"Non Denominational Church"

[Traveling teacher]

Wasnt the Nt churches authority divided between the 12 but mainly 3-4 paul. Peter james and John

1. James led the jerusalem church..wrote to the 12 tribes scattered...james 1
2. Paul founded and led corinth , reestablished ephesus and others in greece and assi minor(turkey)
3. John went after into asia minor..ephesus
4. Peter....went to eastern turkey.....babylon
But also visited corinth.......
1 peter 1:1....1 peter 1:13
5. Rome maybe founded by aquilla and pricscilla
And reestablished by paul
Acts. 18:2

 

[klutedavid]

Over the last two to three decades this term has been used to draw people into these churches because they don't want to be connected to a denomination convention for good reason, since really when you think about it there are no denominations in scripture, however that being said if a church hires a pastor out of seminary which is not found in scripture as well, the theology of that seminary becomes the denomination for the church that pastor heads up.

Basically everything that man was taught at his seminary, he will be beholden to as he instructs his congregation.

The important thing for each one of us is does the message we hear line up with God's Word? Also never put your trust in any man but in Christ our Savior and his spoken Word.

John 14:26 (KJV)
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Hello Rem.

You said the following.

The important thing for each one of us is does the message we hear line up with God's Word?

The problem with that statement Rem, is that we are all indoctrinated into a specific interpretation of the scripture. It would be a rare Christian who could see the flaws in their own church theology, Martin Luther was one such fellow.

The other problem is the ability to read the scripture and be able to understand it. The Bible is an immense book, a book that often is difficult to understand. I have yet to this day, been able to observe just one person who has the perfect set of Biblical doctrines.

There seems to be a multitude of interpretations out there. I do believe that we all carry faulty doctrines, woven into what we believe to be the truth.

To not trust another person is impossible for a younger Christian, you must start somewhere after all.

 

[shioks]

Incorrect, the true Church is the Catholic Church. Period.

Your scriptures came from that Church in the late 4th century. Without it, you would have no Bible, nor know which books were true or false, nor know that God is a trinity, Jesus had 2 natures, ect.

You mean the Church built by Roman Emperor Constantine?

 

[prodromos]

You mean the Church built by Roman Emperor Constantine?

Emperor Constantine didn't build any Church. He enabled the first Ecumenical Council to be held but had no influence over the decisions of that council.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Emperor Constantine didn't build any Church. He enabled the first Ecumenical Council to be held but had no influence over the decisions of that council.

Here is a really enlightening article from Wikipedia regarding the role of the Emperor Constantine in relation to Christianity - Constantine the Great and Christianity - Wikipedia

 

[Blade]

I guess its what your looking at. Well I can go to a Baptist Church and see Jesus. I can then go to a Word of Faith Church and see Jesus. Now.. there are things being said that I may not agree with yet I still can see Jesus. It HE I am looking for, listening to. We tend to believe if something is not being said taught OUT way of thinking, believing that whole Church/Denomination is bad. As if our way of believing is the true 100% gospel

You do understand Jesus and the 12 were not Baptist nor all the way to Word of Faith nor Catholics right? They didnt have the Catholic bible or the KJV. They had the Torah and only a few could even have that. There is so much today being said and taught that was never even spoken of back then.

Its not our truth..its not our word. Its Him..its HIS..it is one. We just ADD to what He said.

One should always go to a Church that is always speaking the word. What is written. Jesus is REAL!

I give you this as a encouragement. When you have questions.. dont know or understand. To WHOM do you got to 1st? Do you know and believe just praying asking HIM that HE will answer you? Is what you believe, did it come by man or Him? Do you believe because so and so said? This is great but in the end thats all you get. Just what they believe. We all need to work out our own salvation. Jesus is real. You are one of HIS sheep. And as that sheep you KNOW His voice. And when He talks He always makes sure you know where its written. And what you personally believe effects everything. So.. ask HIM! This GOD is IN YOU with you always. Were talking about A GOD..thats is your ABBA! Faith.. just what can you believe? This FAITH has no end. And if one mustered seed that is so tiny can move a MTN!

 

[Episaw]

Having done as an extensive study of the New Testament Church that took me two years to complete and which included discussions with denominational leaders, I am convinced that most of these problems stem from one scenario and that is a paid pastor running the church.

Nowhere in scripture is a paid pastor given the task of running the church. It is the province of unpaid Elders (plural) who are appointed from men already in the congregation.

When you get such a basic wrong then everything else will not function properly. How can it? If the foundation of your house is not up to scratch, it ain't going to last very long, that is why you don't build it on sand, which is what too many churches are.

If you look at the Reformation which brought about Protestantism, you will find it ended up a mixture of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Whilst Luther was right about sola scripture and salvation by faith alone, there were many things he brought over from the Catholic church.

