What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Non - Denominational = No Value Church

There are errors in all churches today just as there were in the days of the apostles.

Read the many rebukes to the churches by Peter, James, John and Paul.

Read the rebuke of Christ Himself to the 7 churches....

Revelation 1-3

Things may be worse today then they were then but the same problems they had we have...

In His service,

Robert
_________________

This is not the issue. OPEN DOCUMENTED SIN was never tolerated for long! Today it is hardly ever mentioned. (and we are not talking of judging the motives of the Wheat & the Tares) See Joshua 7:12's last part of the verse.

---John
 
John the Baptist said:
There are errors in all churches today just as there were in the days of the apostles.

Read the many rebukes to the churches by Peter, James, John and Paul.

Read the rebuke of Christ Himself to the 7 churches....

Revelation 1-3

Things may be worse today then they were then but the same problems they had we have...

In His service,

Robert
_________________

This is not the issue. OPEN DOCUMENTED SIN was never tolerated for long! Today it is hardly ever mentioned. (and we are not talking of judging the motives of the Wheat & the Tares) See Joshua 7:12's last part of the verse.

---John
Click to expand...

I have yet to read a post in this thread that says open sin should be tolerated.

I haven't a clue as to what you are getting at or exactly what point you are making ... :smt102
 
John here:
The last church, candlestick, or fold as in Virgin doctrines, is Laodicea. She is the last recorded seventh fold. No different than the repeated history of Virgin Israel of old.

But we see the seven disappear as did Israel of old also, & the number six replace her candlestick! Revelation 2:5, Revelation 3:16-17 is 'Spewed out' & Rev. 3:9 gives the new leader in both histories desolation! (of Christ) See Matthew 23:38.

Philadelphia is seen in verse Revelation 3:10 as being kept & verse 11 tells us of Christ's coming. Philadelphia is the Remnant out of Revelation 12:17 in both histories. See Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 & Ecclesiastes 3:15.

These two folds are to be the spectacle of the world, held up in the world court for a true witness of the Everlasting Gospel. See Matthew 10:23'S REPEAT. Then the 666 testing will find the few left, who are of faithful maturity that are in the Revelation 18:4 verse.
 
bibleberean said:
John the Baptist said:
There are errors in all churches today just as there were in the days of the apostles.

Read the many rebukes to the churches by Peter, James, John and Paul.

Read the rebuke of Christ Himself to the 7 churches....

Revelation 1-3

Things may be worse today then they were then but the same problems they had we have...

In His service,

Robert
_________________

This is not the issue. OPEN DOCUMENTED SIN was never tolerated for long! Today it is hardly ever mentioned. (and we are not talking of judging the motives of the Wheat & the Tares) See Joshua 7:12's last part of the verse.

---John
Click to expand...

I have yet to read a post in this thread that says open sin should be tolerated.

I haven't a clue as to what you are getting at or exactly what point you are making ... :smt102
Click to expand...

******
Hi, I will get back on this. I have friends coming in from Florida, so will be a few days from now. ---John
 
bibleberean wrote:

The apostles laid the foundation of the church and we have there doctrines and teachings recorded in the bible.
Click to expand...

And when was the Bible compiled?? In 325 A.D. Three hundred years later(approx.) So what did the clergy and faithful follow if they didn't have a Bible to quote(at endless length)?

The church foudation has been laid.
Click to expand...

And who preserved that during the 300 years? Answer: the hierarchs who were ordained after the Apostles and so on and so forth. The foundation of the church continued with them.

But as anyone can read the foundation is finished.

The apostles doctrine established the church.
Click to expand...

And who continued to live by it after the Apostles? There is still that gap between the time of the Apostles and the time the Bible was actually compiled.

These men are frauds and usurpers.
Click to expand...

I agree, there are bad examples of hierarchs, these days, but have you read about the early church history, before 1054 A.D.? Do you have any knowledge of the holy men who were Patriarchs, Archbishops and Bishops who preserved the true faith of Christ? The Seven Ecumenical Councils were the means of preserving the true faith, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit...a faith that, at the beginning was passed down by oral tradition.

We read Pauls revelation and we understand his apostolic knowledge by reading God's word.
Click to expand...

Nobody can truly understand the spirit of his words without understanding how the Holy Spirit guided the hierachs to preserve the Christian faith.
God's word continued to be passed down to the next generations. Don't you think that God would have other servants after the Apostles? Or does it stop with them? That doesn't make much sense. The faith continued to live within the people and there were certain people, men and women who lived in the Holy Spirit. To say that the Holy Spirit was limited only to the Apostles and then is working amongst us, illiminates all the generations between then and now. This definitely, doesn't make sense.

