Spiritual Snobbery? Denomination Pride?

Danielwright2311 said:

If you follow Jesus and only Jesus guess what?

You will be rejected by most churches and people and this world, the Devil will make sure of that, its a fact, a proven fact I have proved over and over again. I tested it as a real life test.

Click to expand...

It is also a fact, that one who has a self-righteous personality, or any personality that is deemed difficult to be around or associate with....you will also be rejected by many/the world.

So rejection, does not automatically imply fellowship with Jesus. I suspect that there are many who mistake the repercussions of their own character flaws, for persecution for righteousness sake. To find friends, one must show themselves to be friendly.....

angeltrue said:

You mentioned baptism. I had my older two children baptized Catholic because that was the faith that I inherited. We went through a move and never had our 3rd child baptized. This has always bothered me at the back of my mind because I haven't studied baptism. Do you think that I should urge her to be baptized? She never baptized my grandchild either. (I'm weak on this subject).

Click to expand...

We don't want to be legalists, right? And yet Jesus said that if you love Him you'll obey His commands. And He commanded to be baptized.

Identity politics is alive and well and living in many denominations.
If we truly follow Christ, our identity will be clear.

ItalianStallion said:

Chiming back in. Glad to see the thread had some awesome responses.

In regards to this quote, At what point does tradition override scripture?
For me, the Bible takes precedence over any organized religion or tradition. The 30 Year War or The Crusades are examples of how organized religions can become more than theology.

That being said, (to me) The Bible can be ambiguous. Why did Jesus say 'I and the Father are one'...yet he said ‘the father is greater than I?” And if you hear interpretations on Revelations there’s dozens of experts who vary on what it specifically means.
Having a difference of opinion is normal. In fact, Peter and Paul butted heads.

In addition, many organized religions (seem to) have bouts of paganism in them, so which one(s) have the least. Which ones are most true to the Bible? Diving deeper, why are you a Catholic? Why are you a Baptist or Orthodox? A sports team affiliation is fine, but I feel many people have a 'fan' club attitude for their specific denomination without looking objectively.

It appears churches often bicker about traditions like 'at what age should baptism occur' or 'how hierarchical should our church be' or 'should our religious leaders be celibate'. Some of these topics don't seem to be specified in the Bible..so what's there to even be so divided on? Take a step back as an outsider and look at all the bloodshed for Sunni vs Shiite Islam. Is it really worth fighting over?
2,000 years of Earthly influence is a long time, and at what point can we admit some traditions (or even holidays) are nowhere in the bible? Personally, at least for now, I'm going to take a basic approach and focus on the Bible and a relationship with God/Jesus.

To conclude: I hope my thread didn't ruffle any feathers, and I hope we can take the blinds off & come together on what we agree upon: Jesus.

Click to expand...

The severe persecution in China, North Korea, Iran and other places has really eliminated denominations with possible the exception of the Catholics which are not growing like the underground unregistered churches are growing with out denominations.
When it comes down to: "What believes are you willing to die for", there is lots of agreement.

ItalianStallion said:

In regards to this quote, At what point does tradition override scripture?

Click to expand...

Since the Bible was compiled according to tradition, the question is meaningless.

For me, the Bible takes precedence over any organized religion or tradition.

Click to expand...

How can anything be more reliable than that which produced it?

The 30 Year War or The Crusades are examples of how organized religions can become more than theology.

Click to expand...

Scripture was cited in justification of each.

That being said, (to me) The Bible can be ambiguous. Why did Jesus say 'I and the Father are one'...yet he said ‘the father is greater than I?” And if you hear interpretations on Revelations there’s dozens of experts who vary on what it specifically means.
Having a difference of opinion is normal. In fact, Peter and Paul butted heads.

Click to expand...

The answer is to realize that theology does not save. A heart attuned to God saves. And Jesus makes it very clear that loving God, and loving your fellow man is what matters. Everything else, He says, depends on that. Some say that faith alone saves. Jesus says that your works will determine if you are saved or not. But others say that if you have faith, then works will follow. Works of charity, freely given without thought of reward are perhaps only a consequence of loving God and man.

In addition, many organized religions (seem to) have bouts of paganism in them, so which one(s) have the least. Which ones are most true to the Bible?

Click to expand...

The ancient ways, Roman and Eastern, are most like those of the early Christians, who found the way before there was a Bible as we know it. Does that limit salvation to them only? Of course not. Again, the question is meaningless. If you truly love God and love your fellow man (and your works will show it) then you are saved.

Diving deeper, why are you a Catholic?

Click to expand...

It's how I found God.