Two of the most notable was the equivalent of the Catholic priest, namely the paid pastor and the Eucharist usually know as the Lords Table or Communion.

He missed two of the most important teachings in the scriptures, namely the Agape feast and the priesthood of ALL believers, not a chosen few.

Non-denominational churches in many cases have missed both of these too as they are continuing the traditions that are a product of the reformation. Some are not and they celebrate Jesus with an agape feast and are guided by Elders appointed from within the congregation.

So, non-denominational means nothing if all they are doing is continuing what was enacted in the Reformation.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Having done as an extensive study of the New Testament Church that took me two years to complete and which included discussions with denominational leaders, I am convinced that most of these problems stem from one scenario and that is a paid pastor running the church.

Nowhere in scripture is a paid pastor given the task of running the church. It is the province of unpaid Elders (plural) who are appointed from men already in the congregation.

When you get such a basic wrong then everything else will not function properly. How can it? If the foundation of your house is not up to scratch, it ain't going to last very long, that is why you don't build it on sand, which is what too many churches are.

If you look at the Reformation which brought about Protestantism, you will find it ended up a mixture of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Whilst Luther was right about sola scripture and salvation by faith alone, there were many things he brought over from the Catholic church.

Two of the most notable was the equivalent of the Catholic priest, namely the paid pastor and the Eucharist usually know as the Lords Table or Communion.

He missed two of the most important teachings in the scriptures, namely the Agape feast and the priesthood of ALL believers, not a chosen few.

Non-denominational churches in many cases have missed both of these too as they are continuing the traditions that are a product of the reformation. Some are not and they celebrate Jesus with an agape feast and are guided by Elders appointed from within the congregation.

So, non-denominational means nothing if all they are doing is continuing what was enacted in the Reformation.

I agree with you entirely. Although churches with functioning elders are quite rare (at least in the USA) they can be found. I am quite happy with my church here and trust that you have found one, as well.

 

[Traveling teacher]

I dont believe the issue is necessarily with denominations...

Such as denominations are full of heretical teaching vs non-denominations are closer to God.......
Neither do I believe that all theological seminaries are bad....
Ex.
Paul had a school of teaching for 2 years in Ephesus
School of tyrannus...acts 18:8-10

Non denominations that are isolated can get really weird and too focused on 1 leader without accountabilty to authority.......whether this is charismatic or noncharismatic

 

[Tangible]

Non denominations that are isolated can get really weird and too focused on 1 leader without accountabilty to authority.......whether this is charismatic or noncharismatic

Quoted for truth.

 

[Dave-W]

Good morning Dave. Look at those kids!
Doesn't that many make it harder to spoil them?

Thanks! Friday we jet out west to see the 2 youngest (at either end) become official. (the adoption finalizes on June 6)

Spoil them? who, ME??? LOL!!

 

[Wolf_Says]

Paintings? Really? I thought I knew what Catholic Tradition includes, but now I learned that it derives its authenticity from aesthetic ideas portrayed by painters living many centuries after Christ.

For the record, such ideas are not limited to Catholics. I once lived in a slum which originally had been an exclusive area of the city. A lovely Episcopal church building had fallen on hard times and,when I visited it a Pentecostal congregation owned it. The pastor showed us around the beautiful building. There were lovely stained glass windows with interesting quote bubbles from the mouths of the individuals depicted. In one of the windows the quote bubble came from a man saying, "Behold the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world." The pastor asked us if we recognized who that individual was pointing to. We said,of course, "Jesus Christ." He corrected us, informing us that that could not be Jesus Christ because He does not look like that. I asked him how he knew. He told me quite sincerely that the picture of Jesus in his Bible clearly was not at all the same as in the window. End of discussion.

As I said, the two situations are not parallel.

...and as for the paintings, do you seriously think that paintings by Roman Catholic artists made to illustrate this Roman Catholic twist on Scripture prove anything?

I merely brought up the information about the paintings as an interesting fact and is in no way something for my argument.

I do however love how neither of you can refute the similarities to Matthew16:19 and Isaiah 22:15-25.

@Albion, you say that there is no way, yet you have nothing to back up this claim. Please either provide evidence or admit your lose.

 

[Albion]

I merely brought up the information about the paintings as an interesting fact and is in no way something for my argument.

If that's the case, I can't imagine why such a non-starter of a point would have been inserted at that point in the discussion.

 

[REM]

Thanks! Friday we jet out west to see the 2 youngest (at either end) become official. (the adoption finalizes on June 6)

Spoil them? who, ME??? LOL!!

You guys have a great time!

 

[dms1972]

Had been looking for a forum to ask about my own faith label and seen this thread, and also ask advice (if this is the right place) .

