Where are they in the word of God?

[ViaCrucis]

Hello CryptoLutheran, first, I loved your post on denominations at the beginning of this thread. You did a fantastic job of summarizing the history of the growth and fragmentation of the Church at large.

That being said, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that our "view of Christianity is shaped by ideas of other men". In some ways there is some truth to this statement, but I think this is oversimplified. We all turn to someone more advanced as Christians to help us figure out how to make faith work in real life, but some of us, myself in particular, do not seek out a single denominational source for teaching. It has been my experience that if a Christian is reading the Bible for oneself, when we listen to someone teach, we will know how accurate the teacher is. If you know your Bible, that frees a person from depending on one source and opens avenues to seek specific answers to specific questions, something I personally have found very beneficial.

I would never suggest anyone rely on any single individual. Though I am myself a Lutheran (I wasn't always, I became Lutheran later in life) I find a great deal of help from people from many different traditions.

What I meant is that nobody comes to the Bible as a blank slate; we all approach the Bible with ideas, assumptions, presumptions, prejudices, and biases which may or may not have been shaped by our faith communities. Some people, without much experience in the Church, may approach the Bible based on a very fragmentary set of ideas that they heard growing up, either from Christians, non-Christians, and perhaps having their own assumptions and filters through which they heard those things.

It's not that we must look to a human person as some kind of guru; it's that we all are products of our environment and perceptions; we all have our own experiences, and we all come from different backgrounds. So even someone who has zero knowledge about Christianity will still come to the Bible with their own experiences.

That also means that one of the responsibilities of the Church is to help guide and inform--to teach. It's not about having a "teacher", I think it's dangerous to rely on a single individual. But there is instead a collective work of teaching, pastors, teachers, scholars, theologians, biblical exegetes, etc; and all of those different voices serve a benefit in teaching and helping to shape us as we grow in our faith and knowledge of Scripture.

I do, admittedly, consider Lutheran sources generally more highly than non-Lutheran ones. That is a bias I have, but it is in part an intentional bias. There are reasons why I'm Lutheran rather than Baptist or Catholic. It has nothing to do with brand, or tribal affiliation. Instead it is the product of a conviction that what I have found within this historic expression of the Christian faith, called "Lutheranism", is the most biblically faithful, the most theologically true, and that it is historically grounded.

When I call myself a Lutheran I'm not saying "I belong to Martin Luther", or "I follow Martin Luther". I'm saying that this particular confession of Christian faith has convinced me to be the most true--biblically, theologically, doctrinally. I am also admitting to myself that it shouldn't be up to me to re-invent the wheel. I believe there is a faithful, historic, confessional way of being a Christian that already exists, my personal responsibility, therefore, is to conform myself to what is biblically and historically Christian--to "contend for the faith once and for all delivered to the saints" as Jude says in his epistle.

We all do that, or something like that. Whether we are part of a globe-spanning communion of over a billion people (e.g. the Roman Catholic Church), or part of a small Baptist community in Small Town America. Or that non-denominational church that still has teaching and practice that it has inherited from what came before it (usually a combination of Baptist and Charismatic traditions).

It would, therefore, be dishonest to say we don't. We all learn the faith, grow in it, by hearing and reading and practicing. That's unavoidable.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

I've found this to be the case as well. It's unfortunate because it's easy to spend a long time and a lot of effort writing detailed responses to things hoping you can help even one person in his spiritual journey, only to have the person you were responding to ignore everything you wrote. There is an unfortunately large number of people who are more interested in airing their own opinions than in having a discussion.

Prelest is a topic I never heard addressed growing up Methodist, but have learned about as I have begun to read more Eastern Orthodox writers in the last few years. It's definitely something that should have more awareness in all Christian circles.

I myself also grew up Methodist, but unfortunately I can’t even remember any elders preaching about the Trinity or basic dogmatic theology, much less Wesley’s views on salvation which are inspired by those of the Orthodox, with whom he was closely connected. Rather, the majority of preaching consisted of centrist moralistic platitudes and some vague scriptural exposition.

Prelest is a very useful concept, and one which I think needs to be imported into Western Christianity, just as Theosis was imported, as entire sanctification, and more recently, Byzantine style icons and the Jesus Prayer have been imported.

