Christian Forums

 i would like to know what the mainstream criticisms of the protestant church are?
You know like, peeople always say "catholics pray to mary" or "they think the pope is infallible" etc etc,  --so what are the common criticisms of the protestants?
(btw im asking out of curiosity, not to throw mud)

: bib89bib89  Wed Oct 17, 2007 - 05:01:16
i would like to know what the mainstream criticisms of the protestant church are?
You know like, peeople always say "catholics pray to mary" or "they think the pope is infallible" etc etc,  --so what are the common criticisms of the protestants?
(btw im asking out of curiosity, not to throw mud)

There isn't a "protestant church."

I think that, while not so openly (currently), the Catholic Church tends to respond in kind to criticisms by "Protestants."

I say "in kind" because they probably have little negative to say about those who have been swallowed up into the ecumenical movement.  They figure that all these churches will eventually discover that all their "protest" was due to a misunderstanding, or as a reaction to some unfortunate decrees by some pope with personal issues, and thus no further "reform

and by the 'one true church' you are referring to Christ's Church right? and not the catholic church. There is no denomination or division, there is one church and one church only, and Jesus is its chief corner stone and high priest. I attend what would be considered a Baptist church but if someone would ask me, i simply say i am a Christian and if they inquire further I say non-denom and explain what I just wrote.

BTW i am tired of all the bashing of any church or denom, we are to love and respect one another. asking a legitimate question is one thing, but do it with respect.

: kamakaz  Wed Oct 17, 2007 - 08:51:54
BTW i am tired of all the bashing of any church or denom, we are to love and respect one another. asking a legitimate question is one thing, but do it with respect.

I see no need to offer respect to a (Roman Catholic) church which intends to take away our religious freedoms at their first opportunity.

Remember, this is from their own doctrines and official positions. 

Robert G

: bib89bib89  Wed Oct 17, 2007 - 05:01:16
i would like to know what the mainstream criticisms of the protestant church are?
You know like, peeople always say "catholics pray to mary" or "they think the pope is infallible" etc etc,  --so what are the common criticisms of the protestants?
(btw im asking out of curiosity, not to throw mud)

Getting back to the original intent of this thread, some of the common criticisms of the Protestant church are our lack of unity, our turning away from tradition - even good traditions, our low view of the church (at least in the eyes of the Catholics and the Orthodox) just to name a few.  Some of these criticism have merit - especially the first two.  There is way too much division among protestants and we have the bad tendency to throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to tradition and the teachings of those who have gone before us.

: mistergus  Wed Oct 17, 2007 - 17:21:58

I see no need to offer respect to a (Roman Catholic) church which intends to take away our religious freedoms at their first opportunity.

Remember, this is from their own doctrines and official positions. 

Robert G

As a Catholic, I can only think of one response to this..... rofl

: spurly  Wed Oct 17, 2007 - 17:52:06There is way too much division among protestants and we have the bad tendency to throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to tradition and the teachings of those who have gone before us.

We need to be careful not to give heed to the spirit of reactionism.

: broach972  Wed Oct 17, 2007 - 18:22:08

: mistergus  Wed Oct 17, 2007 - 17:21:58

I see no need to offer respect to a (Roman Catholic) church which intends to take away our religious freedoms at their first opportunity.

Remember, this is from their own doctrines and official positions. 

Robert G

As a Catholic, I can only think of one response to this..... rofl

You obviously haven't read the Batsell Barrett Baxter tract on the other thread.

Robert G

As a Catholic, I can only think of one response to this..... rofl

You obviously haven't read the Batsell Barrett Baxter tract on the other thread.

Robert G
[/quote]

So why should anyone care what a Church of Christ leader thinks about the Catholic Church?

I thought this thread was supposed to be about criticism of Protestant theology?

blessings

: ravenlorre  Wed Oct 17, 2007 - 21:01:40

As a Catholic, I can only think of one response to this..... rofl

You obviously haven't read the Batsell Barrett Baxter tract on the other thread.

Robert G

So why should anyone care what a Church of Christ leader thinks about the Catholic Church?

I thought this thread was supposed to be about criticism of Protestant theology?

blessings

Protestants do theology??  When did that start??   rofl   rofl


V

: ravenlorre  Wed Oct 17, 2007 - 21:01:40

As a Catholic, I can only think of one response to this..... rofl

You obviously haven't read the Batsell Barrett Baxter tract on the other thread.

Robert G

So why should anyone care what a Church of Christ leader thinks about the Catholic Church?

I thought this thread was supposed to be about criticism of Protestant theology?

blessings

That was the original intent, but when things get too close to home people like to change the subject.

: mistergus  Wed Oct 17, 2007 - 17:21:58

: kamakaz  Wed Oct 17, 2007 - 08:51:54
BTW i am tired of all the bashing of any church or denom, we are to love and respect one another. asking a legitimate question is one thing, but do it with respect.

I see no need to offer respect to a (Roman Catholic) church which intends to take away our religious freedoms at their first opportunity.

Remember, this is from their own doctrines and official positions. 

Robert G

then I would have to question if you are a true follower of Christ, and if so, are you living the great command as He has said. Why worry about something that is not your business? Is it not God's church and hence, Gods business? We have no right or excuse to bash anyone, not even a satan worshiper. For how can we pursuade them of the love of Christ if we are showing them hate as an example. And is your denomination and church already reached perfection?????? why do you point of the spec of dust in your brothers eye (catholic) while all along ignoring the log that is in yours, first go and remove the log in your eye and you will be able to see more clearly to help your brother remove the spec. Do not judge, for with the same measue, so shall you be judged.
So you passing judgement is bringing judgement to yourself. I am sure your church is making its share of mistackes and sin. If it is a church in america it may even be sound asleep. BTW I am not a Catholic, nor do I agree with all there ideas, but I fear no man, or church movement, is not God is control anymore? Is He grown old and weak and can no longer inforce His will?

: broach972  Wed Oct 17, 2007 - 18:22:08

: mistergus  Wed Oct 17, 2007 - 17:21:58

I see no need to offer respect to a (Roman Catholic) church which intends to take away our religious freedoms at their first opportunity.

Remember, this is from their own doctrines and official positions. 

Robert G

As a Catholic, I can only think of one response to this..... rofl

Well, being as you are a Catholic who is obviously in a good mood, what is your response to my answer?

Am I too harsh in saying that the Catholic Church is, even to this day, highly critical of most Protestant denominations, especially those who are highly critical of beliefs and practices not supported by Scripture?

On a personal note, Anglicans/Episcopalians (my faith) took great exception when the Pope refused to acknowledge us as a 'church' or even a branch of the church.  Rather, we are an 'ecclesial community'.  Sort of a semi-church, I suppose.

I have no use for people or institutions that assume themselves to have a monopoly on truth, be it Catholicism, fundamentalism, or most any other kind of -ism.

: Volkmar  Wed Oct 17, 2007 - 21:34:20

Protestants do theology??  When did that start??   


V

They do some sort of theology. What they really need is Paterology (proper theology).

I've never been to a "Protestant" church. I've always been Baptist, and that's all I know about. We are not Protestants. In the military my original dog tags classified me as a Protestant, and then someone wised up and gave me new ones that said Baptist.

The criticism I've heard of Christians is that we are too judgmental because of our stand against homosexuality and other immorality. We are called out from the world and not called to continue to be a part of it, or to compromise with it.

The guy who propositioned me said, "I believe that God accepts as I am." Well, yes He does, and then he will change you after He saves you. He does not say, "Come onto me and hang onto your sin."

The biggest problem with the Christian church (in my opinion) is the lack of unity. We are separated over insignificant differences, or by no more than a different church name. One Baptist church sometimes won't associate with another Baptist church because of not being a part of their 'affiliation". I'm sure God is not pleased with such behavior.

i think you are right. Jesus was clear when He called us to be one church body

: Wayfarer  Thu Oct 18, 2007 - 12:25:31

: Volkmar  Wed Oct 17, 2007 - 21:34:20

Protestants do theology??  When did that start??   


V

They do some sort of theology. What they really need is Paterology (proper theology).

Please enlighten us. What is "proper theology??" Is it just believing what the Pope commands you to believe??

: Jon-Marc  Thu Oct 18, 2007 - 12:46:12
I've never been to a "Protestant" church. I've always been Baptist, and that's all I know about. We are not Protestants. In the military my original dog tags classified me as a Protestant, and then someone wised up and gave me new ones that said Baptist.

The criticism I've heard of Christians is that we are too judgmental because of our stand against homosexuality and other immorality. We are called out from the world and not called to continue to be a part of it, or to compromise with it.

