Should Churches be non-denominational?

[francisdesales]

There is a misconception afoot that Christianity ought to be rigid. In warfare manoeuvre is far superior to a static defence. The bible says that the gates of hell shall not prevail against us...that is if we attack a rigid structure with a mobile offense. It is not the gates of the church that will overcome! Think of the Maginot line during WW2. It was useless in defending the country. The enemy simply went around the fortifications.

So it is with the modern church. :help

Ah, now you are speaking my language - warfare...

I agree, maneuver warfare is far superior to static defense. I wish we could apply this maxim to the situation at hand, but it doesn't apply. I don't compare the Creed to the Maginot line. The Creed merely expresses our beliefs about God, based upon what we know through revelation. It is more like the "Art of War". Or perhaps an Army Field Manual. However, rather than constant revisions done by the General Staff, the Creed is revised by Bishops who are guided by an infallible Person in the Holy Spirit. Not having a Creed is like going into battle without any plan whatsoever. At the tactical level, this is a disaster waiting to happen. A properly prepared enemy (devil) can exploit our weaknesses, especially if our understanding of tactics is "point your gun downrange and pull the trigger". Thus, without proper reconnaisance, just going on a "hunch", we walk into an ambush without any sort of plan for extraction. We become the people whom the Bible speaks of who have "itchy ears" or flow with the tide. What comments does Paul reserve for those who are still "infants" in the Word? See Hebrews 4-5.

Paul was adamant about the Gospel and its contents - it was more than just "be good to other people". I take it you read the letters to the Galatians and Corintians and Colossians. What does he say about those people who oppose him in doctrine? What does John and Jude say about those who preach false teachings?

Christ came to preach the truth to us. We have been tasked to present THAT truth, not whatever we decide sounds good for the 21st century.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Paul was fluid in his approach but his doctrine was rigid, as it should be. Becoming all things to all men does not in any way mean you change what you believe; that would be lying and deception.

That is correct. Thank God nobody was saying we should change the truth of the gospel to suit others !

No, just to suit yourself... Isn't that what happens when you read the Scriptures outside the great Christian Tradition of the past? Your own intellect and reason become the Word of God's official interpreter...

 

[Adullam]

There is a misconception afoot that Christianity ought to be rigid. In warfare manoeuvre is far superior to a static defence. The bible says that the gates of hell shall not prevail against us...that is if we attack a rigid structure with a mobile offense. It is not the gates of the church that will overcome! Think of the Maginot line during WW2. It was useless in defending the country. The enemy simply went around the fortifications.

So it is with the modern church. :help

Ah, now you are speaking my language - warfare...

I agree, maneuver warfare is far superior to static defense. I wish we could apply this maxim to the situation at hand, but it doesn't apply. I don't compare the Creed to the Maginot line. The Creed merely expresses our beliefs about God, based upon what we know through revelation. It is more like the "Art of War". Or perhaps an Army Field Manual. However, rather than constant revisions done by the General Staff, the Creed is revised by Bishops who are guided by an infallible Person in the Holy Spirit. Not having a Creed is like going into battle without any plan whatsoever. At the tactical level, this is a disaster waiting to happen. A properly prepared enemy (devil) can exploit our weaknesses, especially if our understanding of tactics is "point your gun downrange and pull the trigger". Thus, without proper reconnaisance, just going on a "hunch", we walk into an ambush without any sort of plan for extraction. We become the people whom the Bible speaks of who have "itchy ears" or flow with the tide. What comments does Paul reserve for those who are still "infants" in the Word? See Hebrews 4-5.

Paul was adamant about the Gospel and its contents - it was more than just "be good to other people". I take it you read the letters to the Galatians and Corintians and Colossians. What does he say about those people who oppose him in doctrine? What does John and Jude say about those who preach false teachings?

Christ came to preach the truth to us. We have been tasked to present THAT truth, not whatever we decide sounds good for the 21st century.

Regards

The field manuals are the law and the gospel. We cannot add to these on pain of adding to our tribulations. These are concerned with strategic issues. These are solid and never move. The tactical means of seeing the strategies through must reside with the Holy Spirit. He is our Lieutenant (French for "holding place")...Our Lieutenant holds place for our Captain Jesus Christ. Those who are led by the Spirit are the sons of God.