It appears churches often bicker about traditions like 'at what age should baptism occur' or 'how hierarchical should our church be' or 'should our religious leaders be celibate'. Some of these topics don't seem to be specified in the Bible..so what's there to even be so divided on? Take a step back as an outsider and look at all the bloodshed for Sunni vs Shiite Islam. Is it really worth fighting over?

Click to expand...

Find a tradition that lets you love as Jesus said. That's enough.

2,000 years of Earthly influence is a long time, and at what point can we admit some traditions (or even holidays) are nowhere in the bible?

Click to expand...

The Trinity, for example, is nowhere in the Bible. Do you doubt that it's true?

Personally, at least for now, I'm going to take a basic approach and focus on the Bible and a relationship with God/Jesus.

Click to expand...

A wise idea, I think. Don't forget the other of the two great commandments:
Matthew 22:36 Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? [37] Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. [38] This is the greatest and the first commandment. [39] And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [40] On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.

God (no one else) brought me to Christ.

Proverbs 3
5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

Will God teach me?

John 16
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Is there a reason that I should stop trusting God?

AnnaDeborah said:

OP, I've found it interesting to see how responses to your thread have confirmed your original statements!

Click to expand...

Very true. The irony is so, so thick.

AnnaDeborah said:

Implication being that non-denom is not the 'best' way?

Click to expand...

No, the implication is that he has picked one way among many. Call it denomination #30,001.

OP, I've found it interesting to see how responses to your thread have confirmed your original statements!

Click to expand...

All you're doing is encouraging a fallacy. Like the "non-denominational Christians" the OP has declared all denominations misguided while simultaneously pretending that he has risen above denominations. He hasn't. He is denomination #30,001.


The Catholic is focusing on a difference, but calling this ironic is actually a form of the fallacy of begging the question. The Catholic is taking issue with the OP's fundamental premise: truth and doctrine don't really matter; differences are unimportant. "Not so," says the Catholic.

zippy2006 said:

The Catholic is focusing on a difference, but calling this ironic is actually a form of the fallacy of begging the question. The Catholic is taking issue with the OP's fundamental premise: truth and doctrine don't really matter; differences are unimportant. "Not so," says the Catholic.

Click to expand...

Some truths are less critical than others. As I understand it, the Filioque isn't even permitted by the Catholic Church to be said in Greek, because the word used for "proceeds" in Greek has a meaning that would be heretical in the Catholic Church.

Eastern Rite Catholics might or might not use it, depending on the particular group. Is this worth a schism? We can, as humans only have a partial understanding of the triune nature of God. It's presumptuous to suppose we can clearly define it.

The Barbarian said:

Some truths are less critical than others.

Click to expand...

Sure, it's a spectrum and I think my initial post expressed some of that nuance. Yet I and some others estimated that the weight of Christian relativism expressed in the OP required a counterbalance.

fhansen said:

We don't want to be legalists, right? And yet Jesus said that if you love Him you'll obey His commands. And He commanded to be baptized.

Click to expand...

you cannot inherit faith .
yes you need to repent and be baptized by being buried into his(Christs ) death that you might also live in his Resurrection. sprinkling is not baptism and infants cannot repent thus it is not valid baptism it never has been .
also you must be baptized into Christ ,, not into a denomination .
you will need to choose whether you follow man or the lord Jesus

done .

angeltrue said:

You mentioned baptism. I had my older two children baptized Catholic because that was the faith that I inherited. We went through a move and never had our 3rd child baptized. This has always bothered me at the back of my mind because I haven't studied baptism. Do you think that I should urge her to be baptized? She never baptized my grandchild either. (I'm weak on this subject).

Click to expand...

you cannot inherit faith .
yes you need to repent and be baptized by being buried into his(Christs ) death that you might also live in his Resurrection. sprinkling is not baptism and infants cannot repent thus it is not valid baptism it never has been .
also you must be baptized into Christ ,, not into a denomination .
you will need to choose whether you follow man or the lord Jesus

done .

Alithis said:

you cannot inherit faith .
yes you need to repent and be baptized by being buried into his(Christs ) death that you might also live in his Resurrection. sprinkling is not baptism and infants cannot repent thus it is not valid baptism it never has been .
also you must be baptized into Christ ,, not into a denomination .
you will need to choose whether you follow man or the lord Jesus

done .

Click to expand...

He said to be baptized-so we baptize. That's how it's always been. And there never were "denominations" in the past, just churches: of Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, etc-all just one church.

fhansen said:

He said to be baptized-so we baptize. That's how it's always been. And there never were "denominations" in the past, just churches: of Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, etc-all just one church.