 

[The Liturgist]

When I call myself a Lutheran I'm not saying "I belong to Martin Luther", or "I follow Martin Luther". I'm saying that this particular confession of Christian faith has convinced me to be the most true--biblically, theologically, doctrinally. I am also admitting to myself that it shouldn't be up to me to re-invent the wheel. I believe there is a faithful, historic, confessional way of being a Christian that already exists, my personal responsibility, therefore, is to conform myself to what is biblically and historically Christian--to "contend for the faith once and for all delivered to the saints" as Jude says in his epistle.

Indeed, also many Lutherans such as our friend @MarkRohfrietsch prefer to identify as Evangelical Catholic.

I attended and loved an LCMS parochial school and greatly appreciate Lutheranism. Indeed the only issue on which I disagree with most Lutherans about is intercessory prayer to the saints, which has become an important part of my prayer life since I began to involve myself in Anglicanism and Orthodoxy in 2013 and 2014 after a background in Congregationalism.

 

[The Liturgist]

I prayed and then I studied the word.

Me too. Why do you suppose then that we don’t agree on doctrine? Since we both prayed and studied the Bible for many years before reaching our current, diametrically opposed perspectives?

 

[The Liturgist]

Where are denominations in the Bible? Please share scripture.

By the way, you are right, in my opinion, about one thing, and that is that the church is not supposed to be divided. However, I disagree with your understanding of church history, or your opinions on the sacraments, Lent, St. Nicholas and pretty much anything else. And like you, my position was the result of reading scripture and prayer.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Where are denominations in the Bible? Please share scripture.

Pharisees and Sadducees just to name two early divisions. In Catholicism, there are various "rites" and "Religious Orders"... Always has been; just never always called them that. Sects has been another term used in the past..

 

[chrisovery]

Study to show thyself approved before God.

People will go listen to fables and doctrines by men that tickle their ears but have no true substance of the gospel.

If we ask God for wisdom with all faith, He will give it to us.

Paul went into the wilderness and studied with the guidance of Christ for 3yrs. By himself and then came back to preach the Gospel.

 

[chrisovery]

By the way, you are right, in my opinion, about one thing, and that is that the church is not supposed to be divided. However, I disagree with your understanding of church history, or your opinions on the sacraments, Lent, St. Nicholas and pretty much anything else. And like you, my position was the result of reading scripture and prayer.

Where are we told to keep lent in the Bible, or to have the bunny that represents the fertile goddess of paganism. Show me where Jesus was born on December 25th like the false god of paganism. Yes these are all man taught traditions. St Nicholas some how became Santa clause.

 

[The Liturgist]

Where are we told to keep lent in the Bible, or to have the bunny that represents the fertile goddess of paganism. Show me where Jesus was born on December 25th like the false god of paganism. Yes these are all man taught traditions. St Nicholas some how became Santa clause.

I have provided explanations on these issues as have other members on the forum, and I am disinclined to repeat myself, so I suggest you simply look up any number of threads on this issue.

 

[linux.poet]

As I wrote long ago, I was raised in Evangelical Non-denominational churches and my thoughts and ideas are largely a product of that background. However, after an education in English and spending some time on this forum, I refuse to be limited by my background and prefer to freely explore the arena of Christian ideas without getting too particular about who is supporting them. This is why I do not slap myself with the “Non-denom” faith label.

I do think my background does inspire me to avoid certain ideas, such as obvious cults and Mormonism (my uncle fought against the latter for years) but I should be free to read Catholic books and sources from other denominations without self-condemnation. I also don’t like fighting with my friends for their church choices, as two of them are Presbyterian and I get along with them well enough anyway.

It might be worth keeping in mind, @ViaCrucis, that Non-denominational churches and members exist here on CF, and they are a recognized faith group. Not every church is part of a recognized denomination, a central theological governance, or even named. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t Christians. It also doesn’t mean that they don’t have a faith background, but that faith background doesn’t have a denomination. It just doesn’t have a name.

 

[jas3]

It might be worth keeping in mind, @ViaCrucis, that Non-denominational churches and members exist here on CF, and they are a recognized faith group. Not every church is part of a recognized denomination, a central theological governance, or even named. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t Christians. It also doesn’t mean that they don’t have a faith background, but that faith background doesn’t have a denomination.

This paragraph doesn't seem to follow from the rest of the thread. I don't see where anyone questioned whether nondenoms are Christians, whether they exist as an identifiable faith group, or whether they have a faith background.

 

[linux.poet]

This paragraph doesn't seem to follow from the rest of the thread. I don't see where anyone questioned whether nondenoms are Christians, whether they exist as an identifiable faith group, or whether they have a faith background.