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. Rom 8:14

It is one thing to affirm belief in the Holy Spirit...and quite another to actually follow Him. We do not merely follow men who are led of the Spirit. We follow the Spirit as they do.

So the difference is the battle at the tactical level. Following the man in front of you is never as good as being led in person. Many battles are won when the officer leads personally into combat. We are to be led personally by Christ through the Spirit. We can never lose if we do this.

 

[Adullam]

Paul was fluid in his approach but his doctrine was rigid, as it should be. Becoming all things to all men does not in any way mean you change what you believe; that would be lying and deception.

That is correct. Thank God nobody was saying we should change the truth of the gospel to suit others !

No, just to suit yourself... Isn't that what happens when you read the Scriptures outside the great Christian Tradition of the past? Your own intellect and reason become the Word of God's official interpreter...

Judaism is based on tradition. The Holy Spirit is the only qualified interpreter of the bible. There is no safety in numbers. Many people agreeing doesn't necessarily make things the truth. Intellect and reasoning are in the collective as much as in the individual. Look at the spies who went over Jordan during the Exodus. Was the concensus the truth? Are the majority following the narrow way. How can a little flock number in the billions? 1 in 3 on the planet today. Creeds can be believed by anyone! This is no indicator of true faith and regeneration in the Spirit.

 

[Adullam]

Francis....which is it? The unity of the creed? Or the unity of the Spirit? You can't have it both ways. Creeds give a false sense of unity. The mafia agree with the creed. They know no other creed. Does this bring you into any sort of unity with them?

WHY can't I have it both ways? The Creed presupposes that the Spirit is involved in its making! The holiness of the Church is dependent upon the concept that the Spirit guides it to all truth, as Scriptures relate. Thus, unity of the Spirit is manifested by unity of the creed (and cult...)

As for the Mafia, I don't share any creed with them.

The creed ostensibly is a short book report of the Bible. As if the rest were not as important. The Spirit could not have been involved in a process which effectively replaces the Spirit. The creeds were formulated against the fear of heresy. Creeds make an ivory tower where all seems well.

The mafia DO believe the creeds whether you see that or not. They are catholic to the core...obeying all the church traditions. They are not, however, following Christ.

BTW. the fact that God has revealed Himself to me and I know Him does not mean that I know everything about Him. The purpose of intimacy with God is not to study Him. He is not like a planet to be explored or a plant to dissect and study.

I agree, nor does any theologian. I have already stated that we know God by experience, not through esoteric philosophizing. However, theology, the study of God, is a worthwhile pursuit for those who do love God. Those who love God desire to know more about Him - but that doesn't mean we will ever know ALL about God, like we might know about fruit flies...

If you have ever had a girlfriend/wife, you would see the analogy. When we love someone, we desire to know more about them. This "study" does NOT take away from our desire for intimacy.

Intimacy is just that. It is from that intimacy that I speak. I am not an independent scientist telling people my findings. Look deeper into this. Creeds are for the masses. Literally.

So intimacy is just based on some hazy "feelings" that give you butterflies in your stomach as you sing "Koombia"? I am hoping that when you say "look deeper", you would SEE that is EXACTLY what Creeds do. They look deeper into what we actually believe about God. Think about it.

Adullum, the Mass is THE MOST intimate meeting with Christ! At this celebration, we are joined as a community with the Body of Christ in perfect worship offered to the Father. So Creeds are definitely suited for intimacy! Your comments show that you have a meager and superficial understanding of what we do at the Mass.

I was raised catholic...and was even an altar boy. The intimacy I have experienced in Christ is light years above any mass I've attended. Masses are centered upon religious feelings....sights sounds and smells. (Can you say incense?) This type of "experience" is common among pagan practice. How can this compare with walking in the light.... all the time?

Perhaps it might be better to reconsider putting all catholics (or any other community that has a formal creed) into a general category of "the religious dead" because they hold to principles formulated in a creed... Such superficial stereotypes is unbecoming of one who claims to be Christian.


It is the religionists who catagorize themselves. Does hanging a sign that says "church" out front of a building make it a church? The church is people not a steeple. People are hiding behind a creed a building or whatever other facade they feel comfortable with.