The guy who propositioned me said, "I believe that God accepts as I am." Well, yes He does, and then he will change you after He saves you. He does not say, "Come onto me and hang onto your sin."

The biggest problem with the Christian church (in my opinion) is the lack of unity. We are separated over insignificant differences, or by no more than a different church name. One Baptist church sometimes won't associate with another Baptist church because of not being a part of their 'affiliation". I'm sure God is not pleased with such behavior.

The biggest problem is that some seem to believe we have to seek visble unity and when we don't have it than rather than actually seeking to have a dialogue with people from other traditions, some sit around and say why can't "we" (although they actually mean everybody else) be more united and less divisive?

True ecumenecalism is one that seeks a common confession in Christ, but doesn't feel the need to seek an institutionally united church.

Also I would point out that many of the separations are not as insignificant as you think. In my current denomination, the ELCA( http://www.elca.org/ ) there are some who are seeking for approval of blessing of same-sex unions and ordination of practicing homosexuals. It hasn't happened yet but I fear there is a good chance it may happen  at our next churchwide assemby in 2009.  If that happens there is a very good chance there may be a split, and a good chance that I may be among those who leave the denomination.

I am a part of a reform group called Word Alone ( http://www.wordalone.org/ ) and we are working to maintain a biblical, confessional witness in the ELCA, which includes trying to prevent the ELCA from adopting the blessing of same-sex unions and ordaining of homsexuals. We are seen by many in the denomination as divisive troublemakers hell-bent on dividing the ELCA.  The Episcopal church is already close to splitting over this as they have already begun ordaining homosexuals and blessing of same-sex unions. If I have to choose between being divisive, and compromising my faithfulness to God's Word for the sake of visible unity, I'll stick with being divisive.

: Jon-Marc  Thu Oct 18, 2007 - 12:46:12
I've never been to a "Protestant" church. I've always been Baptist, and that's all I know about. We are not Protestants.

Baptists churches are protestant.  However, like many people in the church of Christ they may want to disavow their heritage.

: Jon-Marc  Thu Oct 18, 2007 - 12:46:12
I've never been to a "Protestant" church. I've always been Baptist, and that's all I know about. We are not Protestants. In the military my original dog tags classified me as a Protestant, and then someone wised up and gave me new ones that said Baptist.

The criticism I've heard of Christians is that we are too judgmental because of our stand against homosexuality and other immorality. We are called out from the world and not called to continue to be a part of it, or to compromise with it.

The guy who propositioned me said, "I believe that God accepts as I am." Well, yes He does, and then he will change you after He saves you. He does not say, "Come onto me and hang onto your sin."

The biggest problem with the Christian church (in my opinion) is the lack of unity. We are separated over insignificant differences, or by no more than a different church name. One Baptist church sometimes won't associate with another Baptist church because of not being a part of their 'affiliation". I'm sure God is not pleased with such behavior.

Yep... my husband is 23 years NAVY.. and his current dog tags say... "Born again Christian"... they sure do. He went to have them made special.  Personally, I am not a protestant. I am a Christian.

Many Catholics refer to themselves as Catholic Christians. So then... WHY?  If it is the NAME of Christ we carry... not the name "Church"... then why add the religion or denom at all?

When I want to speak to someone about LOVE or Christ or salvation or eternity... I do not say... I am a Churchian. I say, "I am a Christian".  For I am all about promoting the gospel of Jesus Christ, not the gospel of protestant or catholic.  Ugh...  ::frustrated::

PS... when I go in the military... I want dog tags that read, "Bible Thumper"...  ::tippinghat::

I've been called that many times.  I feel for some people, if I am not wearing that label in Heaven, they won't know me.  rofl

: spurly  Thu Oct 18, 2007 - 18:41:28

: Jon-Marc  Thu Oct 18, 2007 - 12:46:12
I've never been to a "Protestant" church. I've always been Baptist, and that's all I know about. We are not Protestants.

Baptists churches are protestant.  However, like many people in the church of Christ they may want to disavow their heritage.

I've started using the term "Post-Protestant" lately and believe that many may fall under that classification, IMO.

My personal criticisms of Protestantism (I love Protestants and Catholics):

1) the "right" of any Christian to establish a church anytime or for whatever reason he/she wants --  They are protesting any the main Church, thus, the term.  Very individualistic "right" from a very individualistic culture.

2) from a low view to downright hostility toward the church.  The Church is Christ's bride.

3) the idea that no church has all the truth.  Why would Christ divide his body into so many parts and leave it to us to find bits of the truth in each of them?

4) the idea that somehow 20,000 denominations make up "one, holy, and apostolic church."   The only way to do this is to reduce the church to a group of believers who never meet, which, by definition, is not a church.  (Church means a gathering of believers.)

5) General disregard for church tradition.  Calvin and Zwingli decided to reinvent the church ignoring the contributions of those before them.  The worst example is the reduction of the real presence of communion into a memorial meal.  Apparently, the Protestant fathers knew better than Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and the witness of the church for 1600 years.

6) "the Bible alone."  The problem with this slogan (or any slogan) is that people think its true by itself.  It is not as catchy (or inspiring) to say "Reformation doctrine."  Soon people begin to believe the slogan and forget what they really believe in is an intrepretation of the Bible as well as a church tradition.   (Example of church tradition, the Trinity.)

7) belief in traditions but a refusal to admit they are traditions.  The result of point six is that Ps believe in something (an interpretation of scripture) that will not admit to because of a slogan.

8) the whole idea of "the Bible alone."  Jesus entrusted his church to the apostles, not to a book.  Moreover, the church had no Bible for 400 years. 

9) "Spiritualizing" of too many things.  The Incarnation is the joining of the physical and spiritual, not the separation.  Protestant thinkers want to separate the two.  For example, Ps refer to a "spiritual" church, which is some idealic idea of the Christians gathered in no physical way.

10) rampant individualism -  The idea that salvation is through a personal relationship with Christ.  People choosing among the church based on personal preferences. This is a result of the Reformation which decided that the church serves the individual (John Locke said this).  This was not the way the New Testament church thought.
 
11) formulas for salvation - You won't find the sinners' prayer, the Bridge, or being born again through these methods in the Bible, but Ps believe in the Bible alone.


Thanks for reading.  Sorry to be so cranky.


trifecta
(see below for my theological tendencies)

Thanks for the input, Trifecta...

We may not agree on every point, but you definite give each of us pause.

(sure, we claim that we never "protested," but the RM was a Reformation Movement before it became a Restoration Movement, and we share more of the above mentioned traits than we may wish to admit.)

Hava Manna!

: kensington  Fri Oct 19, 2007 - 01:44:38

: Jon-Marc  Thu Oct 18, 2007 - 12:46:12
I've never been to a "Protestant" church. I've always been Baptist, and that's all I know about. We are not Protestants. In the military my original dog tags classified me as a Protestant, and then someone wised up and gave me new ones that said Baptist.

The criticism I've heard of Christians is that we are too judgmental because of our stand against homosexuality and other immorality. We are called out from the world and not called to continue to be a part of it, or to compromise with it.

The guy who propositioned me said, "I believe that God accepts as I am." Well, yes He does, and then he will change you after He saves you. He does not say, "Come onto me and hang onto your sin."

The biggest problem with the Christian church (in my opinion) is the lack of unity. We are separated over insignificant differences, or by no more than a different church name. One Baptist church sometimes won't associate with another Baptist church because of not being a part of their 'affiliation". I'm sure God is not pleased with such behavior.

Yep... my husband is 23 years NAVY.. and his current dog tags say... "Born again Christian"... they sure do. He went to have them made special.  Personally, I am not a protestant. I am a Christian.

Many Catholics refer to themselves as Catholic Christians. So then... WHY?  If it is the NAME of Christ we carry... not the name "Church"... then why add the religion or denom at all?

When I want to speak to someone about LOVE or Christ or salvation or eternity... I do not say... I am a Churchian. I say, "I am a Christian".  For I am all about promoting the gospel of Jesus Christ, not the gospel of protestant or catholic.  Ugh...  ::frustrated::

And I think most Christians, be they Protestant, Catholic, Post-Protestant (whatever that is) do the same thing when they share their faith with non-believers.  I think most Christians will only point out their denomination when they know that they are among other Christians who already know that they are Christian, and it's not in a my denom is better than your denom way, it's just as a way of further expressing their faith.  I have been to churches of all sorts of different denominations and heard them speak of their evangelism efforts, and never have I heard any of them talking about going out and making people Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian etc. Their goal is the same, to proclaim the name of Christ and share His love.

