Why Do Some People Have A Problem With Non-Denom People Self-Identifyi

[loveofchrist1]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1313696811' post='2290695']
Ok so non-denominational is like some guy who been with this chick fo' like 5 yurrs. And the womans is all "when we gonna get marrie?," and the mans is all "hey boo boo why I gotta put a ring on it to prove me love fuh you," and the lady comes back at him like "you just afraid of commitment," and then he's all "a piece of paper sayin' we married ain't gon' change how I feel about you baby" and you know all that stuff that you done heard in just about any romantic comedy or sitcom that you ever did see.

It's just like that. All of that.

Sayin' you're a non-denom ain't just keepin it real homes.
[/quote]
I CANT STOP LOL
THIS IS PRICELESS.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1313707549' post='2290905']
I have a much bigger problem with people self-identifying as "Catholics" who are Catholic in name only.
[/quote]
A BIG ditto to that.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1313644081' post='2290435']
You could say all non-denom people are a denomination unto themselves on the basis of their doctrinal unity and their shared ND self-identification. (Leadership structure and church governance is still an issue, though). However, different non-denom congregations have differing levels of doctrinal unity, and they also have differing levels of formalized cooperation with one another in order to reach whatever doctrinal unity they have. Beyond that, some independent congregations have far more doctrinal unity with one or two "formal" denominations (Baptist, for example), without having as much in common with most other ND groups. Additionally, a common denominational grouping generally guarantees that membership in one congregation is good for membership in all congregations within that denomination- but the theoretical ND denomination would not function that way. It actually wouldn't function any differently than how it functions now. There's nothing that changes about the thing we're focused on; it's just a matter of putting a name on it. Essentially, this sort of grouping would be characterized by something that's different from any other denomination. It's eclectic. It's a bit of a catch-all, in theory.[b]It's unique in that it's sort of a potpourri denomination- not always in terms of doctrine, but in terms of leadership structure, church governance, the names used by different congregations, and the ways in which church membership is recognized when a person moves from one congregation to another.[/b]
[/quote]

I am going to go out on a limb here and say this post is the very reason USAirwaysIHS said "Your run of the mill Methodist doesn't, by his own actions, contribute to the further splintering of Christianity. Non-denoms do." There is no Christianity as such that is believed or doctrine people hold in common. Rather it is by your description a potpourri of different denominations and beliefs. There is more of individualism here rather than a focus on the Christian community and the common and right belief of that community that is stressed in the Apostolic Letters of the Bible and in Acts.

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1313644833' post='2290446']

[quote name='vee8' timestamp='1313643741' post='2290432']
So why are you non denominational anyway? Christ started one Church, guess which one, where we can receive Him Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity every day if we can get our butt to Mass. What else is there if there isnt Jesus?
[/quote]

If I wanted to be part of something that's most similar to first-century Christianity, I'd be Orthodox. And we have a difference of opinion on what you can and can't get at Mass.
[/quote]

Shyeah!? Don't you know that reading the Bible is easy! Some parts are clearly literal: like the multiple accounts of the creation of the world in Genesis; and some parts are clearly figurative: like when Jesus says "This is my body" or when he tells people they will have to "eat of the flesh of the Son of Man" and he does not explain himself and asks his Apostles if they want to leave over this.

[ThePenciledOne]

I'm just replying to the title of this post in which I will merely say....they refuse to love.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1313703654' post='2290829']
The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ. I have no idea what you mean by saying that St. Athanasius is more trusted than the Pope. Trusted about what?
[/quote]

Nobody would deny that the pre-schism church was the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic. All of the ancient Churches recite this and believe this. However, there is dispute on after the schism, who is the Catholic Church, in the sense of the one that Christ founded. This is what I mean by it's not cut and dry. I believe that the "Catholic" [in every sense of the word as Christ and the apostles founded] is that of the Oriental Orthodox. You believe that it's the Roman Catholic and all of it's affiliates. It's not black and white, cut and dry.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1313721290' post='2291063']
Nobody would deny that the pre-schism church was the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic. All of the ancient Churches recite this and believe this. However, there is dispute on after the schism, who is the Catholic Church, in the sense of the one that Christ founded. This is what I mean by it's not cut and dry. I believe that the "Catholic" [in every sense of the word as Christ and the apostles founded] is that of the Oriental Orthodox. You believe that it's the Roman Catholic and all of it's affiliates. It's not black and white, cut and dry.
[/quote]

this sounds kinda phishy to me

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1313721290' post='2291063']
Nobody would deny that the pre-schism church was the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic. All of the ancient Churches recite this and believe this. However, there is dispute on after the schism, who is the Catholic Church, in the sense of the one that Christ founded. This is what I mean by it's not cut and dry. I believe that the "Catholic" [in every sense of the word as Christ and the apostles founded] is that of the Oriental Orthodox. You believe that it's the Roman Catholic and all of it's affiliates. It's not black and white, cut and dry.
[/quote]
Just because people disagree on something doesn't make it not black and white. Many people believe that President Obama was not born in the United States or that the earth is not in a warming trend or that man never really walked on the moon. That doesn't make any of those not cut and dry, it just means that some people's beliefs are correct, and some are not.