Following Christ is of a whole other order.

Regards

 

[Free]

Judaism is based on tradition.

And...? What is wrong with tradition?

1 Cor. 11:2, Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

2 Thes. 2:15, So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

2 Thes. 3:6, Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.

There is a purpose for tradition, just as there is for the creeds.

Creeds can be believed by anyone! This is no indicator of true faith and regeneration in the Spirit.

No one is making that claim. Creeds are summaries of Christian doctrine so the creeds will not just be believed by anyone. Christians will believe them and those who aren't Christian will not.

 

[francisdesales]

The field manuals are the law and the gospel.

No, the Gospel is like "when you get shot in the head with a bazooka, you die." They are not subject to any change, revision, rewording or anything. Field manuals change all the time, dependent upon the tactics of the age. Cavalry charges were once the shock element of the battlefield, until men figured out how to get into square and remain disciplined. Thus, the field manuals had to be re-written.

The Gospel will always be the Gospel, no matter what era we live in, no matter what century.

We cannot add to these on pain of adding to our tribulations.

I wholeheartedly disagree, if "adding" to something helps us to understand God within the realm of Christian Tradition and teachings. The concept of Trinity would be one example. It is a formulation that expresses the deeper meaning of Christian revelation, although there is no specific mention of "Trinity".

These are concerned with strategic issues. These are solid and never move. The tactical means of seeing the strategies through must reside with the Holy Spirit. He is our Lieutenant (French for "holding place")...Our Lieutenant holds place for our Captain Jesus Christ. Those who are led by the Spirit are the sons of God.

You are trying hard, and I like it, but you are losing me on the analogy. The Spirit is involved in all "warfare", tactical and strategic, personal and community.

So the difference is the battle at the tactical level. Following the man in front of you is never as good as being led in person. Many battles are won when the officer leads personally into combat. We are to be led personally by Christ through the Spirit. We can never lose if we do this.

The battle is at all levels. Jesus Christ is our representative (not substitute). One man represents all of mankind. We muster at the divisional level (our Church), at the battalion level, (my particular church), and we also are expected to fight the battle on a personal scale (my personal battle vs. satan). Those of the Church see their participation in Christ as not just "me and Jesus", but also the rest of the community WITH Christ. I certainly do not disagree that we are led by Christ, but the "General" has left other men in charge, given authority to task us to obey. Again, this is quite Scriptural. It was not for nothing that Paul sometimes compared the military and its organization to the Church.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Judaism is based on tradition.

Judaism is based upon the EXPERIENCE of Moses and the people of Israel being freed from slavery and culminating with being given the Decalogue. Judaism is not a Far Eastern religion that relies on philosophical thoughts that stuck and carried on into the future. The Jews KNEW they had experience God. It is not based upon rituals, those come later, at the COMMAND of God - according to Scriptures...

The Holy Spirit is the only qualified interpreter of the bible.

Who speaks through the entire Church...

There is no safety in numbers.

There certainly is not safety going solo, thinking your interpretation is actually the Spirit...

Many people agreeing doesn't necessarily make things the truth.

That's not how the Church works in determining what the Spirit says...

Intellect and reasoning are in the collective as much as in the individual.

More so. The collective is much better at avoiding self-delusion...

Look at the spies who went over Jordan during the Exodus. Was the concensus the truth? Are the majority following the narrow way. How can a little flock number in the billions? 1 in 3 on the planet today. Creeds can be believed by anyone! This is no indicator of true faith and regeneration in the Spirit.

Creeds are not believed by everyone. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. We know there are poor Christians. We know there were poor Christians in the days related in Scriptures, well before there was an official Nicene Creed. Thus, it is poor logic to associate the existence of Creeds with poor Christianity. It appears to me that people who do not take the Creed seriously are the ones who need to be aware of the danger of equating their thoughts with the thoughts of the Holy Spirit. It then becomes too easy to elevate one's personal opinions to God's transcendant Charecter.

Regards

 

[Vince]

"There is no safety in numbers."

Pr 11:14 ¶ Where there is no counsel, the people fall; But in the multitude of counselors there is safety.

 

[Adullam]

The field manuals are the law and the gospel.