Peter when speaking to the disciples in the upper room before Pentecost said that the man who was to replace Judas had to be an eye witness of the resurrected Christ and needed to be someone who was with them from the "beginning".
Click to expand...

That was necessary, to be an Apostle. But, life continued after the Apostles and they did ordain other men to be Patriarchs and bishops.

I find that many here quote the Bible, but don't realize that the Bible didn't exist until 325 A.D. The books, everybody quotes, weren't choosen until the First Ecumenical Council, by men who were Patriarchs and bishops.

The apostles worked miracles... and showed the signs of an apostle...
Click to expand...

The saints chosen, by God, also worked miracles, because they lived in the Holy Spirit. You really should read up on the history of the church. There is so much information that many people here lack. There is a whole world of holy saints that you are not aware of. A whole world of the life of the Church of Christ, that you have never heard of.

Shouldn't they be honored for their courage, as we honor the men who gave their lives for our country? Even actors and comedians are honored more than those who lived their lives for Christ. Isn't that pathetic? Worldly honor is considered so sacred, but many fellow Christians couldn't care less about the sacrifices the servants of God made 1000 years ago.

I will offer some names and you can do your own research. You can't argue about something that you know nothing about, right? For, example, nobody here knew that the Bible was officially complied in 325 A.D., right? So read up on it and then you can say you have the ability to respond to it.

St. Ignatius of Antioch(who by ancient tradition is the child of Matt:18:2-3)
St. Justin Martyr, the Philosopher (Apologist for the faith) - born 100 A.D.
St. Macarius the Great of Egypt - born 300 A.D.

In Christ,

Pelagia
 
I don't really care for non-denominational churches as it is an attempt to be even more "Christian," to be more like the "NT" church. However, what results is further fracturing of the Church and there is little or no accountability for false teachings and such.

The NT church is not represented by any denominational or non-denominational church on earth today, although there are likely some that are closer than others. The closest may be the Coptic Church in Egypt. It is wrong to say that just because there were no denominations in the NT that non-denominational churches are closest, or even similar, to the church of the NT.
 
Free,

I like the way you expressed yourself. Since, you mentioned the Coptics as being the closest, don't you think the Greek Orthodox would be even more so? Afterall, the Coptics are monophysites. The teaching of Christ having two natures is clear, but the Coptics only believe in one nature(the divine). Even the Nicene Creed states both natures. How can the Coptics ignore the First Ecumenical Council of the holy fathers? And Monophysitism was condemned at the Fourth Ecumenical Council. The purity of the Christian teachings was violated by the RC and that's why they lost their place too.

What many don't realize is that all this talk about denominations is a focus on the situation 2000 years later. A close review of the church as it continued after the Apostles is necessary. The Western See of Rome was the first split, in 1054 A.D. and after that, these protestant denominations starting with Luther, has branched out to a plethora of "churches".

And it should be noted that these different "churches" became seperated from the main Church of Christ, because they started preaching incorrect dogmas and theology. The See of Rome's(RC) fatal error of dogma was that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, WHICH IT DOES NOT. And by preaching this error and refusing to repent, they became heretics and were anathamatized by their Eastern brothers, the Orthodox.

Since Christ established a following of believers and they organized a form of communal worship, by the blessings of the Apostles, of course, which spread to many lands...then shouldn't an unbroken line of succession from the Apostles be considered the true Church of Christ?

In Christ,

Pelagia
 
Pelagia,

I agree. Why doesnt anyone believe us when history is plainly before their faces? Maybe a viel is before their eyes that blinds them? Do you think, possibly the rebellion of Luther and what proceeded after has created a hatered for anything resembling a "catholic church" to the extent that the heterodox simply cannot see the face of God found in the Holy Orthodox Church?

Orthodoxy
 
Soma-Sight said:
The definition of an evangelical non - denominational church can be summed up in an example.

Take a dollar bill that you make yourself (draw old George on it and color in the green) and present it to but some milk or something.

You will soon see that it is COUNTERFEIT and has no intrinsic VALUE.

It may appear to be something, but when it somes for actual "fruits" you will see its fallacy!


Bottom Line - Avoid any Church claiming to be non - denominational (valueless) as its spirit holds no power!
Click to expand...

