"Non-denominational"??? What does that even mean?

[2PhiloVoid]

If the same 'church' had identical doctrine across the world I would agree, but if I gave you a label you would automatically think of the one that you are familiar with. The world is not America.



This is about individual people not organizations. When someone says they are non-denominational I take it to mean they do not hold membership to any recognized church.

Just adding, I don't assume anything about their doctrine, I let their posts tell me that.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that from the various views I've seen put forth in this thread, it seems to me that the term "non-denominational" carries different denotations for those who living in different countries.

For example, you're apparently from Australia, but you say that you think this term means "they do not hold membership to any recognized church," whereas I notice that in my own country, and in the area in which I live specifically, it tends to infer that a church is [more often than not] "Independent and Charismatic."

So, I find this conceptual difference to be an interesting point upon which to ponder further.

 

[Fidelibus]

Lol is that really necessary? I think we’ve all read about the church in Antioch in Acts. None of the apostolic churches refute the apostolic succession of the Eastern Orthodox Church. To my knowledge they all confirm it.

Then you should have no problem demonstrating it.

 

[Fidelibus]

Just out of curiosity what church were you referring to?

The same one you were referring to.

 

[Fidelibus]

Those whose faith is in Christ is the church.
Romans 10:9

9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

The Bible does speak of salvation as a past-tense event such as Ephesians 2:8–9: “For by grace you have been saved through faith.” Scripture also speaks of salvation as a present-tense event. In Philippians 2:12, Paul exhorted us to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Also, just as we cannot deny that salvation is a past- and present-tense event, the Evangelical Protestant cannot deny that Scripture also speaks of it as a future-tense event. For evidence of this, verses such as Romans 13:11: “our salvation is nearer than when we first believed” (Rom. 13:11; cf. 1 Cor. 3:15; 5:5).

They will comes from every church, from every denomination, from small cell groups, from places far away from established churches, they will even be thieves nailed to a cross.
John 3:16

Again, I hate to say it Coffee4u, but that's not how John 3:16 reads in your very own KJV of the Bible. It reads as...."For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." I recall on the thread "What texts prove that Mary was a sinner" I thought you may have been adding words to Scripture, and you responded on page 28, post # 541 by saying....

Of course I didn't add it.

As well as...

Adding would go against my own beliefs.

So do you believe and agree the words you posted in regards to Jn.3:16 above are not Scriptural, and are just your own fallible and non-authoritative opinion and personal interpretation of John 3:16?

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[dms1972]

I picked non-denom when I joined the site, but I could have chosen Protestant, I suppose. Intellectually I read widely within the compass of christian theology and outside of it. So I take the view that if its truth, it is truth wherever its found.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I picked non-denom when I joined the site, but I could have chosen Protestant, I suppose. Intellectually I read widely within the compass of christian theology and outside of it. So I take the view that if its truth, it is truth wherever its found.

Thanks for your comments on this, dms1972. We seem to reflect a very similar dispositions in our valuing a wider spectrum of theological reading. But even though we're similar in this regard, I'm wondering: do you feel that "non-denominational" is a better descriptor for yourself than "Christian" would be in relation to your breadth of inquiry?

 

[coffee4u]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that from the various views I've seen put forth in this thread, it seems to me that the term "non-denominational" carries different denotations for those who living in different countries.

For example, you're apparently from Australia, but you say that you think this term means "they do not hold membership to any recognized church," whereas I notice that in my own country, and in the area in which I live specifically, it tends to infer that a church is [more often than not] "Independent and Charismatic."

So, I find this conceptual difference to be an interesting point upon which to ponder further.

That is interesting and not a meaning that had occurred to me. I know that there are quite a few cultural differences between the US and Australia, probably more than most Americans realize. As an Australian I am keenly aware that the majority of English speakers I meet online are American and they do think differently. I think about my word choice and at times I might purposely change a word to be more 'American' since I don't want misunderstandings.

in my own country, and in the area in which I live specifically, it tends to infer that a church is [more often than not] "Independent and Charismatic."

A good example of cultural or even regional differences. I'm from the country so my view is probably also coloured by that, and I think age and gender plays a part too.

 

[Fidelibus]

So being a biblical church now includes being able to trace your lineage back a couple of thousand years. That sounds like it is adding to the gospel to me. Don't agree.

