• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"non-denominational" churches

Melody

Well-Known Member
Terrywoodenpic said:
the church must possess the following characteristics;
(1). It must be a Divine Institution
(2) It must be governed wholly by Divine Authority.
(3) It should have only the names it had at the beginning.
(4) It must have the Form of Government given to the Church in the beginning.
(5) It has the Unity of the Church of the New Testament.
Please clarify the meaning of the above and the bible verse which backs them up.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Uncertaindrummer said:
Paul says in the Bible that "The Church... is the pillar and foundation of Truth"--Timothy 3:15

Now if that is true, how can one claim that the Church one belongs to does not matter? Jesus established his Church on a "rock" (Matthew 16: 16-18). How can his Church not matter?

His Church most certainly does matter, but you are correct, the Devil DOES like divisions. All of the splits, heresies and schism over the years have indeed hurt the Church. But the Church cannot fail because Jesus said the "Gates of Hell will not prevail against it".

I submit to you then, that if your Church does not resemble this Biblical Church, just as Robert has quite correctly narrowed in on, then you are in the wrong church.
Hi, Uncertaindrummer; Namaste.

I noticed that this is your first post on the forum, and thought that I'd like to welcome you.

You might like to introduce yourself (Just to tell us a few things about you so we can 'see' who we are talking to). You might also like to look at Articles for New Members where you will find useful info about the forum, cleverly put together by Feathers; there is also a link on that page to the forum rules, which you might like to look at.
Enjoy!:)
 

CaptainXeroid

Following Christ
I think the 'non-denominational churches' grew out of of a dis-satisfaction with 'man-made' differences among people who claim to follow Christ. I also think we as Christians get in to trouble when we criticize other denominations or other faiths. Different people relate to God differently, and we should not put them down in anyway for it.
Robert said:
[... It follows, therefore, that the church must possess the following characteristics;...
I think the Word says where ever 2 or more are gathered in my name, so I would submit that's the qualification for a 'church'. :)
 

Uncertaindrummer

Active Member
michel said:
Hi, Uncertaindrummer; Namaste.

I noticed that this is your first post on the forum, and thought that I'd like to welcome you.

You might like to introduce yourself (Just to tell us a few things about you so we can 'see' who we are talking to). You might also like to look at Articles for New Members where you will find useful info about the forum, cleverly put together by Feathers; there is also a link on that page to the forum rules, which you might like to look at.
Enjoy!:)
Hi, thanks for the welcome. I joined specifically for this thread because a friend told me about it. I am still finding my way around the site. Anyway, I have now read the thread more thouroughly and would ask a few people (not certain of names) a few questions:

You say everything we have to believe is in the Bible. Well Iwould ask you: Where in the Bible does it say this?

The Church of Christ is non-denominational? In reality, all churches are denominations. Otherwise, they wouldn't exist. The Church of cChrist has its own agendas as well, and often they can change from church to church even.

Someone says he does not go to any particular churche because he hasn't found one that he agrees with. Well, I do not mean to be at ALL insulting when I say: Is it more important for YOU to agree with the Church, or for God to be in that Church?

Cheers,

UD
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Robert, before we can show the Catholic Church in the New Testament it is of importance we understand and see just how you understand the statement ""I cannot go beyond the word of my God , to do less or more". When you hear this do you think "Bible"? Or do you hear exactly what it says "Gods Words" whether written or not? Perhaps you can provide a verse that shows that all would be reduced to writing. Or at least a verse that shows that Scripture is clear enough by itself to enable you to determine what doctrines Christianity proposes and what doctrines it condemns, without the need for Tradition or the interpretive authority. You see Robert, I look at verses like Acts 15, Council of Jerusalem and see Catholicism. Do you see them all pulling out what scriptrues they had and argue until they turn blue? Not at all. The discussion had already gone beyond that. Read Acts 15 and look at how they resolved doctrinal issues Robert. They submitted to MEN who were lead by the Holy Spirit. What makes you think that this type of method of resolving doctrinal issues has expired? And if it hasn't then please tell me how you resolve doctrinal issues in your church when everybody thinks they are clearly following scripture?

~Victor
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
It seems long ago back in the early 50’s whilst serving in the artillery in Hong Kong, I was introduced to the Baptists By a very good friend from the regiment. We went on a religious course together (retreat) at army expense. This was my first experience of non-denominational religion, the Padres were from every persuasion and were a joy. Later we, with others, used to go to Morning Prayer at the Cathedral followed by a service with some American missionaries in a flat belonging to a Chinese couple, again no Dogma. On returning to the UK with the regiment we both helped out with the camp Sunday school, again with children of many denominations. It was all so innocent of religious argument. This was now about the time we went to one of Billy Graham’s first London Crusade.
Again there was no strife.
Later with a Spanish Catholic girlfriend I used to stay at the recently restored Carmelite Friery at Aylesford . She as a Catholic and I as a Protestant were made equally welcome by the prior Father Malachi.