Click to expand...

no he said .. repent and be baptized.. and we know repent is from metanoia . to change the mind to re think and go the other way -something no infant can do . it also states plainy that baptism (the word means "to dip" is a burial . "for you were buried in christ " -pp . -its very straight forward .

GingerBeer said:

Ananias baptised Paul, that's recorded in The Acts of the Apostles.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Even in the words of Jesus Himself: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (Matthew 28:19-20) "Go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. he that believes and is baptized shall be saved. He that believes not shall be damned." (Mar 16:15-16).

Just to be clear, this is an excerpt from the orthodox church that shares how baptism and crismation are not the same thing. You cited the baptism of Paul as if the two were the same thing:

"In Orthodox Christian teaching, our baptism is not merely cleansing but it is a change in our human nature. We receive the new sanctified and holy human nature given by Christ. Even more so, we are
mystically united to Christ in both His death and Resurrection. Likewise, just as the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ, when a person is Chrismated the Holy Spirit descends upon him/her too. The Holy Spirit bestows grace and power to live the new life in Jesus Christ. This divine grace is transmitted through the “myroma,” a specially mixed and blessed oil, and is administered by the priest immediately after baptism. Having received both of these Mysteries or Sacraments we become full members of the Body of Christ—the Church and are able to participate in the other sacramental mysteries, especially the Eucharist—Holy Communion.

Baptism and Chrismation are not magical one-time acts that set us for life. Rather, they are just the beginning of a new God-centered life that must be nurtured each day through prayer, each week through worship, and a continual self-sacrifice of our egoistic needs through repentance and giving to others. Baptism and Chrismation are beautiful gifts that must be picked up and used every day of our lives. They must not be put on a shelf or hidden away for some future sentimental remembrance. "

When I look at Scripture, I see the Holy Spirit descend upon believers in the upper room, I see the Holy Spirit surprise the believers when He chooses to fall upon Cornelius and those gathered (Acts 10). So, for the Gentiles, God's version of "chrismation" can actually happen before the baptism. So, I would argue when real Chrismation happens, you don't need to remind people that it "must not be put on a shelf or hidden away for some future sentimental remembrance." It is only when it is religiously claimed--and that isn't exclusive to the orthodox church or roman catholic church--there are protestant churches that have taught their people to believe they have something they don't, as well. God knows the heart and isn't about to be mocked.

TuxAme said:

That thinking may feel good, but we can't allow ourselves to settle for anything less than what God commanded. He either made Peter the prince of the apostles (Pope) or He didn't. He either commanded us to eat His flesh and drink His blood or He didn't. He either established baptism as a sacrament or He didn't. These things matter, and you shouldn't be willing to let someone believe erroneous things without offering them correction. We are talking about our eternal resting places, after all. These are conversations that need to happen.

Click to expand...

1st sentence: Agreed. "feel good thinking" isn't going to help us--including claiming to be a member of the true church (whether the claim is made through earthly tracking or it is a purely supernatural claim). If we don't genuinely have a connection to God through Jesus Christ, we won't go where we think we are. Jesus made that abundantly clear in numerous places, including Revelation 2 & 3, Matt 7:21-27, and Matthew 25, for instance.

2nd sentence: Jesus never said Peter was the prince of the apostles or pope. In Scriptural facts, Jesus said many things with regard to Peter, including Matthew 16 where He both said "Upon this rock, I will build my church..." and "Get behind me satan, you are an offense unnto me; for you savor not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." Later in Scripture, Jesus says to Peter: "Luke 22:31-32 "Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers." Peter is restored by Jesus. He certainly takes a leadership role; but not the way that people bow to your pope today. In fact, in Acts 11, Peter was challenged by the believers of the circumcision (Acts 11). Later in Acts 15, it at least appears as though James is leading the Jerusalem Council, not Peter. Peter was so clear that it wasn't about him, that despite Paul calling him out for playing the hypocrite (in Scripture), Peter declares that Paul's writings are to be considered Scripture (in Scripture).

If your church is truly descendant from Peter, where is the power that Peter, Paul, Stephen, Philip, and others walked in?

3rd Sentence: "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" during a longer section where He was offending the Jews present and during a time He, by His Words, chased away most of His disciples. (John 6). Later, Jesus "Took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said: 'take, eat, this is My Body.' and he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink ye all of it; for this is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt 26:26-28 and Mark 14:22-24). In Luke 22:17-20, He adds "Do this in remembrance of me" related to taking of the bread. Paul shares the fullest account in 1 Cor 11:23-34. When we partake, it is certainly more than just eating bread and drinking of the fruit of the vine in God's sight.

