"Non Denominational Church"

[REM]

And here, I like this even better ! Galatians 1:11-12, But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Have I told anyone I Love Jesus yet today !!!???

Excellent scripture that I forgot about. Thank you.

 

[Dave G.]

Excellent scripture that I forgot about. Thank you.

Here it is from the Catholic bible I posted a link to earlier but I can tell you first hand that most Catholics around here anyway, where I live, don't read any bible. None the less not so different is it:11] For I give you to understand, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. [12] For neither did I receive it of man, nor did I learn it; but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

 

[Dave G.]

You've made the same suggestion as I offered here, I take it.

Sorry I had not caught the second portion of this post from yesterday. Yes, pretty much. She wants to study at home . She tried a couple of churches and just didn't hit it off. I belong to a world wide outreach out of Baltimore and we have a small local satellite bible study here in town, she and some friends went to that for several months. But that was about it. It's just this fellowship part that bugs her. What I'm afraid of is without that Body energy, over time you can fall away and start backsliding. Next thing you know you're picking up old habits from the world. She is strong but satan loves a lone sheep.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

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.

Kind of followed you until the seminary part. My pastor knows a lot and he never went to one.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Posted from my other post:
Growing up we went to many churches. Evangelical, presbyterian, charasmatic....etc. None of them seem to fit right because while they were all about the bible, they also has "side rules" as I call them. Rules that were not super important and were denomination specific. For example the one church taught you are only saved if you speak tounges and jump around during worship. Another church said you had to attend church every sunday or else you would be kicked out. Another had SUPER strict codes on what to wear in and out of church. The list goes on and on.

But about 15 years ago went to a non-denom church and we really loved it. We left because of my mother at the time being crabby. After that we switched a few more times. We went to two non-denom churches in the past decade. One was non-denom but was part of a bigger group that was pentecostal, so we left it. The next church was also non-denom, but after a year of being there they joined a "baptist" group of churches and claimed nothing would change. Despite the fact lots of things changed. We left that church as did like 60% of the members.

BTW not saying theres anything wrong with those denominations. Just pointing out some non-denom do have a denom really. Our current church is the one from 15 years ago which is a true non-denom. We are not tied into any other churches that have a denom. We simply go by the bible. No lists of rules to fit a certain denomination. I love it! We focus on God and the bible. Not rules or regulations and whatever.

I find a legit non-denom church seems to be the closest to what the bible talks about. Of course this doesn't mean they are flawless. A new pastor may teach incorrect things or maybe a new pastor will bring in beliefs from a denom church he used to be part of. But for me this is the only kind of church I'd go to. Denom churchs just seem to see other denominations as a "enemy" of sorts which then leads to people judging each other.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Kind of followed you until the seminary part. My pastor knows a lot and he never went to one.

Yeah, I am with you on this. I grew up in a large church just across the street from one of the denomination's seminaries and I can honestly say that the experience was quite enlightening for me. I came away from it thoroughly unimpressed.

This is not to say there are not good Christians at some seminaries, both professors as well as students, but I am not convinced that the experience there will aid or hinder the local church in its mission.

 

[prodromos]

Yeah, I am with you on this. I grew up in a large church just across the street from one of the denomination's seminaries and I can honestly say that the experience was quite enlightening for me. I came away from it thoroughly unimpressed.

This is not to say there are not good Christians at some seminaries, both professors as well as students, but I am not convinced that the experience there will aid or hinder the local church in its mission.

I suspect that some seminaries are good at producing academic christians, but because of the mindset behind "publish or perish", they can also introduce or produce a lot of liberal ideas, as people strive to come up with new topics which haven't been covered by others to write about.
If there isn't solid grounding on how to live out the Christian life as an example to others, then how can they be leaders in churches?
Seminaries can church out 'theologians' who can say a lot about God, but who ultimately don't know God in the way they should. In the Orthodox Church, a theologian is someone who prays, and there are only three people in the history of the Church that she has felt deserved the title of "theologian".

 

[Wolf_Says]

Misinformed huh? So you don't pray to Mary, to Peter, to an Angel?
You don't have images of Christ around your house and in your church?
You don't believe Mary is equal with God and is a virgin never having sex with Joseph or having children with him?

I do not worship them, I honor them as people close to God and ask them to pray for me.
Actually at home, no, but of course at Church. It is the House of the Lord after all. These are not graven images or idols though. Not a single statue or picture is worshipped.

Nope, never placed Mary on the same level as God, and yes she remained a virgin, as infered from scriptures

 

[Wolf_Says]

He also called Peter "Satan" a few breaths later, so don't read too much into the
'rock' joke he was making here.

Wasnt a joke, nice try

He rebuked Peter for his earthly knowledge, and as the head of the Apostles, he had the most responsibility.

Just because Jesus rebuked Peter does not change what Jesus did earlier; make Peter the rock.

 

[wilts43]

He also called Peter "Satan" a few breaths later, so don't read too much into the
'rock' joke he was making here.