Listening to comments on this forum and the petty point taking, using out of context passages from scripture is enough to make one weep.

Thank the Lord he loves you all! Please show equal love to all your brothers.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Terry, I agree with what you said. It would be nice if we didn't have to do this at all. Our only struggle should be not falling from Grace. Nevertheless there is real disagreements that need to discussed in a charitable manner.

~Victor
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Terrywoodenpic said:
Listening to comments on this forum and the petty point taking, using out of context passages from scripture is enough to make one weep.

Thank the Lord he loves you all! Please show equal love to all your brothers.
Although I echo my friend Victor's comments.... please remember this is a Religious Debate Forum..... it would be kinda slow if we all hopped on, said "I love you" and then chatted about the weather.;)

You can disagree without disrespect.
Scott
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
SOGFPP said:
. please remember this is a Religious Debate Forum.....
Scott
You are right of course, it is the distrutive bits that get me down. we can all learn a lot fom constructive arguement.
Terry
 

Robert

New Member
Hey Melody,
Thanks for your interest. To clarify my statements lets start at the beginning. At the beginning the church was a divine institution, and it can not cease to be divine and still be the church of Christ, for God does not begin with the divine and end with the human. A divine institution must have for its organization and essential features divine authority, for the world can not make an ordinance or an institution divine ( Psalm 127:1 ; Matt. 15:13 ; 1 Cor.3:11).
Concerning church government , at the beginning the church was governed wholly by divine authority. Just as certainly therefore, as Christ will own and accept his church when he comes again , so certainly will it be governed by his authority. Christ' church may well be described as a monarchy. Other than Jesus, the absolute monarch and head of the church (Eph. 1:20-23), who possesses all legislative authority ( Matt. 28:18 ) , the New Testament authorizes no organization for the universal church. In the absence of any Biblical authority for organizing the church universal, any assumption of authority beyond the local congregation constitutes a government not sanctioned by the scriptures. Gods Plan for the organization of the local church is written in the scriptures. God commands the selection of a plurality of men in each congregation to serve as shepherds of the flock. These men are scripturally described as elders ( 1 Peter 5:1 ), bishops (Phil.1:1 ; 1 Tim. 3:1), the presbytery ( 1 Tim. 4:14) , overseers ( Acts 20:28 ) , or pastors (Eph. 4:11). Each local church is self-governing under Christ , having their own leaders. A Plurality of men qualified by character and experience ( 1 Tim. 3:1-7).

Being under the divine authority of Christ the church is given various names in the New Testament. All these names have their significance , for the Holy Spirit never used them by accident. In Romans 16:16 Paul refers to them all as "the churches of Christ". This also indicates a divine unity of the church. There should be no doubt that Christ's prayer for the unity of his people can now be fulfilled as it was at the beginning ( John 17). Thanks again Melody for your interest. Looking forward to your response.
Robert
http:www.theBible.net
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Concerning church government , at the beginning the church was governed wholly by divine authority.
Meaning, it no longer is?

the New Testament authorizes no organization for the universal church. In the absence of any Biblical authority for organizing the church universal, any assumption of authority beyond the local congregation constitutes a government not sanctioned by the scriptures.
Are you kidding me? Paul was constantly going "beyond the local congregation". Once again, please provide text to show that this is no longer the case.

Being under the divine authority of Christ the church is given various names in the New Testament. All these names have their significance , for the Holy Spirit never used them by accident. In Romans 16:16 Paul refers to them all as "the churches of Christ". This also indicates a divine unity of the church. There should be no doubt that Christ's prayer for the unity of his people can now be fulfilled as it was at the beginning ( John 17). Thanks again Melody for your interest. Looking forward to your response.
Name of the church is irrelavent. The doctrines define the church, not the name. Perhaps you can explain how the churches of Christ manage divine unity and still have each local congregation govern each other. Please firgive me If my statement sounds bold or mean but I just don't see your system accomplishing unity.

~Victor
 

Uncertaindrummer

Active Member
Robert said:
Hey Melody,
Thanks for your interest. To clarify my statements lets start at the beginning. At the beginning the church was a divine institution, and it can not cease to be divine and still be the church of Christ, for God does not begin with the divine and end with the human. A divine institution must have for its organization and essential features divine authority, for the world can not make an ordinance or an institution divine ( Psalm 127:1 ; Matt. 15:13 ; 1 Cor.3:11).
Concerning church government , at the beginning the church was governed wholly by divine authority. Just as certainly therefore, as Christ will own and accept his church when he comes again , so certainly will it be governed by his authority. Christ' church may well be described as a monarchy. Other than Jesus, the absolute monarch and head of the church (Eph. 1:20-23), who possesses all legislative authority ( Matt. 28:18 ) , the New Testament authorizes no organization for the universal church. In the absence of any Biblical authority for organizing the church universal, any assumption of authority beyond the local congregation constitutes a government not sanctioned by the scriptures. Gods Plan for the organization of the local church is written in the scriptures. God commands the selection of a plurality of men in each congregation to serve as shepherds of the flock. These men are scripturally described as elders ( 1 Peter 5:1 ), bishops (Phil.1:1 ; 1 Tim. 3:1), the presbytery ( 1 Tim. 4:14) , overseers ( Acts 20:28 ) , or pastors (Eph. 4:11). Each local church is self-governing under Christ , having their own leaders. A Plurality of men qualified by character and experience ( 1 Tim. 3:1-7).