4th sentence: Baptism, according to the Scriptures isn't an option. The Apostles and Deacons baptized when someone declared belief. It wasn't about pomp and circumstance, it was an act of obedience to God. Again, Cornelius comes to mind: "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 'Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?' And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." (Acts 10:44-48).

If Peter recognized people who the Holy Spirit fell on, but who certainly were not of their group, and your church truly descends from Peter, why do you reject those who God is clearly working through today, because they aren't part of your church?

Alithis said:

no he said .. repent and be baptized.. and we know repent is from metanoia . to change the mind to re think and go the other way -something no infant can do . it also states plainy that baptism (the word means "to dip" is a burial . "for you were buried in christ " -pp . -its very straight forward .

Click to expand...

Well, you can always put your own personal, novel interpretation on it but the churches of God have always understood and practiced it otherwise.

fhansen said:

Well, you can always put your own personal, novel interpretation on it but the churches of God have always understood and practiced it otherwise.

Click to expand...

that's because you haven't read the bible .its very clear . when a person says the wall is red and made of bricks .. it means - the wall is red and made of bricks .it does not need a special interpretation . the scripture is the same . children see it very clearly. it only MEN with another agenda that complicate it . your either going to follow the lord Jesus or follow those men - you have to make a choice .

im free to speak .i belong to and attend no denomination at all

HTacianas said:

You've made quite the lengthy post containing only your opinion. While i am certain that your opinions are strongly held, you are wrong.

Now, for example, you say that the bible must be interpreted with the help of the Holy Spirit. How many denominations out there have that help? Is the Holy Spirit telling the baptists women can't be preachers then turning around and telling the methodists they can be?

Which of those groups did the Holy Spirit tell that the eucharist is not the body and blood of Christ when the bible so plainly states, again and again, that it is?

When did the Holy Spirit decide baptism isn't necessary when the bible states plainly that it is? When was it determined that a layman can give the gift of the Holy Spirit to another when the bible plainly states that he cannot?

Or a really big one: When did "faith alone" become sufficient for salvation when the only time faith alone is mentioned in the bible is when it tells us that faith alone cannot save us?

Click to expand...

(1) Nice try. Your lack of Scripture in denouncing me as wrong is about as weighty on me as when the circumcision tried to tell Peter he was wrong for baptizing Cornelius (Acts 11) or when the circumcision went after Paul (Acts 15). If you are going to judge, shouldn't you be at least applying the same standard to your own comments--if you can't at least use righteous judgement, like Jesus said?

(2) I'm not defending denominations and God can defend Himself. I agree that we should live by what the Scriptures actually say on those subjects you mentioned, as well as other subjects, like the traditions of men. And, Scripture is clearly against saying "I'm of Peter" or "I'm of Paul". Scripture says "There is one body." Yet, there is a clear visible lack of appearance of one body and that actually started in Scripture. While the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 tried to overcome it, it is clear from Paul's writings, the letters of other apostles, and Revelation that there wasn't complete unity across the body before what we call Scripture had concluded being written.

Obviously, if people believe different things, you can pit those beliefs against each other. The same can be done with the eo and rc churches or the eo vs whatever protestant denomination you want to choose. You can claim descendency, just like the rc church does. God routinely talks about a remnant. He seems to suggest in Rev 2 & 3 that overcomers will come from churches who all have different issues; but that not everyone in any church will make it, otherwise there would be no reason to speak about "he who overcomes".

(3) Scripture is clear that the Holy Spirit is given by God, not by man. God may or may not answer the prayers of godly men in giving the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit is given by God. Peter didn't pray for Cornelius and the Gentiles who heard what Peter spoke about, nor did Peter baptize them or even touch them, before the Holy Spirit fell on them. It was after that they baptized them (Acts 10-11) and that actually frustrated the ceremony/tradition-based church--just like it still clearly does today, as evidenced by your post. For all you claim to revere God, you try to limit Him by your traditions. God doesn't let you limit Him. That's the problem. Whether you like that or not, or whether you believe it or not, I am a piece of His evidence to the contrary of your beliefs.

(4) The bible is clear that God brings salvation (John 1:12-13, et al); but, without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6) and that faith without works is dead (James 2:26). So, if someone truly has faith, it will affect how they think, speak, and act. We are truly changed from the inside out; but a good tree....

Salvation isn't achieved by following a bunch of traditions and doing a bunch of rituals or wearing a church-ownership badge instead over wearing the blessed assurance and precious gift that God gives true believers. God says it like this through Paul: "For if you live after the flesh you shall die; but if you through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, you shall live." (Romans 8:13) or "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap. For he that sows to his flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that sows to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." (Gal 6:7-8)--for instance.