I agree. However, The Holy Orthodox Church on the other hand is pre denominational. We never claimed non denominational status but it has been falsely thrust upon us be the heterodox. That is a fallacy of the heterodox. The members of orthodoxy make up the original Church in direct line to Jesus Christ through sucession and laying on of hands. No denomination nor division in the body the bible says. The value of any christian dollar is based on the Orthodox Church's "value" because it is the unadulterate original without stain or blemish. Before all "denonimations", "rebellious sects" and "imitators" was the Holy Orthodox Church. History proves my claim. Fact is the Church determines who is and who is not a "christian". The fulness of Jesus Christ saves and is the only path to the Kingdom of God. Ephesians 1:22-23

Your example should go like this:

You in your basement print your own hundred dollar bills with your computer because your mad at another protesting conterfeit both trying to pass them off as the original.

Reality. The real thing is right before your eyes in the Holy Orthodox Church.

Orthodoxy
 
Soma-Sight said:
The definition of an evangelical non - denominational church can be summed up in an example.

Take a dollar bill that you make yourself (draw old George on it and color in the green) and present it to but some milk or something.

You will soon see that it is COUNTERFEIT and has no intrinsic VALUE.

It may appear to be something, but when it somes for actual "fruits" you will see its fallacy!


Bottom Line - Avoid any Church claiming to be non - denominational (valueless) as its spirit holds no power!
Click to expand...

I agree. However, The Holy Orthodox Church on the other hand is pre denominational. We never claimed non denominational status but it has been falsely thrust upon us be the heterodox. That is a fallacy of the heterodox. The members of orthodoxy make up the original Church in direct line to Jesus Christ through sucession and laying on of hands. No denomination nor division in the body the bible says. The value of any christian dollar is based on the Orthodox Church's "value" because it is the unadulterate original without stain or blemish. Before all "denonimations", "rebellious sects" and "imitators" was the Holy Orthodox Church. History proves my claim. Fact is the Church determines who is and who is not a "christian". The fulness of Jesus Christ saves and is the only path to the Kingdom of God. Ephesians 1:22-23

Your example should go like this:

You in your basement print your own hundred dollar bills with your computer because you are mad at another protesting conterfeiter and try to pass them off as the original when the real thing is right before your eyes.

Orthodoxy
 
Soma-Sight said:
The definition of an evangelical non - denominational church can be summed up in an example.

Take a dollar bill that you make yourself (draw old George on it and color in the green) and present it to but some milk or something.

You will soon see that it is COUNTERFEIT and has no intrinsic VALUE.

It may appear to be something, but when it somes for actual "fruits" you will see its fallacy!


Bottom Line - Avoid any Church claiming to be non - denominational (valueless) as its spirit holds no power!
Click to expand...

I agree. However, The Holy Orthodox Church on the other hand is pre denominational. We never claimed non denominational status but it has been falsely thrust upon us be the heterodox. That is a fallacy of the heterodox. The members of orthodoxy make up the original Church in direct line to Jesus Christ through sucession and laying on of hands. No denomination nor division in the body the bible says. The value of any christian dollar is based on the Orthodox Church's "value" because it is the unadulterate original without stain or blemish. Before all "denonimations", "rebellious sects" and "imitators" was the Holy Orthodox Church. History proves my claim. Fact is the Church determines who is and who is not a "christian". The fulness of Jesus Christ saves and is the only path to the Kingdom of God. Ephesians 1:22-23

Your example should go like this:

You in your basement print your own hundred dollar bills with your computer because you are mad at another protesting conterfeiter both try to pass them off as the original.

Reality the real thing is right before your eyes in the Holy Orthodox Church.

Orthodoxy
 
Merry Menagerie said:
I don't think we should be naming denominations and putting them down. I don't believe that the organisational church of today is represented in the bible AT ALL. The organisational church is a man-made thing established to keep order and for political and monetary reasons. The church of the NT is not represented in ANY denomination currently on this earth.

I have an article written about it...am I allowed to post a link? Does anyone know?
Click to expand...
Go fot it! :-D









Oh, you alrady did. 8-)
 
Orthodoxy wrote:

I agree. Why doesnt anyone believe us when history is plainly before their faces? Maybe a viel is before their eyes that blinds them? Do you think, possibly the rebellion of Luther and what proceeded after has created a hatered for anything resembling a "catholic church" to the extent that the heterodox simply cannot see the face of God found in the Holy Orthodox Church?
Click to expand...

I think it's a matter of everybody in their own time. Everybody has their path to walk, but God is with us always. The majority of converts to Orthodoxy comes from the Protestants. Have you ever read Fr. Seraphim Rose's writings. Very insightful. He wrote with simplicity, and touched on the concerns that the protestants were struggling with. He was a protestant, turned atheist and eventually became Orthodox and then a monk-priest. Actually, he also studied Buddhism and he knew fluent Chinese, before he converted. An amazing man. Unfortunately, he died in 1983.

In Christ,

Pelagia
 
One shouldn't assume that the Orthodox is the correct or only Church. If you two want to talk history and think it is so "plainly before our faces," then perhaps we should discuss it.