I use non-denom at the moment but thats because i am not a member of a particular denomination (though i go from time to time to what I suppose is kind of a anglican church (they use Bible and the book of common prayer). The last church I was a member of (Baptist) I haven't been to in years, and i have been to prebyterian again also since then. I had been infant baptised in a presbyterian congregation and was connected to that through childhood, and wondered about the full immersion baptism in my teens because i had a baptist RE teacher, and after discussing with the pastor I decided to be baptised as an adult (i may not have asked the right questions to ascertain his position on this, or the need for this i think now).

The infant baptism was also refered at times as christening in the presbyterian church we went to. When I asked later about things I was told this was not sufficent in itself to be saved, but had to come to a personal decision at some point also.

Anyway not sure what to refer to myself as at the moment. In fact would prefer to not have to define myself as one thing or another.

 

[Albion]

The infant baptism was also refered at times as christening in the presbyterian church we went to. When I asked later about things I was told this was not sufficient in itself to be saved, but had to come to a personal decision at some point also.

That's the belief of all the churches that baptize infants, so nothing out of the ordinary for Presbyterians. And it's not to say that the baptism you received there wasn't valid or normal.

Anyway not sure what to refer to myself as at the moment. In fact would prefer to not have to define myself as one thing or another.

It's a difficult issue to navigate, but others in your situation have also chosen to say "non-denominational" even though that term most often refers to being a member of an non-denominational congregation. The other possible choice would seem to be "Christian."

 

[bbbbbbb]

Had been looking for a forum to ask about my own faith label and seen this thread, and also ask advice (if this is the right place) .

I use non-denom at the moment but thats because i am not a member of a particular denomination (though i go from time to time to what I suppose is kind of a anglican church (they use Bible and the book of common prayer). The last church I was a member of (Baptist) I haven't been to in years, and i have been to prebyterian again also since then. I had been infant baptised in a presbyterian congregation and was connected to that through childhood, and wondered about the full immersion baptism in my teens because i had a baptist RE teacher, and after discussing with the pastor I decided to be baptised as an adult (i may not have asked the right questions to ascertain his position on this, or the need for this i think now).

The infant baptism was also refered at times as christening in the presbyterian church we went to. When I asked later about things I was told this was not sufficent in itself to be saved, but had to come to a personal decision at some point also.

Anyway not sure what to refer to myself as at the moment. In fact would prefer to not have to define myself as one thing or another.

That is similar to my own position. I might have identified as a Christian, but there is the Christian and Churches of Christ denomination which claim that name. If I need a label I think non-denominational works better than most.

 

[dms1972]

although baptised i don't use christian, as if i ever truly was one i have drifted and fallen away, though i occasionaly go to a church. There doesn't seem to be a way back, without a lot of explaining to people in the church who if they ask, most likely are not ready or wanting to hear it all. neither am i ready to explain or sure that i could explain all about it to a stranger. So there it is.



The church i went to most recenty had a vote across the whole denomination, or whats called it general synod (don't know what that is honestly) but its some group that votes on issues. And 146 of its members voted to introduce 'thanksgiving services' for same sex couples in a civil partnership or 'marriage'. It was defeated by 176 votes against, but how can 146 that voted for it not know what the bible says (ie are biblical illiterates), or not care what the Bible says on marriage and homosexuality (so what place does the Bible have in their view?), or else they make the Bible mean something else in their own mind, than what it does mean.

 

[Tangible]

the church i went to most rexenlym had a vote across the whole denomination, or whats called it general synod (don't know what that is honestly) but its some group that votes on issues. And 146 of its members voted to introduce 'thanksgiving services' for same sex couples in a civil partnership or marriage. It was defeated by 176 votes against, but how can 146 that voted for it not know (ie are biblical illiterates), or not care what the Bible says on homosexuality. whats the point in them being in the church at that level of leadership, or in the church at all why don't they just leave?

Unfortunately, it is all too common for Mainline denominations to become top-heavy with theological liberals. As humans it seems we have a natural propensity to stray into ever murkier and more dangerous waters when pursuing theological knowledge. Scripture warns us many times about leaders who lead themselves and others astray.

Without a strong confessional basis, insistence on personal pastoral subscription to the confession, and insistence from member congregations that the confessions be normative, the slide into liberalism seems almost inevitable.

It sounds like you would fit well in one of the conservative Presbyterian churches or the new ACNA Anglican church. You might even find yourself welcomed in a conservative Lutheran church, such as a Missouri Synod or Wisconsin Synod congregation (shameless plug! ).

 

[dms1972]

That's the belief of all the churches that baptize infants, so nothing out of the ordinary for Presbyterians. And it's not to say that the baptism you received there wasn't valid or normal.


It's a difficult issue to navigate, but others in your situation have also chosen to say "non-denominational" even though that term most often refers to being a member of an non-denominational congregation. The other possible choice would seem to be "Christian."

Thanks, i could call myself presbyterian maybe, or just protestant? But I don't goto to a presbyterian church anymore, and i like several roman catholic writers such as Guardini, Pieper and a few others.