, then I must accept either that the writer was passing on knowledge that he had received from an apostle or that he was directly inspired by God. Since it can’t definitely be traced to an apostle, it’s authority must be established through church tradition. Very good. Let me ponder that.