Even to this day the Copts are convinced that they were misrepresented and their position was misinterpreted at the Fourth Council. The reason they are most likely to be similar to the early church is that that is where many of the Christians fled at the fall of Jerusalem and times of persecution.

I don't think the RC or Orthodox Churches are most like the NT church, but neither do I think any denomination of Protestantism to be either.
 
Soma says non-denominational churches are counterfeit...

Diaconeo attends a non-denominational church...

Merry is against ALL denominationalism...

Henry believes it is unscriptural to say we "attend" ANY church...

OC and Pelagia believe the Orthodox Church is the true church...

John slams "Mother Rome and her daughters"...

Sputnik is "sick of all these SDA bashers"...

BB says "popes and patriarches are frauds"...

Free thinks neither the RCC or the Orthodox Church or Protestant denominations are like the original church...

Pretend that you never heard of Christianity. Pretend you're reading threads like this as an outsider (not only on the subject of the church, but on any of dozens of different doctrines) and then imagine your incredulity when you discover that all of these posters are supposedly of the same religion...that most of these commenters do consider most of the others, Christians, in general. Is it possible that there is a unifying Spirit anywhere here? Wouldn't the evidence rather contend that there WASN'T?

I'll probably be accused of just trying to make trouble or something but doesn't anyone here get the "big picture"? Do you ever listen to yourselves? More and more I am convinced that the whole "one in the Lord" claim among Christians is a fraud. I can't see how anyone could possibly come to any other conclusion? The only true "oneness" is between Christians who attend the SAME (type) church. How is it possible that there is such vast disagreement among Christians on the CHURCH ITSELF? If any of you are right, how can it be that all the others, then, do not even understand what the church is supposed to be, when you all presumably, are indwelt by an omniscient Spirit of whom it is foretold - will "guide you into ALL TRUTH"?

Now I have provided the only real "unity" you folks will ever have - the "unity" of providing you the opportunity to join together to denounce ME for pointing this out 8-)
 
BradtheImpaler said:
Soma says non-denominational churches are counterfeit...

Diaconeo attends a non-denominational church...

Merry is against ALL denominationalism...

Henry believes it is unscriptural to say we "attend" ANY church...

OC and Pelagia believe the Orthodox Church is the true church...

John slams "Mother Rome and her daughters"...

Sputnik is "sick of all these SDA bashers"...

BB says "popes and patriarches are frauds"...

Free thinks neither the RCC or the Orthodox Church or Protestant denominations are like the original church...

Pretend that you never heard of Christianity. Pretend you're reading threads like this as an outsider (not only on the subject of the church, but on any of dozens of different doctrines) and then imagine your incredulity when you discover that all of these posters are supposedly of the same religion...that most of these commenters do consider most of the others, Christians, in general. Is it possible that there is a unifying Spirit anywhere here? Wouldn't the evidence rather contend that there WASN'T?

I'll probably be accused of just trying to make trouble or something but doesn't anyone here get the "big picture"? Do you ever listen to yourselves? More and more I am convinced that the whole "one in the Lord" claim among Christians is a fraud. I can't see how anyone could possibly come to any other conclusion? The only true "oneness" is between Christians who attend the SAME (type) church. How is it possible that there is such vast disagreement among Christians on the CHURCH ITSELF? If any of you are right, how can it be that all the others, then, do not even understand what the church is supposed to be, when you all presumably, are indwelt by an omniscient Spirit of whom it is foretold - will "guide you into ALL TRUTH"?

Now I have provided the only real "unity" you folks will ever have - the "unity" of providing you the opportunity to join together to denounce ME for pointing this out 8-)
Click to expand...
I won't denounce you, Brad, but I will ask you to not speak to my position.

By way of responding to you, I will respond also to Free: I believe the Eastern Orthodox Church to be an unbroken tradition, dating back to the Apostles. That being said, that is not the same as saying we are the 'most like the 1st century church.' The influence of all centuries is felt and observed in our Liturgy. This in itself is a very rich subject which I will not waylay this topic with.

The Coptic Church has a very ancient 'feel' because they 1. they use the most ancient Liturgy (St James) and 2. They were relatively cut-off from the rest of the Christian world and modernizing influences.

They are beautiful people, and have a beautiful tradition. There are 12 million of them, and 35 million Ethiopian/Eretrian Christians with whom they have very close ties.

This Church, wrongfully called monophysite, became alienated (along with the Armenians, Assyrians and Mar Thoma Indian Orthodox) from the rest of the ancient communities because of a grave misunderstanding. Our own hierarchs have acknowledged this, and not only that- we had an accord with the Copts for a while, where the Romanian Orthodox and Copts were commuining together for a while. This was objected to, but we will see re-unification with these Churches in our lifetime.