[Guest]

Godbless original poster. I have great respect for a lot of non denominational churches and their members. There seems to be some really good christians there that really love God and know His word. I used to watch T.D. Jakes on tbn and got a lot from him. He is a true man of God and I believe Potters House is non denominational. So with that being said I have no problem as long as the non denominational churches aren't anti catholic.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Guest

[Amppax]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1313722408' post='2291076']
Just because people disagree on something doesn't make it not black and white. Many people believe that President Obama was not born in the United States or that the earth is not in a warming trend or that man never really walked on the moon. That doesn't make any of those not cut and dry, it just means that some people's beliefs are correct, and some are not.
[/quote]

I love how when i start to type out a post, and then someone says exactly what I was going to say, and says it about ten times better. Major super props dude.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1313722408' post='2291076']
Just because people disagree on something doesn't make it not black and white. Many people believe that President Obama was not born in the United States or that the earth is not in a warming trend or that man never really walked on the moon. That doesn't make any of those not cut and dry, it just means that some people's beliefs are correct, and some are not.
[/quote]

Well in the case of the pre-schism church, it's not cut and dry but if you want to go down that road. The cards are stacked more against the Roman Catholic Church as far as their infallible pope doctrine, their claim to the throne of St. Peter etc, then in their favor. Even having said that, it's still not cut and dry.
[quote name='Delivery Boy' timestamp='1313722421' post='2291077']
Godbless original poster. I have great respect for a lot of non denominational churches and their members. There seems to be some really good christians there that really love God and know His word. I used to watch T.D. Jakes on tbn and got a lot from him. He is a true man of God and I believe Potters House is non denominational. So with that being said I have no problem as long as the non denominational churches aren't anti catholic.
[/quote]

First and foremost, T.D. Jakes is actually categorized as a Pentecostal. Second, he subscribes to the "oneness" theology, which means that he believes that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are but one person/individual/mind with different titles, representing the different manifestations. It's like saying that the father, the son and the holy spirit are one person with different masks, if you will. This is at odds with what all of the historic churches have believed for 2000 years. It's down right heretical to be honest.

He believes that if you are baptised in the name of "The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit", then you're not really "saved" because the only name that can save is "Jesus". If you weren't baptised "In Jesus Name", then you're screwed.

He also believes that if you're not "saved", then you're eternally damned to hell. He also believes that if you don't "speakin tongues" [Charismatic 'gift'] then you're not saved and cannot go to heaven. They refer to this as "the baptism of the holy spirit" and as I'd posted in other threads, use scriptures from Acts and 1 Corinthians out of context to support their false doctrine. They believe, without evidence, that this is what the Early Church believed and assert that they are picking up where the early church left off.

He unconditionally rejects the Council of Nicea as being a manifestation of men, not G-d.

He also believes in tithying. I don't mean that he believes in it as the Roman Catholic Church, but I mean that he "believes in it". Meaning that he holds his followers strictly to how much they should be giving. If you go to his "potters house" website, it's filled more with things to purchase and his "partnership" plans, which are approx $500.00 [USD], etc. He, like most pentecostal preachers, are about money.

Note: I used to read his books in my teens and I'd even read one in my mid 20's. The last one that I read was "Devotions from: Loose That Man & Let Him Go! (So You Call Yourself a Man?)", which was published in 1998, thou I'd read it in 2003-2004.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1313724283' post='2291101']
Well in the case of the pre-schism church, it's not cut and dry but if you want to go down that road. The cards are stacked more against the Roman Catholic Church as far as their infallible pope doctrine, their claim to the throne of St. Peter etc, then in their favor. Even having said that, it's still not cut and dry.
[/quote]
Please provide some support, because from my/our interpretation of scripture, it does in fact look pretty cut and dry.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1313724446' post='2291104']
Please provide some support, because from my/our interpretation of scripture, it does in fact look pretty cut and dry.
[/quote]

Well I don't hold to your theory that St. Peter was the "head of the church" and therefore the Roman Catholic Pope is and is infallible blah blah blah. What evidence? St. AThanasius's opinion was worth more then that of the Roman Catholic Pope at Nicea. It wasn't the roman Catholic Pope's approval that validated Nicea, it was St. Athanasius if anyone but I believe that it was the Holy Spirit. However we've been through this before and won't ever come to a concensus so I'd rather not revisit it. You can rebuttle my short response all you want but I won't repost because it's a waste of time.

Second, I find it interesting that you propose that we turn to the bible because when we were talking about the supposed "charismatic renewal", nobody wanted to see what the bible had to say.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1313724860' post='2291108']
Second, I find it interesting that you propose that we turn to the bible because when we were talking about the supposed "charismatic renewal", nobody wanted to see what the bible had to say.
[/quote]
You'll note that I have never defended any charismatic cause, and participated in that thread only up until the point that I realized that the answer to my question "what is a charismatic?" would not be answered any better than "go read some books."

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1313725035' post='2291111']
You'll note that I have never defended any charismatic cause, and participated in that thread only up until the point that I realized that the answer to my question "what is a charismatic?" would not be answered any better than "go read some books."
[/quote]

Actually I did answer your question, "what is a charismatic" without saying "go read some books".

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1313725469' post='2291128']
Actually I did answer your question, "what is a charismatic" without saying "go read some books".
[/quote]
Well I wanted an answer from an actual charismatic. I have my own pre-formed idea of what one is and have done some cursory research, but wanted to find out what a Charismatic's definition of their own movement was.