No, the Gospel is like "when you get shot in the head with a bazooka, you die." They are not subject to any change, revision, rewording or anything. Field manuals change all the time, dependent upon the tactics of the age. Cavalry charges were once the shock element of the battlefield, until men figured out how to get into square and remain disciplined. Thus, the field manuals had to be re-written.

The Gospel will always be the Gospel, no matter what era we live in, no matter what century.

We cannot add to these on pain of adding to our tribulations.

I wholeheartedly disagree, if "adding" to something helps us to understand God within the realm of Christian Tradition and teachings. The concept of Trinity would be one example. It is a formulation that expresses the deeper meaning of Christian revelation, although there is no specific mention of "Trinity".

These are concerned with strategic issues. These are solid and never move. The tactical means of seeing the strategies through must reside with the Holy Spirit. He is our Lieutenant (French for "holding place")...Our Lieutenant holds place for our Captain Jesus Christ. Those who are led by the Spirit are the sons of God.

You are trying hard, and I like it, but you are losing me on the analogy. The Spirit is involved in all "warfare", tactical and strategic, personal and community.

So the difference is the battle at the tactical level. Following the man in front of you is never as good as being led in person. Many battles are won when the officer leads personally into combat. We are to be led personally by Christ through the Spirit. We can never lose if we do this.

The battle is at all levels. Jesus Christ is our representative (not substitute). One man represents all of mankind. We muster at the divisional level (our Church), at the battalion level, (my particular church), and we also are expected to fight the battle on a personal scale (my personal battle vs. satan). Those of the Church see their participation in Christ as not just "me and Jesus", but also the rest of the community WITH Christ. I certainly do not disagree that we are led by Christ, but the "General" has left other men in charge, given authority to task us to obey. Again, this is quite Scriptural. It was not for nothing that Paul sometimes compared the military and its organization to the Church.

Regards

God's army is not like man's armies....the field manuals never change. The Strategy is already decided on high. Only the tactics change. These are revealed to us...at the moment. The Holy Spirit gives us the words and directives at the proper time. So the battle is the Lord's. He fights for us.

Men try to use their own means to win the battles...like converting pagan rituals into Christian ones in order to gain easy converts....let's see...who did that?

If you don't understand spiritual things, I, a mere man, cannot explain them to you. You must be enlightened from on high. Spiritual things are foolishness to carnal man. You don't seem to understand the present function of the Holy Spirit and you ignore the bible on this issue. What can be done?

 

[Adullam]

"There is no safety in numbers."

Pr 11:14 ¶ Where there is no counsel, the people fall; But in the multitude of counselors there is safety.

Mat 7:13 ¶ Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

 

[Vince]

Adullam, you seem to have a belief that I had when I was a new Christian. When someone shows me a Scripture correcting my mistake, I can use a contradictory Scripture to justify my belief. "I've got eight Scriptures, and you have five, so I win."

The Bible teaches us that we should have a good number of counselors. This same idea is found in John 16:13 "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth..." While Christians will disagree and even refuse to obey the Spirit's guidance, overall, the Holy Spirit guides us. By getting a multitude of counselors, you increase your chance of understanding God's will.

The Bible also teaches that most people will ultimately not accept Jesus Christ as Savior. But these two teaching do not contradict.

 

[Adullam]

Adullam, you seem to have a belief that I had when I was a new Christian. When someone shows me a Scripture correcting my mistake, I can use a contradictory Scripture to justify my belief. "I've got eight Scriptures, and you have five, so I win."

The Bible teaches us that we should have a good number of counselors. This same idea is found in John 16:13 "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth..." While Christians will disagree and even refuse to obey the Spirit's guidance, overall, the Holy Spirit guides us. By getting a multitude of counselors, you increase your chance of understanding God's will.

The Bible also teaches that most people will ultimately not accept Jesus Christ as Savior. But these two teaching do not contradict.

Perhaps you are just more advanced than I.

 

[kimberlyb0112]

I disagree with all churches being non-denominational because to me, it just seems like it's scriptorial issues that divide the churches.. different ways of worship, etc

I just got done reading this book called "The Christian Family Tree".. it was an awesome book..
It talked about the Anglicans worshipping this way and believing this, baptists and what they believe, pentacostals, etc..