I really think the only people who make a big deal out of the fact that we have different denominations are supposedly "non-denominational" Christians themselves. But the truth is there is no such thing as a truly "non-denominational" Christian. Some of you may belong to a church who has no connection to a national church body and so in a functional way you may not belong to a denomination. But chances are your church will have some sort of statement of what they believe regarding God, Jesus, the authority of scripture, baptism, communion etc. And in so doing they are setting themselves apart from other churches, and thus they are being denominational.

It is these supossedly "non-denominational" churches that tell people who have been baptised before but leave the church they grew up in and for whatever reason decide they want to become members of this non-denominational church, that they have to be re-baptised first because their first baptism was "ineffective." If being denominational can truly be equated with being divisive and self-righteous, then that is one of the most denominational practices in all of contemporary Christianity.

Also, I have never met a Catholic who would refer to themselves as a "Catholic-Christian." In fact most Catholics that I know would be appalled that anyone who considers themself a Catholic would feel like they had to add the term Christian to Catholic, as if there were some Catholics who aren't Christian. To Catholics, the terms Catholic and Christian are nearly synonomous.

i do not agree with the non-denom statement. Most non-denom;s want to Associate themselves to Christ as the head, as it should be and not to any man appointed denom or group.

: trifecta  Fri Oct 19, 2007 - 09:47:08


My personal criticisms of Protestantism (I love Protestants and Catholics):

1) the "right" of any Christian to establish a church anytime or for whatever reason he/she wants --  They are protesting any the main Church, thus, the term.  Very individualistic "right" from a very individualistic culture.

2) from a low view to downright hostility toward the church.  The Church is Christ's bride.

3) the idea that no church has all the truth.  Why would Christ divide his body into so many parts and leave it to us to find bits of the truth in each of them?

4) the idea that somehow 20,000 denominations make up "one, holy, and apostolic church."   The only way to do this is to reduce the church to a group of believers who never meet, which, by definition, is not a church.  (Church means a gathering of believers.)

5) General disregard for church tradition.  Calvin and Zwingli decided to reinvent the church ignoring the contributions of those before them.  The worst example is the reduction of the real presence of communion into a memorial meal.  Apparently, the Protestant fathers knew better than Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and the witness of the church for 1600 years.

6) "the Bible alone."  The problem with this slogan (or any slogan) is that people think its true by itself.  It is not as catchy (or inspiring) to say "Reformation doctrine."  Soon people begin to believe the slogan and forget what they really believe in is an intrepretation of the Bible as well as a church tradition.   (Example of church tradition, the Trinity.)

7) belief in traditions but a refusal to admit they are traditions.  The result of point six is that Ps believe in something (an interpretation of scripture) that will not admit to because of a slogan.

8) the whole idea of "the Bible alone."  Jesus entrusted his church to the apostles, not to a book.  Moreover, the church had no Bible for 400 years. 

9) "Spiritualizing" of too many things.  The Incarnation is the joining of the physical and spiritual, not the separation.  Protestant thinkers want to separate the two.  For example, Ps refer to a "spiritual" church, which is some idealic idea of the Christians gathered in no physical way.

10) rampant individualism -  The idea that salvation is through a personal relationship with Christ.  People choosing among the church based on personal preferences. This is a result of the Reformation which decided that the church serves the individual (John Locke said this).  This was not the way the New Testament church thought.
 
11) formulas for salvation - You won't find the sinners' prayer, the Bridge, or being born again through these methods in the Bible, but Ps believe in the Bible alone.


Thanks for reading.  Sorry to be so cranky.


trifecta
(see below for my theological tendencies)

Point 8 exprssess a complete mischaracterization of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is actually based on a return to the church that had been entrusted to the apostles. It was entrusted to the apostles but not built upon the apostles it was built upon Christ and His Word, not upon men, not upon traditions, and definitely not upon some imagined church hierarchy. Part of the work that was entrusted to the apostles was writing down God's Word that had been expressed to them by and through Christ Jesus, for the benefit of the believers who would come after them and didn't have the benefit of being in the presence of Jesus, and thus we have the New Testament. But Sola Scriptura is not about seeing the Bible as some step-by-step way of doing church. It's about believing that the Holy Spirit speaks to all belivers through the the Word of Christ in scripture, and because it has been written down we are given a means by which we can evaluate the testimony, teaching and preaching of other belivers. It really just comes down to understanding that traditions are to be built upon scripture not the other way around.  

: kamakaz  Fri Oct 19, 2007 - 14:34:32
i do not agree with the non-denom statement. Most non-denom;s want to Associate themselves to Christ as the head, as it should be and not to any man appointed denom or group.

You missed my point. Read the whole post. A church doesn't have to associate themselves with a group to behave in a denominational manner. Simply having a statement of beliefs that sets themselves apart from other churches is a denominational act.

Oh and non-denominational churches do not have the market cornered on confessing Christ as the head of their church. Any Christian denomination would confess the same thing. Simply belonging to a denomination is not akin to worshipping it or seeing some hierarchy as the head of the church.

I love these supposed "non-denominational" churches that piously sit around and point their finger at churches that belong to denominations and accuse them of being dvisive, all the while falsely accusing these churches of seeing the leader of their denom as the head of the church. In doing that they reveal themselves to be just as divisive and self-righteus as they accuse denominations of being. 

: VerbumReale  Fri Oct 19, 2007 - 15:03:48

: kamakaz  Fri Oct 19, 2007 - 14:34:32
i do not agree with the non-denom statement. Most non-denom;s want to Associate themselves to Christ as the head, as it should be and not to any man appointed denom or group.

You missed my point. Read the whole post. A church doesn't have to associate themselves with a group to behave in a denominational manner. Simply having a statement of beliefs that sets themselves apart from other churches is a denominational act.

Oh and non-denominational churches do not have the market cornered on confessing Christ as the head of their church. Any Christian denomination would confess the same thing. Simply belonging to a denomination is not akin to worshipping it or seeing some hierarchy as the head of the church.

I love these supposed "non-denominational" churches that piously sit around and point their finger at churches that belong to denominations and accuse them of being dvisive, all the while falsely accusing these churches of seeing the leader of their denom as the head of the church. In doing that they reveal themselves to be just as divisive and self-righteus as they accuse denominations of being. 

I still disagree with you and everything in this post, except of course all denom's hopefuly claim Christ as the head. and there is as much or more finger pointing between different denoms then non-denoms as they try to dis-assosiate any kind of man-made labels or religion and focus solely on serving Christ. Speaking for myself, as a Christian (period) I do not waste time or energy picking the bones of denoms, if they confess Christ as Lord and Saviour that is good enough for me. (so what denom is this statement make me labeled?)

: VerbumReale  Thu Oct 18, 2007 - 18:04:54

: Wayfarer  Thu Oct 18, 2007 - 12:25:31

: Volkmar  Wed Oct 17, 2007 - 21:34:20

Protestants do theology??  When did that start??   


V

They do some sort of theology. What they really need is Paterology (proper theology).

Please enlighten us. What is "proper theology??" Is it just believing what the Pope commands you to believe??

I am not a "Roman" catholic. No man commands me.
Trifecta summed up the Orthodox position nicely.  ::smile::

: VerbumReale  Fri Oct 19, 2007 - 14:51:27It was entrusted to the apostles but not built upon the apostles it was built upon Christ and His Word, not upon men, not upon traditions, and definitely not upon some imagined church hierarchy.

Let's test that with Sola Scriptura.

Eph 2:19   ¶   Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

   Eph 2:20      And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];


And "tradition".

2Th 3:6   ¶   Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

2Th 2:15      Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Both oral and written tradition exists being passed on in the church from the beginning.

to the "non-denominational" thing.

There really is no such thing as "non-denominational".... Where a group of people meet and agree upon the rules, you havea  denomination.   ::tippinghat::

: kensington  Fri Oct 19, 2007 - 17:11:04
to the "non-denominational" thing.

There really is no such thing as "non-denominational".... Where a group of people meet and agree upon the rules, you havea  denomination.   ::tippinghat::

Shhhh.  Don't say that too loud around here!  You will shatter the glass houses some of us live in!

: Wayfarer  Fri Oct 19, 2007 - 15:43:12

: VerbumReale  Fri Oct 19, 2007 - 14:51:27It was entrusted to the apostles but not built upon the apostles it was built upon Christ and His Word, not upon men, not upon traditions, and definitely not upon some imagined church hierarchy.

Let's test that with Sola Scriptura.

Eph 2:19   ¶   Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

   Eph 2:20      And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];


And "tradition".