I added nothing, those were direct quotes from Scripture. Go back and re-read my post # 127, and tell me what church that is still here to day that that you think fits the Church Jesus is talking about in those passages.


Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Fidelibus]

Ok. So, with all that you've said here, Brother Fidelibus, it sounds like your evaluation of the meaning of "non-denominational" concludes that it denotes the presence of a heretical position whenever it is used by a Christian person.

Am I understanding you correctly on this?

The point I was trying to make is that most non-denominational churches and sects can only trace their roots to the second half of the 19th century. So I find it hard if not impossible to believe these churches, all churches from the mid 16th century on are the Church (singular) that Jesus speaks of as His Church in Matt. 16:18; Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12; Matt. 18:17-18 ; Luke 10:16; John 14:16; John 14:26; John 16:12-13; and 1 Tim. 3:15. I could cite many more, but I think these will suffice.

So I ask you, which Church is here to this day, that you believe is the Church that Jesus was speaking about in these passages?

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The point I was trying to make is that most non-denominational churches and sects can only trace their roots to the second half of the 19th century. So I find it hard if not impossible to believe these churches, all churches from the mid 16th century on are the Church (singular) that Jesus speaks of as His Church in Matt. 16:18; Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12; Matt. 18:17-18 ; Luke 10:16; John 14:16; John 14:26; John 16:12-13; and 1 Tim. 3:15. I could cite many more, but I think these will suffice.

So I ask you, which Church is here to this day, that you believe is the Church that Jesus was speaking about in these passages?

Have a Blessed Day!

Y'know, bro, I really don't like questions that are posed to me as "test questions," especially when, but not only when, they're placed in such a way as to upend a thread I've created, one which concentrates on another topic (i.e. the meaning of "non-denominationalism").

 

[dms1972]

Thanks for your comments on this, dms1972. We seem to reflect a very similar dispositions in our valuing a wider spectrum of theological reading. But even though we're similar in this regard, I'm wondering: do you feel that "non-denominational" is a better descriptor for yourself than "Christian" would be in relation to your breadth of inquiry?

"Christian" would be the best descriptor of my current trajectory I think. Sometimes I feel more like a post-modern who is seeking to re-orient myself again around christian thought from the past.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"Christian" would be the best descriptor of my current trajectory I think. Sometimes I feel more like a post-modern who is seeking to re-orient myself again around christian thought from the past.

Yes, I often feel this way, too. The great thing is that you are actively seeking even if you don't feel you've found a comfortable spot in the Christian faith to settle in yet. And who knows? Maybe the Lord isn't wanting us all to feel "settled in" in this life.

 

[coffee4u]

I added nothing, those were direct quotes from Scripture. Go back and re-read my post # 127, and tell me what church that is still here to day that that you think fits the Church Jesus is talking about in those passages.


Have a Blessed Day!

The church was and is the body of believers. Each individual person who comes to Christ is a part of the church and continues to be.

For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.Matthew 18:20

Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.Acts 2:46-47

For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.1 Corinthians 12:13

Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.Acts 2:41

But this question is really off the topic of this thread.

 

[coffee4u]

Y'know, bro, I really don't like questions that are posed to me as "test questions," especially when, but not only when, they're placed in such a way as to upend a thread I've created, one which concentrates on another topic (i.e. the meaning of "non-denominationalism").

Yeah sorry, I got side tracked.

 

[Fidelibus]

Y'know, bro, I really don't like questions that are posed to me as "test questions," especially when, but not only when, they're placed in such a way as to upend a thread I've created, one which concentrates on another topic (i.e. the meaning of "non-denominationalism").

Sorry, I didn't mean to take this thread off topic. My apologies.

Maybe a thread on which Church is it today, is the Church (singular) Christ was speaking of in Scripture would be in order.

Have a Blessed Day

 

[Fidelibus]

The church was and is the body of believers. Each individual person who comes to Christ is a part of the church and continues to be.

Are you talking about an "invisible church"? That would be a great topic of discussion, on another thread of course.

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[coffee4u]

Are you talking about an "invisible church"? That would be a great topic of discussion, on another thread of course.

Have a Blessed Day!

In a sense I guess it is.