As soon as I am back in the states, I am going to attend an Episcopalian Church.. they use the Book of Common Prayer, which I love and that is just the way I choose to worship

People place so much emphasis on denominations and I don't think it's good.. Baptists might think their right, Methodists might think their right.. it's scriptorial issues and you are all Christians.. just wish we could accept the differences and roll with it

 

[jasoncran]

kimberly 0012, the best church i had was in combat, any one chaplian who loved the lord and wanted him to show up , was a blessing to me, and i have seen a pentacostal moment happen during the protestant service at Bagram. if you hunger for the Lord he will be found of you in anyplace or place of worship with fellow hungry believers

jason

 

[Cornelius]

As soon as I am back in the states, I am going to attend an Episcopalian Church.. they use the Book of Common Prayer, which I love and that is just the way I choose to worship

I think this is a good example of how people think of the church as a market where we get to choose that which suits us. People shop around until they find a denomination that meets their needs.They are not looking for a place which meets the criteria of God, but for a place that meets their own criteria.

God comes second and we come first.

Praise us !

 

[Cornelius]

God obviously missed the point when he told Paul how He wanted the church to be. I think God forgot that we are now modern and He must get with the flow, because ......we have moved on baby !

Get with the program !

 

[Cornelius]

How silly is that program anyway? I mean who needs Apostles to look after the doctrine, who needs evangelists to go out and get the people saved, who needs a teacher to teach them and a separate pastor to look after them and a prophet to show the way?


We don't ! We have streamlined that old system and modernized it. We improved it.


We gave the job to one guy , so that he can go to seminary, where they must teach him to do the job of all the other guys. Much, much simpler than God's illogical way. And better too, now we only have to pay ONE salary so he can bring us that which is free.

I see the RCC went another way. VERY spectacular and great to watch ! So colorful . All the dresses and glitter and smoke. Very festive and godly looking. They made it even more simple: Just put one great guy at the very top and make him responsible for their souls. You must admit it really takes care of that difficult personal responsibility thing (way overrated !!) Now they can just relax, because God will only be asking the top guy questions, because the rest only "followed orders" ( you hear that a lot after a war ) But the RCC also kicked out God's old fashioned system for a bigger, brighter and lets admit is a LOT MORE FUN system. Like a Disney Land for the religious ! The rides are just way more impressive. You guys should try and make it to St Peter's in Rome to see the whole show. Its great.It starts at the kissing of the doors, then the kissing of Peter's toe (that poor thing only has a small piece of toe left, the faithful , faithfully kissed his toe away LOL ) There is also a lot of smoke effects and the choir is lovely.

Now why could God not have thought about that from the beginning ?

 

[dadof10]

I see the RCC went another way. VERY spectacular and great to watch ! So colorful . All the dresses and glitter and smoke. Very festive and godly looking. They made it even more simple: Just put one great guy at the very top and make him responsible for their souls. You must admit it really takes care of that difficult personal responsibility thing (way overrated !!) Now they can just relax, because God will only be asking the top guy questions, because the rest only "followed orders" ( you hear that a lot after a war ) But the RCC also kicked out God's old fashioned system for a bigger, brighter and lets admit is a LOT MORE FUN system. Like a Disney Land for the religious ! The rides are just way more impressive. You guys should try and make it to St Peter's in Rome to see the whole show. Its great.It starts at the kissing of the doors, then the kissing of Peter's toe (that poor thing only has a small piece of toe left, the faithful , faithfully kissed his toe away LOL ) There is also a lot of smoke effects and the choir is lovely.

Now why could God not have thought about that from the beginning ?

Having fun? I thought you were different from many on these forums and wanted to discuss actual doctrine instead of a caricature of beliefs. I guess I was wrong. I guess ripping stereotypes is too tempting. Here is Free's signature, in case you missed it. It applies here.

"If you can ever make any major religion look absolutely ludicrous, chances are you haven't understood it."--Ravi Zacharias

Or even tried.

 

[Tina]

"If you can ever make any major religion look absolutely ludicrous, chances are you haven't understood it."--Ravi Zacharias

Or even tried.

what makes you think Ravi Zacharias or his quote has anything to do with Catholicism ?