2Th 3:6   ¶   Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

2Th 2:15      Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Both oral and written tradition exists being passed on in the church from the beginning.

Right, built upon the foundation of the apostles, not the apostles themselves. The foundation of the apostles is Christ, thus this is a reference to the drect testimony of Christ given to the apostles.

And as far as tradition goes I never said that traditions should not be honored. I would be the first one to say that too many churches have abandoned many of the great traditions of our church, mostly out of fear of appearing to Catholic. Ironically this comes most frequently from non-denominational churches who love to piously point fingers at denominations and accuse them of being self-righteous and divisive.

What I said was that the application of any tradition should always be evaluated in the light of God's Word in scripture.  And where did I deny the presence of oral and written tradition in the early church?? Notice that Paul refers only to the traditions that were taught by them, meaning the apostles, not those who would come after them. It's a big leap to try to equate man-made traditions that would come later with what Paul is referring to here, let alone give them the same authority as scripture.

When we give man-made traditions the same authority as scripture and trust our leaders to ineterpret scripture for us, we give those leaders carte-blanche to do and say whatever they want and demand that the faithful follow along, no matter how unscriptural, damaging or even oppressive it might be. All they have to do is call it tradition.

: kensington  Fri Oct 19, 2007 - 17:11:04
to the "non-denominational" thing.

There really is no such thing as "non-denominational".... Where a group of people meet and agree upon the rules, you havea  denomination.   ::tippinghat::

Thank you, finally some one who gets it!!! ::clappingoverhead::

: kamakaz  Fri Oct 19, 2007 - 15:33:22

: VerbumReale  Fri Oct 19, 2007 - 15:03:48

: kamakaz  Fri Oct 19, 2007 - 14:34:32
i do not agree with the non-denom statement. Most non-denom;s want to Associate themselves to Christ as the head, as it should be and not to any man appointed denom or group.

You missed my point. Read the whole post. A church doesn't have to associate themselves with a group to behave in a denominational manner. Simply having a statement of beliefs that sets themselves apart from other churches is a denominational act.

Oh and non-denominational churches do not have the market cornered on confessing Christ as the head of their church. Any Christian denomination would confess the same thing. Simply belonging to a denomination is not akin to worshipping it or seeing some hierarchy as the head of the church.

I love these supposed "non-denominational" churches that piously sit around and point their finger at churches that belong to denominations and accuse them of being dvisive, all the while falsely accusing these churches of seeing the leader of their denom as the head of the church. In doing that they reveal themselves to be just as divisive and self-righteus as they accuse denominations of being. 

I still disagree with you and everything in this post, except of course all denom's hopefuly claim Christ as the head. and there is as much or more finger pointing between different denoms then non-denoms as they try to dis-assosiate any kind of man-made labels or religion and focus solely on serving Christ. Speaking for myself, as a Christian (period) I do not waste time or energy picking the bones of denoms, if they confess Christ as Lord and Saviour that is good enough for me. (so what denom is this statement make me labeled?)

Really??? Thanksgiving is coming up. Chances are wherever you live that there will be some sort of ecumencial service near you on the night before Thanksgiving. I challenge you to go to one and tell me just how many "non-denominational" clergy show up. I can just about guarantee you that none will show. Why you wonder??? Certainly not because they weren't invited.  No, they will have been invited and refused the invitation lest they lower themselves by associating with denominational clergy.

On the other hand, there will be Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Catholic, Presbyeterian clergy. Shoot I've even heard of Seventh-Day Adventist clergy showing up to ecumenical services. Do you not see the hyporisy there??? It's the denominational clergy that are coming together in praise and thanksgiving and the non-denominational clergy that are the ones separating themselves from everyone else.

Look the truth is that as long as there is sin, then the dream that so many people seem to have of a visibly united church is going to be just that a dream. We can and will find all sorts of reasons to separate ourselves, and this is not caused by the existence of denominational churches or non-denominational churches, it is caused by sin and pride and arrogance.

However by the grace of God we can find our hidden spirtual unity in Christ, but we don't do this by pointing fingers at each other, and somehow falsely equating membership in a denomination with beig focused on anything other than serving Christ, as if being in a denomination somehow precludes focus on service to Christ.

: VerbumReale  Fri Oct 19, 2007 - 17:57:33

: kamakaz  Fri Oct 19, 2007 - 15:33:22

: VerbumReale  Fri Oct 19, 2007 - 15:03:48

: kamakaz  Fri Oct 19, 2007 - 14:34:32
i do not agree with the non-denom statement. Most non-denom;s want to Associate themselves to Christ as the head, as it should be and not to any man appointed denom or group.

You missed my point. Read the whole post. A church doesn't have to associate themselves with a group to behave in a denominational manner. Simply having a statement of beliefs that sets themselves apart from other churches is a denominational act.

Oh and non-denominational churches do not have the market cornered on confessing Christ as the head of their church. Any Christian denomination would confess the same thing. Simply belonging to a denomination is not akin to worshipping it or seeing some hierarchy as the head of the church.

I love these supposed "non-denominational" churches that piously sit around and point their finger at churches that belong to denominations and accuse them of being dvisive, all the while falsely accusing these churches of seeing the leader of their denom as the head of the church. In doing that they reveal themselves to be just as divisive and self-righteus as they accuse denominations of being. 

I still disagree with you and everything in this post, except of course all denom's hopefuly claim Christ as the head. and there is as much or more finger pointing between different denoms then non-denoms as they try to dis-assosiate any kind of man-made labels or religion and focus solely on serving Christ. Speaking for myself, as a Christian (period) I do not waste time or energy picking the bones of denoms, if they confess Christ as Lord and Saviour that is good enough for me. (so what denom is this statement make me labeled?)

Really??? Thanksgiving is coming up. Chances are wherever you live that there will be some sort of ecumencial service near you on the night before Thanksgiving. I challenge you to go to one and tell me just how many "non-denominational" clergy show up. I can just about guarantee you that none will show. Why you wonder??? Certainly not because they weren't invited.  No, they will have been invited and refused the invitation lest they lower themselves by associating with denominational clergy.

On the other hand, there will be Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Catholic, Presbyeterian clergy. Shoot I've even heard of Seventh-Day Adventist clergy showing up to ecumenical services. Do you not see the hyporisy there??? It's the denominational clergy that are coming together in praise and thanksgiving and the non-denominational clergy that are the ones separating themselves from everyone else.

Verbum, that rins true in our area as well.  Baptist, Methodist, Christian Church, Assembly of God and Pentecostal Holiness show up at the community wide services and the non-denominational folks stay home.

: VerbumReale  Fri Oct 19, 2007 - 17:57:33

: kamakaz  Fri Oct 19, 2007 - 15:33:22

: VerbumReale  Fri Oct 19, 2007 - 15:03:48

: kamakaz  Fri Oct 19, 2007 - 14:34:32
i do not agree with the non-denom statement. Most non-denom;s want to Associate themselves to Christ as the head, as it should be and not to any man appointed denom or group.

You missed my point. Read the whole post. A church doesn't have to associate themselves with a group to behave in a denominational manner. Simply having a statement of beliefs that sets themselves apart from other churches is a denominational act.

Oh and non-denominational churches do not have the market cornered on confessing Christ as the head of their church. Any Christian denomination would confess the same thing. Simply belonging to a denomination is not akin to worshipping it or seeing some hierarchy as the head of the church.

I love these supposed "non-denominational" churches that piously sit around and point their finger at churches that belong to denominations and accuse them of being dvisive, all the while falsely accusing these churches of seeing the leader of their denom as the head of the church. In doing that they reveal themselves to be just as divisive and self-righteus as they accuse denominations of being. 

I still disagree with you and everything in this post, except of course all denom's hopefuly claim Christ as the head. and there is as much or more finger pointing between different denoms then non-denoms as they try to dis-assosiate any kind of man-made labels or religion and focus solely on serving Christ. Speaking for myself, as a Christian (period) I do not waste time or energy picking the bones of denoms, if they confess Christ as Lord and Saviour that is good enough for me. (so what denom is this statement make me labeled?)

Really??? Thanksgiving is coming up. Chances are wherever you live that there will be some sort of ecumencial service near you on the night before Thanksgiving. I challenge you to go to one and tell me just how many "non-denominational" clergy show up. I can just about guarantee you that none will show. Why you wonder??? Certainly not because they weren't invited.  No, they will have been invited and refused the invitation lest they lower themselves by associating with denominational clergy.