I thought no respectable Protestant scholar still upheld that gymastic interpretation (Petros/Petra) of Christ's particular commission to Peter.

(1) It is accepted by most that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. So He said "Thou art Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my church......"
No gender in Aramaic; it only comes into Greek translation!

(2)And that gender adjustment in the Greek is only necessary so that Jesus doesn't call Peter the "Patricia"

(3)It ignores the rest of the commision clearly giving supreme-steward authority. "and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
.......This is not a joke is it?
Is there are no end to Protestant gymastics with the Word of God to deny the obvious because "it is Catholic"?
Jesus is the Davidic King (see annunciation) & part of His re-establishment of That Kingdom, which will last forever, is to have a "Shebna" (A Principle Steward who ruled in the King David's stead). See Isaiah 22:22....
"I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open."
At the time of Jesus this "binding & loosing" was equated with the Davidic "opening & closing".
It's as plain as a pikestaff to the Jews what Jesus was doing!
Moreover, only The King's deputy could hold the keys of a city or Palace. Protestant culture has reduced this stark, momentous, Church-founding statement to pearly-gates-portership by Peter. That interpretation is the joke!
(4) It ignores the other places Jesus gives particular authority to Peter; E.g. Appointing him Shepherd of the flock, in John 21.
Or
Luke 22
"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift each of you like wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon,(singular) that your faith will not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

Here Christ guarantees what Anselm will later declare....."Where Peter is, There is the Church" (Orthodoxy in confirming the true faith)

(5)
It ignores why Jesus would walk 3 days up North to Caesarea Phillippi, where there is a massive rock formation with a cave in it called "The Gates of Hell"......for a joke!
This was a momentous, foundational speech with a carefully chosen backdrop.

 

[wilts43]

Jesus founded One Church.
Moreover He guaranteed it would not fail; so it exists today

There are no "denominations" in the Bible because there was only One Church governed with authority (with Petrine Primacy) as in The First Council (of Jerusalem) from whence a letter of decision was sent out to all the local churches to follow. (Not to "do your own thing").
This was the One Universal (Catholic) Church started by Christ.
But from the beginning there were rebels...
"These people left our churches, but they never really belonged with us; otherwise they would have stayed with us. When they left, it proved that they did not belong with us." (1 John 2:19)
Such people were sooned termed "Heretics"
Fifteen hundred years later a group left called "Protestants" ......but, because they shattered into thousands of divisions themselves, they called them "Denominations".

It is the woeful lack of knowledge of Church History that leads people into these quandries. When Protestant scholars study the Early Church Fathers they find Catholicism.
The Church of Christ never failed; it still exists. America is the peculiar nation of Protestant emigres. Their descendants find themselves adrift in thousands of rafts with no concept of the Mother-Ship their forebears jumped a few centuries ago. So they wonder which raft looks better? It is so sad.

 

[Albion]

This is not to say there are not good Christians at some seminaries, both professors as well as students, but I am not convinced that the experience there will aid or hinder the local church in its mission.

The main thing about pastors and non-denominational churches may be that the person seeking a home church needs to take extra care with them.

With any denominational church, you can easily check out what that denomination believes and teaches and, also, have some assurance that the local unit answers to someone else if there's a problem. That's not the case with non-denominational congregations. Even the non-denom's printed statement of faith doesn't usually help much, considering that these deal typically with only the basic beliefs that most Christians--or at least most Protestants--would accept.

Whether or not the pastor is seminary educated can be figured out by the seeker, but the church is otherwise on its own, and the average person is often persuaded that this is a good thing...until some questionable practice or teaching coming from the pastor or the board surfaces.

 

[Albion]

Wasnt a joke, nice try

Many, if not most, theologians do think that Jesus was making a pun there.

 

[Albion]

Jesus founded One Church.
Moreover He guaranteed it would not fail; so it exists today

Yep. We call it the Christian Church, or Christianity or, sometimes, the Church of Christ.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I suspect that some seminaries are good at producing academic christians, but because of the mindset behind "publish or perish", they can also introduce or produce a lot of liberal ideas, as people strive to come up with new topics which haven't been covered by others to write about.
If there isn't solid grounding on how to live out the Christian life as an example to others, then how can they be leaders in churches?
Seminaries can church out 'theologians' who can say a lot about God, but who ultimately don't know God in the way they should. In the Orthodox Church, a theologian is someone who prays, and there are only three people in the history of the Church that she has felt deserved the title of "theologian".

Thank you for your excellent insights.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The main thing about pastors and non-denominational churches may be that the person seeking a home church needs to take extra care with them.

With any denominational church, you can easily check out what that denomination believes and teaches and, also, have some assurance that the local unit answers to someone else if there's a problem. That's not the case with non-denominational congregations. Even the non-denom's printed statement of faith doesn't usually help much, considering that these deal typically with only the basic beliefs that most Christians--or at least most Protestants--would accept.

Whether or not the pastor is seminary educated can be figured out by the seeker, but the church is otherwise on its own, and the average person is often persuaded that this is a good thing...until some questionable practice or teaching coming from the pastor or the board surfaces.