What @ViaCrucis has been arguing is that all Christians have a denomination because all Christians have a faith background, i.e. people who told us about Christ and the Gospel.

What I am pointing out is that some faith backgrounds don’t have a denominational identification, which is primarily evidenced by the existence of non-denominational churches.

 

[jas3]

What @ViaCrucis has been arguing is that all Christians have a denomination because all Christians have a faith background, i.e. people who told us about Christ and the Gospel.

ViaCrucis can correct me if I'm wrong, but from my reading his argument is not that everyone has a denomination, but that faith backgrounds are inherently tied to denominations since denominations are defined by differences in doctrine. A modern nondenominational Christian doesn't come up with credobaptism on his own, he learns about it from people who themselves learned about it from people before them, and so on back to the Anabaptists.

What I am pointing out is that some faith backgrounds don’t have a denominational identification, which is primarily evidenced by the existence of non-denominational churches.

The particular combination of one's beliefs might not have a denominational identification, but the individual beliefs almost certainly do. The only alternatives I can imagine are that a certain belief might be unique to nondenominationalism (but then that would be a distinctive belief and would therefore identify a denomination) or to say that a certain belief has been held since the time of the Apostles

 

[ViaCrucis]

What @ViaCrucis has been arguing is that all Christians have a denomination because all Christians have a faith background, i.e. people who told us about Christ and the Gospel.

What I am pointing out is that some faith backgrounds don’t have a denominational identification, which is primarily evidenced by the existence of non-denominational churches.

"Denomination" is just naming something. While non-denominational churches don't identify with a denomination, or with a specific theological tradition (though that should have an * next to it here); it is, I'd argue, a distinction without a difference.

Non-denominationalism, as an ecclesiastical identity, means not part of a larger organized structure of churches; an independent congregation. Though, in some cases, even that isn't necessarily true, Calvary Chapel does not identify as a denomination, but as non-denominational; but yet it is still a structure with multiple congregations in fellowship together. A rose by any other name, as Shakespeare wrote.

But more to the point, if one were to do an examination among, say, two hundred non-denominational churches across the US and Canada (just as an example), there are going to be a lot of shared beliefs and ideas. I'm not saying it's not impossible, but it's unlikely to find any of these non-denominational churches that follow a more structured liturgical format, or a belief in the real bodily presence of Jesus in the Lord's Supper, or who baptize infants. It's going to be, more-or-less the same across the board: The service will be split between a singing portion of the service, most likely using identifiable "praise and worship" music, it may be more Hillsong-y, or it may more subdued, and there probably will be a couple hymns at least in the mix. The singing portion of the service will be followed up prayer, Scripture reading, and a sermon. If the Lord's Supper is celebrated that Sunday, it will probably be small crackers or wafers, with individual small cups of grape juice (not wine), and the general understanding will be that the Lord's Supper is a memorial, symbolic ritual rather than a literal eating and drinking of the Lord's body and blood. There is a high likelihood that there will be an invitation to conversion through confession of sin and acceptance of Christ, often by coming up to the front to the altar for prayer and counsel. The church probably doesn't put a lot of emphasis on baptism, but will talk about baptism as a personal choice to make a public affirmation of faith, as an act of obedience to Jesus--and only already-believers who are of a certain age or level of understanding will be eligible to receive baptism, which will be by full immersion (never triple immersion, or pouring, or sprinkling).

That is to say: there are through-lines of doctrine and practice that virtually all non-denominational churches have; and it shows a prevailing influence of particular theological traditions and religious movements. Such churches are not Baptist, but share a lot of key commonalities with the Baptist tradition. There is a strong influence from 19th century American Revivalism and Pietism, with a strong focus on Decisionist theology rooted in the Neo-Evangelical tradition that emerged in the early 20th century, following the Second Great Awakening of the 19th century. When talking about salvation, Bill Bright's Four Spiritual Laws are probably pretty well known and well respected as an evangelism tool.

None of this is intended to put down or belittle--but merely an observation.

That non-denominationalism has, on its own, a distinct character, and is within a particular theological tradition. Even if it doesn't identify with a particular label. It doesn't identify as "Baptist", but that's really just semantics.

This isn't me talking down on non-denominationalism; I'm simply trying to point out that non-denominationalism isn't an alternative to more classic denominations. It's more like, taking the labeling off a package, but the contents are still more-or-less the same. If I remove the Dasani label from my water bottle, it may not say Dasani, but it's still the same thing on the onside.

-CryptoLutheran