On the other hand, there will be Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Catholic, Presbyeterian clergy. Shoot I've even heard of Seventh-Day Adventist clergy showing up to ecumenical services. Do you not see the hyporisy there??? It's the denominational clergy that are coming together in praise and thanksgiving and the non-denominational clergy that are the ones separating themselves from everyone else.

Look the truth is that as long as there is sin, then the dream that so many people seem to have of a visibly united church is going to be just that a dream. We can and will find all sorts of reasons to separate ourselves, and this is not caused by the existence of denominational churches or non-denominational churches, it is caused by sin and pride and arrogance.

However by the grace of God we can find our hidden spirtual unity in Christ, but we don't do this by pointing fingers at each other, and somehow falsely equating membership in a denomination with beig focused on anything other than serving Christ, as if being in a denomination somehow precludes focus on service to Christ.

I myself would go to such a celebration if invited, as i am all for unity. However I still disagree with you. It is mostly denomination wars going on, catholics vrs prodistens, etc. We do not choose to put a denom label on our collors, but we are also not condemming those who do (corporatly speaking). and i do not think it is a dream for visible unity, and even if it is a dream, it is a dream worth holding on to. Which reminds me of something I heard from a pastor years ago about being a dreamer. "dream big, God answers dreams" which can also add, "pray big, God answers prayers" Jesus flat out said He wants us to be one, unified church, so if He said it, I will beleive and work toward it. BTW, we have 13 churches in SD, California united together, once a month (and other activities like BBQs) of different denoms and non-denoms, so its not about pointing fingers, or we are better than you, it is about putting aside pride and selfishness and coming together. So that dream is being realized in a small way in a small part of the world, but it is a start. So we will keep the dream alive, and pray and it will come to pass, with or without sin.

quote: "Verbum, that rins true in our area as well.  Baptist, Methodist, Christian Church, Assembly of God and Pentecostal Holiness show up at the community wide services and the non-denominational folks stay home."

are they invited and by whom? I have never even heard of such a gathering let alone be invited to one.

: kamakaz  Thu Oct 25, 2007 - 13:44:18

: VerbumReale  Fri Oct 19, 2007 - 17:57:33

: kamakaz  Fri Oct 19, 2007 - 15:33:22

: VerbumReale  Fri Oct 19, 2007 - 15:03:48

: kamakaz  Fri Oct 19, 2007 - 14:34:32
i do not agree with the non-denom statement. Most non-denom;s want to Associate themselves to Christ as the head, as it should be and not to any man appointed denom or group.

You missed my point. Read the whole post. A church doesn't have to associate themselves with a group to behave in a denominational manner. Simply having a statement of beliefs that sets themselves apart from other churches is a denominational act.

Oh and non-denominational churches do not have the market cornered on confessing Christ as the head of their church. Any Christian denomination would confess the same thing. Simply belonging to a denomination is not akin to worshipping it or seeing some hierarchy as the head of the church.

I love these supposed "non-denominational" churches that piously sit around and point their finger at churches that belong to denominations and accuse them of being dvisive, all the while falsely accusing these churches of seeing the leader of their denom as the head of the church. In doing that they reveal themselves to be just as divisive and self-righteus as they accuse denominations of being. 

I still disagree with you and everything in this post, except of course all denom's hopefuly claim Christ as the head. and there is as much or more finger pointing between different denoms then non-denoms as they try to dis-assosiate any kind of man-made labels or religion and focus solely on serving Christ. Speaking for myself, as a Christian (period) I do not waste time or energy picking the bones of denoms, if they confess Christ as Lord and Saviour that is good enough for me. (so what denom is this statement make me labeled?)

Really??? Thanksgiving is coming up. Chances are wherever you live that there will be some sort of ecumencial service near you on the night before Thanksgiving. I challenge you to go to one and tell me just how many "non-denominational" clergy show up. I can just about guarantee you that none will show. Why you wonder??? Certainly not because they weren't invited.  No, they will have been invited and refused the invitation lest they lower themselves by associating with denominational clergy.

On the other hand, there will be Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Catholic, Presbyeterian clergy. Shoot I've even heard of Seventh-Day Adventist clergy showing up to ecumenical services. Do you not see the hyporisy there??? It's the denominational clergy that are coming together in praise and thanksgiving and the non-denominational clergy that are the ones separating themselves from everyone else.

Look the truth is that as long as there is sin, then the dream that so many people seem to have of a visibly united church is going to be just that a dream. We can and will find all sorts of reasons to separate ourselves, and this is not caused by the existence of denominational churches or non-denominational churches, it is caused by sin and pride and arrogance.

However by the grace of God we can find our hidden spirtual unity in Christ, but we don't do this by pointing fingers at each other, and somehow falsely equating membership in a denomination with beig focused on anything other than serving Christ, as if being in a denomination somehow precludes focus on service to Christ.

I myself would go to such a celebration if invited, as i am all for unity. However I still disagree with you. It is mostly denomination wars going on, catholics vrs prodistens, etc. We do not choose to put a denom label on our collors, but we are also not condemming those who do (corporatly speaking). and i do not think it is a dream for visible unity, and even if it is a dream, it is a dream worth holding on to. Which reminds me of something I heard from a pastor years ago about being a dreamer. "dream big, God answers dreams" which can also add, "pray big, God answers prayers" Jesus flat out said He wants us to be one, unified church, so if He said it, I will believe and work toward it. BTW, we have 13 churches in SD, California united together, once a month (and other activities like BBQs) of different denoms and non-denoms, so its not about pointing fingers, or we are better than you, it is about putting aside pride and selfishness and coming together. So that dream is being realized in a small way in a small part of the world, but it is a start. So we will keep the dream alive, and pray and it will come to pass, with or without sin.

I hate to break it to you but when Catholics refer to Protestants as not being part of the true church, they include you, or non-denominational churches.  Jesus didn't command us to seek visible unity, He promised that we are all united in Him, there is a difference. And that monthly gathering of the thireteen different churches sounds great.  And if that is what you mean by visible unity then I think we should be working towards it. But what I am talking about is institutional visible unity. It's an obsessive view of ecumenism that seems to think that we should all be one institutionally united church.  But such an overly obsessive view of ecumenism leads to so much comrpomise that in the end what is left probably wouldn't even be Christian. You probably have many Episcopal churches in your area. Well if you want to be visibly united with them and you want them to accept the beliefs of your church, then you'd better be willing to accept their views. Are you willing to do that??? Are you willing to affirm the blessings of same-sex unions??? They do. And they're not going to give it up. They also belive in transubstantiation and as such would want to do the Eucharist every week. But wait, we got the Baptists to think about. They don't believe in the real presence in communion and would only want to do communion a few times a year. Well maybe we should just give up communion all together, because after all institutional visible unity is the goal. And so it begins.

And you can say well we need to just do away with all those old traditions and focus on Jesus. This is what the non-denominational pastors love to say, thereby implying that we worhip the traditions, but really such a suggestion is a very denominational idea. But what non-denominational pastors fail to take into consideration is that those traditions play a big part in our worship of and focus on Christ. At my Lutheran church we open every service with confession and absolution. It's a tradition yes, but the point of it is to confess our sins and to hear the Word of forgiveness in Christ in the absolution, something BTW whcih we are commanded to do. Hence the focus is on Christ. And the same is the Kyrie, celebrating the Lords Supper etc. If your church doesn't want to utilize those traditions thats fine with us Lutherans, as it would be with other denominations and their traditions. And that doesn't mean that we wouldn't be willing to have a relatinship with churches from other traditions. We have great relaionships with churches from other traditions. In just a few weeks we are having a celebration dinner following our annual stewardship pledge drive. A group from the Catholic church has offered to serve the meal so nobody has to miss out on the dinner, and we reciprocate the same service for them. Members from the local Mennonite community will also often help us out with serving meals etc. And as I mentioned we have inter-denominational celebrations and worship services. We get along great because they don't ask us to compromise our beliefs and traditions and we don't ask that of them. That's when churches, denominational or non-denominational, get along the best, when they stop trying to change each other.What we don't like is people telliing us that somehow we are being dvisive simply because we do utilize these traditions. 

You can disagree all you want, but I know the reality. And the reality is non-denominational churches are every bit as divisive as denominational churches, and the fact that they continually just blame all the divisiveness in Christianity on denominations just confirms that.

: bib89bib89  Wed Oct 17, 2007 - 05:01:16
i would like to know what the mainstream criticisms of the protestant church are?
You know like, peeople always say "catholics pray to mary" or "they think the pope is infallible" etc etc,  --so what are the common criticisms of the protestants?
(btw im asking out of curiosity, not to throw mud)

Here are a few, off the top of my head:

1.  Protestants have been accused of worshiping the Bible as an idol.

2.  Protestants have been accused of rejecting all tradition as man-made and then replaced them with their own traditions.