Likewise, Rome and the East have been moving toward reconcilliation for quite some time, and this will also come to fruit in the near future.

Then we will have only to work with our Protestant brethren. Because there is such a broad, non-cohesive group of Protestant churches, it is impossible to simply reunify.

I agree, Brad, many voices does not a competent, nor believable witness make.

As my Orthodox brethren have stated here, there is a great deal of heterodoxy which is a confused Babel of voices. Because of this, we find ourselves in conflict at times with heterodox voices. This is not the same thing as saying "we're the only Christians, you're all wrong."

In spite of the difficulties posed by broken relationships within Christianity, Christ continues to call many to Himself. He can do this, and He can cause us to reconcile.
James
 
Now I have provided the only real "unity" you folks will ever have - the "unity" of providing you the opportunity to join together to denounce ME for pointing this out 8-)
Click to expand...

I won't denounce you, Brad, but I will ask you to not speak to my position.

By way of responding to you, I will respond also to Free: I believe the Eastern Orthodox Church to be an unbroken tradition, dating back to the Apostles. That being said, that is not the same as saying we are the 'most like the 1st century church.' The influence of all centuries is felt and observed in our Liturgy. This in itself is a very rich subject which I will not waylay this topic with.

The Coptic Church has a very ancient 'feel' because they 1. they use the most ancient Liturgy (St James) and 2. They were relatively cut-off from the rest of the Christian world and modernizing influences.

They are beautiful people, and have a beautiful tradition. There are 12 million of them, and 35 million Ethiopian/Eretrian Christians with whom they have very close ties.

This Church, wrongfully called monophysite, became alienated (along with the Armenians, Assyrians and Mar Thoma Indian Orthodox) from the rest of the ancient communities because of a grave misunderstanding. Our own hierarchs have acknowledged this, and not only that- we had an accord with the Copts for a while, where the Romanian Orthodox and Copts were commuining together for a while. This was objected to, but we will see re-unification with these Churches in our lifetime.

Likewise, Rome and the East have been moving toward reconcilliation for quite some time, and this will also come to fruit in the near future.

Then we will have only to work with our Protestant brethren. Because there is such a broad, non-cohesive group of Protestant churches, it is impossible to simply reunify.

I agree, Brad, many voices does not a competent, nor believable witness make.

As my Orthodox brethren have stated here, there is a great deal of heterodoxy which is a confused Babel of voices. Because of this, we find ourselves in conflict at times with heterodox voices. This is not the same thing as saying "we're the only Christians, you're all wrong."

In spite of the difficulties posed by broken relationships within Christianity, Christ continues to call many to Himself. He can do this, and He can cause us to reconcile.
James
Click to expand...

I believe the only way all Christians will become "one" in the true sense, is if the governments of the world outlawed Christianity, in ANY form. I am not predicting or advocating this, but if it were illegal to be a Christian all that would exist would be the "underground" church, and the situation would force unity among them. If it were illegal to be Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, there would only be "the church", and, under such persecution, the ranks of the church would be greatly reduced from the number of the masses who today who attend the churches - IOW, only REAL Christians would still be "Christians" and the doctrines that divide them today wouldn't matter because survival and maintaining their basic Christian testimony unto death would be the consuming issue.

But the churches becoming one on their own? "Not bloody likely" (Seinfeld :wink: ) They may all join a larger organization (such as the World Council of Churches) but this would be a false unity, because the organizations who became members would not relinquish their various names and agendas to join. That would be simply a way of appearing unified on a larger scale while still maintaining their own identities as seperate churches.
 
Non-Denominational Church In The Bible ??

Soma-Sight said:
The definition of an evangelical non - denominational church can be summed up in an example.

Take a dollar bill that you make yourself (draw old George on it and color in the green) and present it to but some milk or something.

You will soon see that it is COUNTERFEIT and has no intrinsic VALUE.

It may appear to be something, but when it somes for actual "fruits" you will see its fallacy!


Bottom Line - Avoid any Church claiming to be non - denominational (valueless) as its spirit holds no power!
Click to expand...

Soma-Sight: What a cheap put-down you have made against Bible believing Christians!!! You don't judge a group of believers by the name of their church/denomination!

Check out their teachings, and the fruit .... Bible clearly says that you will know them by their fruits. The church I attend, Big Valley Grace, is a non-denominational church, reaching lost souls for Christ, and ministering to the body of Christ in many ways.

May God open your eyes and heart to see the depth of Christ and His Word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top