It ultimately seems to come down to the leadership in a church. Even in a denominational setting if the oversight of the pastors is lacking, so will the pastors be lacking (on many possible levels). I have observed otherwise fine churches decimated when the denominational leadership decided to install a pastor to their theological persuasion.

In non-denominational churches the leadership model is usually not at all unlike most denominational church in that there is a pastor who is the sole leader of the church. As the pastor goes, so goes the church. As you know, that is one reason I have decided to affiliate with the Plymouth Brethren where the general practice has been shared responsibility among men who meet the qualifications of an elder as spelled out in I Timothy. When this model is followed I have observed more stability than in the model of individual leadership.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I thought no respectable Protestant scholar still upheld that gymastic interpretation (Petros/Petra) of Christ's particular commission to Peter.

(1) It is accepted by most that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. So He said "Thou art Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my church......"
No gender in Aramaic; it only comes into Greek translation!

(2)And that gender adjustment in the Greek is only necessary so that Jesus doesn't call Peter the "Patricia"

(3)It ignores the rest of the commision clearly giving supreme-steward authority. "and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
.......This is not a joke is it?
Is there are no end to Protestant gymastics with the Word of God to deny the obvious because "it is Catholic"?
Jesus is the Davidic King (see annunciation) & part of His re-establishment of That Kingdom, which will last forever, is to have a "Shebna" (A Principle Steward who ruled in the King David's stead). See Isaiah 22:22....
"I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open."
At the time of Jesus this "binding & loosing" was equated with the Davidic "opening & closing".
It's as plain as a pikestaff to the Jews what Jesus was doing!
Moreover, only The King's deputy could hold the keys of a city or Palace. Protestant culture has reduced this stark, momentous, Church-founding statement to pearly-gates-portership by Peter. That interpretation is the joke!
(4) It ignores the other places Jesus gives particular authority to Peter; E.g. Appointing him Shepherd of the flock, in John 21.
Or
Luke 22
"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift each of you like wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon,(singular) that your faith will not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

Here Christ guarantees what Anselm will later declare....."Where Peter is, There is the Church" (Orthodoxy in confirming the true faith)

(5)
It ignores why Jesus would walk 3 days up North to Caesarea Phillippi, where there is a massive rock formation with a cave in it called "The Gates of Hell"......for a joke!
This was a momentous, foundational speech with a carefully chosen backdrop.

I smiled when I read "It's as plain as a pikestaff to the Jews what Jesus was doing!" Was it also "plain as a pikestaff to the Jews" that Jesus had actual siblings and that these siblings were known and identified by name?

 

[Dave G.]

Wasnt a joke, nice try

He rebuked Peter for his earthly knowledge, and as the head of the Apostles, he had the most responsibility.

Just because Jesus rebuked Peter does not change what Jesus did earlier; make Peter the rock.

The Rock Jesus was referring to was in Peter, it was his faith in Jesus. On that faith He Has built His church. All true Christians have the same faith and He knows who we are. Then men come along and build a glorified building over Peters dead body. I would submit it's likely Jesus couldn't care less about the building or the dead remains of human flesh, Peter will get his new Glorified body the same time the rest of us do.

 

[REM]

I do not worship them, I honor them as people close to God and ask them to pray for me.
Actually at home, no, but of course at Church. It is the House of the Lord after all. These are not graven images or idols though. Not a single statue or picture is worshipped.

Nope, never placed Mary on the same level as God, and yes she remained a virgin, as infered from scriptures

Wrong again. You need to repent of that cult and ask the Lord to guide you through his Word.Mary was not a virgin after Jesus. Every Catholic stumbles at this passage.

Mark 3:31-35 (KJV)
31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.

32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.

33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?

34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

 

[Albion]

It ultimately seems to come down to the leadership in a church. Even in a denominational setting if the oversight of the pastors is lacking, so will the pastors be lacking (on many possible levels). I have observed otherwise fine churches decimated when the denominational leadership decided to install a pastor to their theological persuasion.

In non-denominational churches the leadership model is usually not at all unlike most denominational church in that there is a pastor who is the sole leader of the church. As the pastor goes, so goes the church. As you know, that is one reason I have decided to affiliate with the Plymouth Brethren where the general practice has been shared responsibility among men who meet the qualifications of an elder as spelled out in I Timothy. When this model is followed I have observed more stability than in the model of individual leadership.

I appreciate the point, but there are few places where a person can find Plymouth Brethren. And not everyone wants to adopt that doctrinal profile and worship style, even if the characteristic you were referring too--shared responsibility--was appealing to our hypothetical seeker.

What I wrote was not a promo for denominational churches across the board, but, after all, almost every one of them does have a certain organizational stability or integrity that (almost) every non-denom lacks. Although there are non-denominational congregations that do great work and are not at all controversial, there is a built-in vulnerability there that can cause trouble and, when that happens, there is no one and nothing above the local people to appeal to if there's a need to fight back and correct it.