3.  Protestants have been accused of criticizing radical individualism and relativism, but fail to realize that both ideas are a direct result of the Reformation - think about it.

4.   Protestants have been accused of reductionism (a direct result of the Enlightenment, which was a direct result of the Reformation) because in their zeal to cut out all things Catholic from Christianity, they have removed essential symbolism and doctrine from the faith tradition.

5.  Protestants have been accused of being too focused on intellectualism.  Instead of worshiping God with their whole bodies (all five senses) they tend to only value worshiping God with their minds.

6.  Protestants have been accused of being leaderless and therefore subjective in their interpretation of the Bible and their creation of new denominations. 

7.  Protestants have been accused of promoting easy-salvation, by down-playing the importance of personal responsibility and participation in the sanctification process, which is critical to salvation in the Catholic / Coptic / Orthodox traditions.

8.  Protestants have been accused of being inconsistent in their response to heresy; Mormonism for example is basically condemned by the majority of Protestants as being heretical, but the "name it and claim it" movement is tolerated.  Jehovah's Witnesses are almost universally seen as heretical, but people like Jack Chick and radical Reformed movements are tolerated.

9.  Protestants have been accused of a rebellious nature that promotes a distrust of authority, church hierarchy, institutions, tradition; which culminates in a persecution complex - "some big, scary institution is persecuting me!"

10.  Protestants have been accused of promoting a dumb-downed version of Christianity, which incorporates pop-psychology into the Gospel - I call it the Willow Creek affect.  Joel Olsteen is the culmination of the phenomenon - his latest tapioca flavored book doesn't even mention God, yet he claims to be a Christian pastor.

That is about all I can think of at the moment, but I am sure there are many more.  Two of the problems I foresee concerning this thread:

1.  My simple answer to the original question will be perceived as a direct attack on Christianity and incite a cyber-riot

2.  People who adhere to many of the criticisms that I have listed will experience the Dr. Phil affect (someone with a raging case of whatever Dr. Phil is talking about at the moment will usually think of the people in their own lives who appear to be MORE like the diagnosis he is describing than themselves so they end up missing out on any possible intervention or insight) and only think about people that fall into these categories more than themselves.

So before you guys get all worked up, I am merely listing common criticisms about Protestantism / Evangelicalism / people who embrace Protestant theology (sola scriptura, sola fide, and sola gratia) found outside of your circle of your religious communities.

blessings

: kensington  Fri Oct 19, 2007 - 17:11:04
There really is no such thing as "non-denominational".... Where a group of people meet and agree upon the rules, you havea  denomination.   ::tippinghat::

So all of the posters on this board now belong to their own denomination!  Hooray!

Now, who shall we anathemetize first?

[quotelink=topic=20908.msg428972#msg428972 date=1193515775]
1.  Protestants have been accused of worshiping the Bible as an idol.[/quote]
Guilty.  Very.

2.  Protestants have been accused of rejecting all tradition as man-made and then replaced them with their own traditions.

Guilty, though in their defense a lot of that tradition IS man-made.

3.  Protestants have been accused of criticizing radical individualism and relativism, but fail to realize that both ideas are a direct result of the Reformation - think about it.

I don't really think so.  Individualism is inherent, and self-sustaining.  I don' think you can blame that on Martin or John (or even Abraham).  I'm not totally sure what you mean when you say relativism...moral relativism?  relativity as a philosophy?

4.   Protestants have been accused of reductionism (a direct result of the Enlightenment, which was a direct result of the Reformation) because in their zeal to cut out all things Catholic from Christianity, they have removed essential symbolism and doctrine from the faith tradition.

Um...certainly much has been removed, and some of it oughtn't to have been...but I don't think any of what has been removed intentionally is an essential.  More of that has been lost as a byproduct of dumbing down the laity.

5.  Protestants have been accused of being too focused on intellectualism.  Instead of worshiping God with their whole bodies (all five senses) they tend to only value worshiping God with their minds.

Well, it we're talking about 18th century Europe, then yes.  I don't think that holds true anymore, at least not in a widespread way.  Most protestant churches I've seen in my lifetime are actually closer to the opposite extreme - anti-intellectualism.

6.  Protestants have been accused of being leaderless and therefore subjective in their interpretation of the Bible and their creation of new denominations.

No church can come into being leaderless, even if some of them wanted to be.  Many protestant denominations have relaxed strict definitions of clergy vs laity, and honestly, good for them.  The whole church is meant to act as a priesthood on behalf of the world, not just the clergy.

As to subjectivity of interpretation - that happens with or without leaders.  A leader is often just someone with the understanding or charisma to restore correct doctrine, or to make new doctrine (eek!).

7.  Protestants have been accused of promoting easy-salvation, by down-playing the importance of personal responsibility and participation in the sanctification process, which is critical to salvation in the Catholic / Coptic / Orthodox traditions.

Guilty, but it's a recent phenomenon...within the last 100 years.  That wasn't part of the reformation, it's more of a corruption of doctrine that occured subsequently (mostly due to neglect of doctrine).

8.  Protestants have been accused of being inconsistent in their response to heresy; Mormonism for example is basically condemned by the majority of Protestants as being heretical, but the "name it and claim it" movement is tolerated.  Jehovah's Witnesses are almost universally seen as heretical, but people like Jack Chick and radical Reformed movements are tolerated.

Guilty, but again it's recent.  Along with the dumbing-down of the laity comes an increasing inability to correctly distingish doctrine.

9.  Protestants have been accused of a rebellious nature that promotes a distrust of authority, church hierarchy, institutions, tradition; which culminates in a persecution complex - "some big, scary institution is persecuting me!"

Guilty, but only sometimes to detriment, and often to benefit.  Is it still paranoia during the times when it's true?  Protestants have recognized that Christianity does not remain static, or even evolve.  Like everything else, it revolves, (think sine curve) and the need to slough off the junk and return to the core is an unending imperative./quote]

10.  Protestants have been accused of promoting a dumb-downed version of Christianity, which incorporates pop-psychology into the Gospel - I call it the Willow Creek affect.  Joel Olsteen is the culmination of the phenomenon - his latest tapioca flavored book doesn't even mention God, yet he claims to be a Christian pastor.

The biggest problem with being a protestant by far.  Again, not something that was a product of the reformation.  It's actually almost a counter-reformation. The original reformation was very much about questioning the de facto for oneself, whereas this movement is back towards pastoral authority and reliance on others to do their thinking for them.

This is fun, wanna write a book about this with me?

: bib89bib89  Wed Oct 17, 2007 - 05:01:16
i would like to know what the mainstream criticisms of the protestant church are?

At their Council of Trent, under Justification, they declare as anathema the declaration that salvation is by faith alone.

The Lamb of God is sufficient!

From death he did rise and will come again.
Move on with him now to be ready for then.

There really is no such thing as "non-denominational".... Where a group of people meet and agree upon the rules, you havea  denomination.

um no. first of all, we meet to worship the Lord and to fellowship with one another. We do not sit around and discuss what catholics are doing, or this group is not doing, and blah blah blah. that is such a waste of time that can and is spent serving the Lord.

: gruvEdude  Mon Oct 29, 2007 - 21:21:17

At their Council of Trent, under Justification, they declare as anathema the declaration that salvation is by faith alone.

This wasn't a new concept...been around since the beginning of the faith.  The Council of Trent was simply affirming what Scripture had already declared:

James 2:24 - the phrase "faith alone" (the Greek "pisteos monon") only occurs once in the Bible. "Man is justified by works and NOT faith alone." Unlike what many Protestant churches teach, no where in Scripture does it say that man is justified or saved by "faith alone." To the contrary, man is not justified by faith alone. In Catholic theology, a person is justified by faith and works acting together, which comes solely from God's divine grace. Faith alone never obtains the grace of justification (Council of Trent, chapter 8, canon 9). Also, the word "justified

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and writings by the late John Paul II, Catholics consider Protestants to be "separated brethren"-Christians, albeit not possessing the fullness of the faith that Rome does. In all the years I've been watching EWTN I've never heard anyone from that network bash Protestants. They refer to legitimate differences between us and point to doctrines they hold which we do not, or which they believe we seriously misunderstand, yet I've never once heard anti-Protestant propaganda.

Pax vobiscum.

broach972's reply is very well prepared.  ::tippinghat::

::reading:: Ephesians 2:6-12, NLT: God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it is a gift from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it. For we are God's masterpiece. He has created us anew in Christ Jesus, so we can do the good things he planned for us long ago.