Being under the divine authority of Christ the church is given various names in the New Testament. All these names have their significance , for the Holy Spirit never used them by accident. In Romans 16:16 Paul refers to them all as "the churches of Christ". This also indicates a divine unity of the church. There should be no doubt that Christ's prayer for the unity of his people can now be fulfilled as it was at the beginning ( John 17). Thanks again Melody for your interest. Looking forward to your response.
Robert
http:www.theBible.net
I would have to argue against there being no authority in the Church. The Bible clearly shows MEN, not just God, assuming and being given, positions of authority. Matthew 16: 16-19 clearly shows that Peter had authority. The Church was BUILT on him, and he was given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever he bound and loosed on Earth would be bound and loosed in Heaven. That is some authority right there!

Matthew 18: 15-18 CLEARLY shows that the Church has authority. And yet, it has to be somewhat man-oriented, because if one takes one to the Church, and the Church is governed only by Jesus ALONE with no earthly representative, who is to say what the Church is? If Jesus has an Earthly representative, however, the passage becomes clear. He DOEs have an earthly representative, the Church's Magisterium and Pope.

Luke 10: 16 says that whoever listens to the Apostles listens to Jesus. Now, that is some seriousy authority! And the Apostles HANDED ON this authority, as is evidenced by the choosing of Matthias to replace Judas in the beginning of Acts. In the Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15, we CLEARLY see a authoritative and ORGANIZED body in the Church.

2 Thessalonians 3: 14-15 Paul CLEARLY shows HIS authority. And yet you would still claim that Divine Authority is the only authority? You could technically make the argument somehow--although it would be strained--that Jesus used the Apostles for this, but the Apostles ALSO handed this authority ON:

1 Timothy 5: 1-9 Paul is instructing Timothy on what he should allow and NOT allow. Timothy is not an Apostle yet he HAS authority.

Then of course, 1 Timothy 3: 15, which describes the Church as the Pilalr and Foundation of Truth. And yet, somehow, the Church has no authority? This is clearly senseless.

As you can see, not only IS there evidence of a Biblical authoritative Church, there is strong evidence. And there is certainly NO evidence from the Bible that the Bible is to be our only authority.
 

glasgowchick

Gives Glory to God !!!
Robert said:
Hey Melody,
Thanks for your interest. To clarify my statements lets start at the beginning. At the beginning the church was a divine institution, and it can not cease to be divine and still be the church of Christ, for God does not begin with the divine and end with the human. A divine institution must have for its organization and essential features divine authority, for the world can not make an ordinance or an institution divine ( Psalm 127:1 ; Matt. 15:13 ; 1 Cor.3:11).
Concerning church government , at the beginning the church was governed wholly by divine authority. Just as certainly therefore, as Christ will own and accept his church when he comes again , so certainly will it be governed by his authority. Christ' church may well be described as a monarchy. Other than Jesus, the absolute monarch and head of the church (Eph. 1:20-23), who possesses all legislative authority ( Matt. 28:18 ) , the New Testament authorizes no organization for the universal church. In the absence of any Biblical authority for organizing the church universal, any assumption of authority beyond the local congregation constitutes a government not sanctioned by the scriptures. Gods Plan for the organization of the local church is written in the scriptures. God commands the selection of a plurality of men in each congregation to serve as shepherds of the flock. These men are scripturally described as elders ( 1 Peter 5:1 ), bishops (Phil.1:1 ; 1 Tim. 3:1), the presbytery ( 1 Tim. 4:14) , overseers ( Acts 20:28 ) , or pastors (Eph. 4:11). Each local church is self-governing under Christ , having their own leaders. A Plurality of men qualified by character and experience ( 1 Tim. 3:1-7).