: broach972  Tue Oct 30, 2007 - 12:47:13

: gruvEdude  Mon Oct 29, 2007 - 21:21:17

At their Council of Trent, under Justification, they declare as anathema the declaration that salvation is by faith alone.

This wasn't a new concept...been around since the beginning of the faith.  The Council of Trent was simply affirming what Scripture had already declared:

James 2:24 - the phrase "faith alone" (the Greek "pisteos monon") only occurs once in the Bible. "Man is justified by works and NOT faith alone." Unlike what many Protestant churches teach, no where in Scripture does it say that man is justified or saved by "faith alone." To the contrary, man is not justified by faith alone. In Catholic theology, a person is justified by faith and works acting together, which comes solely from God's divine grace. Faith alone never obtains the grace of justification (Council of Trent, chapter 8, canon 9). Also, the word "justified

: ravenlorre  Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 00:49:20

: broach972  Tue Oct 30, 2007 - 12:47:13

: gruvEdude  Mon Oct 29, 2007 - 21:21:17

At their Council of Trent, under Justification, they declare as anathema the declaration that salvation is by faith alone.

This wasn't a new concept...been around since the beginning of the faith.  The Council of Trent was simply affirming what Scripture had already declared:

James 2:24 - the phrase "faith alone" (the Greek "pisteos monon") only occurs once in the Bible. "Man is justified by works and NOT faith alone." Unlike what many Protestant churches teach, no where in Scripture does it say that man is justified or saved by "faith alone." To the contrary, man is not justified by faith alone. In Catholic theology, a person is justified by faith and works acting together, which comes solely from God's divine grace. Faith alone never obtains the grace of justification (Council of Trent, chapter 8, canon 9). Also, the word "justified

: kamakaz  Tue Oct 30, 2007 - 08:43:31
There really is no such thing as "non-denominational".... Where a group of people meet and agree upon the rules, you havea  denomination.

um no. first of all, we meet to worship the Lord and to fellowship with one another. We do not sit around and discuss what catholics are doing, or this group is not doing, and blah blah blah. that is such a waste of time that can and is spent serving the Lord.

That's not what they are saying and neither is that what goes on in denominational churches, depite what you might have heard from your "non-denominational" pastor. But  even the most "non-denominational" churches will have a statement of their beliefs that sets them apart somehwhat from other churches. That in itself is a denominational act. You can continue to live in denial all you want but as long as you keep pointing the finger at denominational churches then you just prove my point.

Why waste time trying to decide who is wrong when we can all realize that there is only One Who is right.

: VerbumReale  Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 08:49:15

: kamakaz  Tue Oct 30, 2007 - 08:43:31
There really is no such thing as "non-denominational".... Where a group of people meet and agree upon the rules, you havea  denomination.

um no. first of all, we meet to worship the Lord and to fellowship with one another. We do not sit around and discuss what catholics are doing, or this group is not doing, and blah blah blah. that is such a waste of time that can and is spent serving the Lord.

That's not what they are saying and neither is that what goes on in denominational churches, depite what you might have heard from your "non-denominational" pastor. But  even the most "non-denominational" churches will have a statement of their beliefs that sets them apart somehwhat from other churches. That in itself is a denominational act. You can continue to live in denial all you want but as long as you keep pointing the finger at denominational churches then you just prove my point.

it has nothing to do with what my pastor is saying as i have already stated we do not waste our time on childish *cencored* like that, and if i am not mistaken you are the one pointing fingers, not me. I can see very plainly with my own eyes/ears all the bickering and finger pointing between demon's, including on this board, and we have a set of rules and beliefs at my job, so tell me what denom is my work place? that is just a stupid statement. what makes us an non-denom is that we do not care to be labeled by human traditions but only care to serve God. So if we are a denom (if you just have to label us) would be the denom that serves the Lord. Does that work for you?

: Brian Kelley  Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 08:53:16
Why waste time trying to decide who is wrong when we can all realize that there is only One Who is right.

i agree. and welcome, let me give you your first manna. God bless.
however i will always have a problem with those who put down any denom (which is what this OP was about, in response to the ridiculas claim that the catholoc church is trying to take over the world in another topic.

Thank you for the welcome, kamakaz.

I agree that it's not the right thing to do to put down denominations.  We should all be united.  I don't agree with what each denomination does, necessarily, but we all do stuff that's wrong.  There is none who is righteous, not even one!  We should try and fix our own selves before being so quick to point out the flaws in others.

: kamakaz  Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 08:55:22

: VerbumReale  Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 08:49:15

: kamakaz  Tue Oct 30, 2007 - 08:43:31
There really is no such thing as "non-denominational".... Where a group of people meet and agree upon the rules, you havea  denomination.

um no. first of all, we meet to worship the Lord and to fellowship with one another. We do not sit around and discuss what catholics are doing, or this group is not doing, and blah blah blah. that is such a waste of time that can and is spent serving the Lord.

That's not what they are saying and neither is that what goes on in denominational churches, depite what you might have heard from your "non-denominational" pastor. But  even the most "non-denominational" churches will have a statement of their beliefs that sets them apart somehwhat from other churches. That in itself is a denominational act. You can continue to live in denial all you want but as long as you keep pointing the finger at denominational churches then you just prove my point.

it has nothing to do with what my pastor is saying as i have already stated we do not waste our time on childish *cencored* like that, and if i am not mistaken you are the one pointing fingers, not me. I can see very plainly with my own eyes/ears all the bickering and finger pointing between demon's, including on this board, and we have a set of rules and beliefs at my job, so tell me what denom is my work place? that is just a stupid statement. what makes us an non-denom is that we do not care to be labeled by human traditions but only care to serve God. So if we are a denom (if you just have to label us) would be the denom that serves the Lord. Does that work for you?

I am not pointing fingers any more than you are. I fully concede that denominational churches have contributed largely to the division that exists in Christianity, I never denied that. All I am saying is that "non-denominational" churches contribute to that divisiveness just as much, especially when they ignore their own accountability and blame all the problems in Christianity on denominations.

And your parallel of my statement about a church developing a statement of their beliefs being a denominational act, to a set of rules and beliefs at your work is apples and oranges. Of course I won't resort to calling it stupid like you did with my statement, but it is an innapropriate parallel.

First of all, I never said anything about rules, I was talking about anything that defines what your church believes, ie defines them confessionally. More than likely your church has a statement of what they believe. And they really don't even need a formal document. Chances are your church has certain views on communion or baptism etc. Chances are there are churches in your community that have different views on those subjects. Thereby your church, with those beliefs, is making a confessional distinction between themselves and other churches in your community. That is a denominational act. I never said it makes you part of a formal denomination, but it is a denominational act in that your church is distinguishing itself from other churches. In essence they are their own denomination. It's not a bad thing. Of course people should know what your church believes when they come there.

Well if your workplace, in their rules and beliefs, include stating their beliefs on communion, baptism, authority of scripture etc. then that too is a denominationall act, but more than likely that is not the case. When a place of employment has a set of rules it is so their employees know what is expected of them and what their boundaries are. A set of rules for employees to follow at a grocery store does not make any sort of confessional statement, it simply says these are the rules, while you work here you are expected to follow them, if not there will be consequences. You don't go to work so that your faith will be nurtured and sustained, you go to work to get a paycheck. Not saying that there aren't opportunities for faith development in the workplace, but that is not the primary reason why we go to work.

: VerbumReale  Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 10:22:50

: kamakaz  Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 08:55:22

: VerbumReale  Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 08:49:15

: kamakaz  Tue Oct 30, 2007 - 08:43:31
There really is no such thing as "non-denominational".... Where a group of people meet and agree upon the rules, you havea  denomination.

um no. first of all, we meet to worship the Lord and to fellowship with one another. We do not sit around and discuss what catholics are doing, or this group is not doing, and blah blah blah. that is such a waste of time that can and is spent serving the Lord.

That's not what they are saying and neither is that what goes on in denominational churches, depite what you might have heard from your "non-denominational" pastor. But  even the most "non-denominational" churches will have a statement of their beliefs that sets them apart somehwhat from other churches. That in itself is a denominational act. You can continue to live in denial all you want but as long as you keep pointing the finger at denominational churches then you just prove my point.

it has nothing to do with what my pastor is saying as i have already stated we do not waste our time on childish *cencored* like that, and if i am not mistaken you are the one pointing fingers, not me. I can see very plainly with my own eyes/ears all the bickering and finger pointing between demon's, including on this board, and we have a set of rules and beliefs at my job, so tell me what denom is my work place? that is just a stupid statement. what makes us an non-denom is that we do not care to be labeled by human traditions but only care to serve God. So if we are a denom (if you just have to label us) would be the denom that serves the Lord. Does that work for you?

I am not pointing fingers any more than you are. I fully concede that denominational churches have contributed largely to the division that exists in Christianity, I never denied that. All I am saying is that "non-denominational" churches contribute to that divisiveness just as much, especially when they ignore their own accountability and blame all the problems in Christianity on denominations.

And your parallel of my statement about a church developing a statement of their beliefs being a denominational act, to a set of rules and beliefs at your work is apples and oranges. Of course I won't resort to calling it stupid like you did with my statement, but it is an innapropriate parallel.

First of all, I never said anything about rules, I was talking about anything that defines what your church believes, ie defines them confessionally. More than likely your church has a statement of what they believe. And they really don't even need a formal document. Chances are your church has certain views on communion or baptism etc. Chances are there are churches in your community that have different views on those subjects. Thereby your church, with those beliefs, is making a confessional distinction between themselves and other churches in your community. That is a denominational act. I never said it makes you part of a formal denomination, but it is a denominational act in that your church is distinguishing itself from other churches. In essence they are their own denomination. It's not a bad thing. Of course people should know what your church believes when they come there.

Well if your workplace, in their rules and beliefs, include stating their beliefs on communion, baptism, authority of scripture etc. then that too is a denominationall act, but more than likely that is not the case. When a place of employment has a set of rules it is so their employees know what is expected of them and what their boundaries are. A set of rules for employees to follow at a grocery store does not make any sort of confessional statement, it simply says these are the rules, while you work here you are expected to follow them, if not there will be consequences. You don't go to work so that your faith will be nurtured and sustained, you go to work to get a paycheck. Not saying that there aren't opportunities for faith development in the workplace, but that is not the primary reason why we go to work.

Are you saying that it's completely impossible to have a truly non-denominational and non-divisive church?  If something is instructed in the Bible, I hardly think it's impossible.  The divisiveness comes into play when a particular denomination or congregation will not allow participation by a believer.  We are all called to participate in church meetings.

: VerbumReale  Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 08:44:39
Too bad they didn't use the actual verses but instead incredibly biased Roman Catholic commentaries on them.

For example for the Hebrws they put

"Heb. 11:6 - faith is indeed the minimum requirement without which we cannot please God. But this is just the beginning of the process leading toward justification. Faith alone does not justify a person. Justification is only achieved by faith and works, as we see below. Also, this gratuitous gift of faith from God also includes the grace of hope and love the moment the person is justified. "

Well the actuall passage says

"Hebrews 11     
11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.  "

Where the commentary would have you believe that the author of Hebrews was emphasizing works all one has to do is read the actual verse and see that the emphasis was on faith.

Sorry valiant effort but faith alone remains biblical.

As opposed to incredibly biased Protestant interpretations and commentaries...

You disappoint me.  Is this the best you can do?...pull one verse when there are many to examine and question.

As the verse states, the process does indeed begin with faith but it does not stop there.  Faith alone is unbiblical, and I have presented Scripture to support it.

Please chime in when you have more to say.

: VerbumReale  Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 08:44:39
"Hebrews 11    
11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.  "

Where the commentary would have you believe that the author of Hebrews was emphasizing works all one has to do is read the actual verse and see that the emphasis was on faith.

There's that whole "earnestly see him" part that you seem to have overlooked.

VerbumReale,

You simply are wrong. We are non-denom (unless you want to say that our denom is 'non-denom') otherwise keep your labels to yourself. WE do not compare how we serve/worship the Lord to how other people do. It is of no interest to us, which is what makes us non-denom. We serve/worship the Lord how we deem appropriate, not looking at how others do it, and decide if we want to do it their way or a different way.

and again i think you are wrong about your belief that non-denom's are pointing any fingers. that is what makes them non-demons by minding our own business. I will however defend any denom or non-denom that is being challenged because of thier beliefs that are biblical, and/or who are being unfairly accussed of something I do not feel they are guilty of, as the Catholics have been in the OP that led to this one.

Thank you, VerbumReale. 


::announcment::

Too bad they didn't use the actual verses but instead incredibly biased Roman Catholic commentaries on them.

It's not the first time that the Word of God has been distorted: Genesis 3:1, NLT: Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" 

: gruvEdude  Wed Oct 31, 2007 - 21:36:28
Thank you, VerbumReale. 


::announcment::

Too bad they didn't use the actual verses but instead incredibly biased Roman Catholic commentaries on them.

It's not the first time that the Word of God has been distorted: Genesis 3:1, NLT: Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" 

Again, as opposed to incredibly biased Protestant interpretations and commentaries?...

Distorted by whom?  That is the real question...

: broach972  Thu Nov 01, 2007 - 08:50:21
Again, as opposed to incredibly biased Protestant interpretations and commentaries?...

Distorted by whom?  That is the real question...

I'm no expert  ::doh:: , but based upon how Scripture verifies itself(Ephesians 2:9, etc.), it seems to be true. Protestest Bibles are translations, not merely interpretations and commentaries.

On the other hand, Catholics invent things like Purgatory.

: gruvEdude  Fri Nov 02, 2007 - 05:19:07

: broach972  Thu Nov 01, 2007 - 08:50:21
Again, as opposed to incredibly biased Protestant interpretations and commentaries?...

Distorted by whom?  That is the real question...

I'm no expert  ::doh:: , but based upon how Scripture verifies itself(Ephesians 2:9, etc.), it seems to be true. Protestest Bibles are translations, not merely interpretations and commentaries.

On the other hand, Catholics invent things like Purgatory.

Invent?  Well, you can certainly say the same thing of the Rapture or even the concept of the Trinity, since it is mentioned nowhere in Scripture.

You might have a big problem here, since the idea can be found in Scripture and does not contradict Scriptures in any way.  The concept dates back to the Church Fathers.

I would offer the following for food for thought:

The concept of an after-death purification from sin and the consequences of sin is also stated in the New Testament in passages such as 1 Corinthians 3:11–15 and Matthew 5:25–26, 12:31–32.

The doctrine of purgatory, or the final purification, has been part of the true faith since before the time of Christ. The Jews already believed it before the coming of the Messiah, as revealed in the Old Testament (2 Macc. 12:41–45) as well as in other pre-Christian Jewish works, such as one which records that Adam will be in mourning "until the day of dispensing punishment in the last years, when I will turn his sorrow into joy" (The Life of Adam and Eve 46–7). Orthodox Jews to this day believe in the final purification, and for eleven months after the death of a loved one, they pray a prayer called the Mourner's Kaddish for their loved one's purification.

Jews, Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox have always historically proclaimed the reality of the final purification. It was not until the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century that anyone denied this doctrine.

I could say much about this subject but this isn't the purpose of the thread.  Before you start accusing the Catholic Church of just inventing things, you should take a look at the history of the faith, more important the historical development of doctrine.

: broach972  Fri Nov 02, 2007 - 09:43:52I would offer the following for food for thought:

The concept of an after-death purification from sin and the consequences of sin is also stated in the New Testament in passages such as 1 Corinthians 3:11–15 and Matthew 5:25–26, 12:31–32.

I can see the point about the passage in 1 Corinthians.  But, the two Matthew references seem like quite a stretch to me.

One has to do with temporal legal matters (though perhaps you apply the principles beyond that).  And, the other has to do with blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and forgiveness (or not being forgiven for this in this age or the age to come... but, perhaps you infer from that the process of being forgiven in Purgatory with reference to the "age to come"... still a stretch, though, IMO).

Catholics see protestantism and all its break away sects as Chaos. This Chaos comes about( as a Catholic sees it ) from thousands of differing private interpretations of Scripture. These differing interpretations of Scripture result in thousands of protestant denominations and sects.

Catholics don't privately interpret Scripture, so when a Protestant or nondenom sect member asks what a particular verse of Scripture means, a Catholic won't give his opinion but will answer with a 2000 year old tradition.

Example: Why do you Catholics Baptize Infants ? 

"[T]herefore children are also baptized." Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).

"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants." Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

Catholics understand Scripture through both Scripture and Tradition.

Infants were Baptisted right up to the time of the first Protestants Lutherans, who see Baptism as regenerative.

1500 + years of infant Baptism.

Some time after Luther, Protestant sects that broke away and privately interpreted from Scripture that infants are to be refused Baptism, started the Tradition of denying Baptism to infants.

this has been resurrected again?