Being under the divine authority of Christ the church is given various names in the New Testament. All these names have their significance , for the Holy Spirit never used them by accident. In Romans 16:16 Paul refers to them all as "the churches of Christ". This also indicates a divine unity of the church. There should be no doubt that Christ's prayer for the unity of his people can now be fulfilled as it was at the beginning ( John 17). Thanks again Melody for your interest. Looking forward to your response.
Robert
http:www.theBible.net

Hi Robert, how are you, Here is what I see when I look at the Church In the New Testament, I see its organization, First we will see a Church with Christ as its Head, Paul wrote " And hath put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be the Head of all things to the church, Which is His Body, The fullness of Him that filleth all in all..." [ Eph, 1:22-23 ] He also wrote " And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beguining, the first born from the dead, that in all things he might have the preeminenece" [ Col 1:18 ] Notice how many heads the Church has, Paul is very specific in using the singular -- " THE HEAD" There are not two heads of the Church--one on earth [ The pope of the Roman Catholic church ] and one in Heaven [Jesus ]..Jesus is The Head --there is only one...

What does the head do? It gives direction to the body. Our bodies obey the direction of our heads. Christ gives direction to HIS BODY - Which Paul says is the Church. The Church follows no-one elses direction, there is no-one else who has the Authority to give direction to the body or the church - but Christ..And that direction is given through the written word of Christ, The New Testament. When we look at the Church of the New Testament, we will see no Human head or earthly head quarters for the Church that Jesus built. Anytime you see a Church that has an earthly head quarters, one can mark it down that it is not the Church you read about in the New Testament. Jesus' Church has its head quarters where the Head is and that is in heaven, that is where its head quarters is.

We see no Organization of the Church larger than each Local congregation. There are no General assemblies, No synods, no state or national governing boards. Instead each local congregation is overseen in its work by the plurity of men who are appointed by the Holy Spirit [ see acts 20:28 ] These men are selected because they posess certain Characteristics that qualify them in the eyes of the Lord to be overseers of His Flock. These Qualifications are set forth in 1 Tim 3, Titus 1, and first Peter 5.

Several different terms are used in referring to this group of men and each term suggests a different aspect of thier work.

They are reffered to as PASTORS [ Ephesians 4:11 ] a term which underscores their work as shepherds of Gods Flock, there is nowhere in the New testament that uses the term pastor in refference to the work of a preacher. It uses it in refference to the the work of the Elders.

Theses men are also called Elders [ Acts 20:17 ] Suggesting that those who would possess the characteristics these men must have been Elderly or older men, in the bible we never read of 16, 17, or 18 year old Elders. Any church that has Elders this young cannot be the Church that Jesus built.

These men are aslo called Bishops [ Phillipians1:1 ] A term that calls the attention to the fact that they are overseers of the congrgation. in fact the word should be translated overseers as in Acts 20:28..

In 1Timothy 4:14 the group as a whole is reffered to as the PRESBYTERY,, a word which suggests a group of Elders, [ Note Berry's interliner translates this word as " Elderhood" Other translations translate the word as Elders ] These men where selected from within the congragation itself for Peter writes " The Elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an Elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ and also a partaker of the Glory that shall be reveled.." [1peter 5:1 ] These Elders where among the congregation. The Congregation did not go outside and hire someone from outside the congregation to serve as an Elder, the Elders are to " Know the flock" --" Know the congregation" and thus it would be nessesary for them to come from within the congregation they were selected to oversee.

There was always a plurity of Elders [ pastors, shepherds, overseers, bishops ] in each Local Congregation. if we can note the following verses, "And when they had ordained them Elders in EVERY CHURCH and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed [ aCTS 14:23 ] And from Miletushe sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church [ Acts 20:17] For this cause Left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordaine Elders in every City, as I appointed thee [ Titus 1:5 ]...

There is another Group of men who were part of its organization and that was the Deacons, The Deacons were not and are not to serve over the congregation. They are not junior elders, The word Deacon itself means " a minister, or a servent. These men were servants of the church. We have a good example of their work in Acts 6. were seven men where chosen to serve "seven tables" or to see to the beneovlent work of the Church, They were chosen because that work was being neglected, and because it was not desirable for the apostles to leave the Word of God and serve tables [ Acts 6:2 ] . The lesson is that the Elders ought to be concentrating on the Spiritual oversight of the Local Congregations for the most part. leaving the deacons, under the direction of the elders. to see that the physical things that must be done. The deacons serve under and at the direction of the elders in all matters..The Elders are responsible for the oversight of the whole congregation and anything done must be approved by the Elders..

How foreign this organization is to modern day denominationalism and Roman Catholicism..We need to get back to the simple organization as God planned it to be......Blessings...
 

Uncertaindrummer

Active Member
Actually, the Biblical Church IS Catholicism as I explained in my post, and you did not even attempt to refute it. You say we see no Earthly head, and yet Peter is CLEARLY the head, as evidenced by the verses I showed. Another interesting fact: Peter's name is mentioned in the NT 195 times! Second place? John with 27! And whenever the Apostles are listed, PEter is first, and Judas is last, clearly showing Peter's importance.
 

glasgowchick

Gives Glory to God !!!
Uncertaindrummer said:
Actually, the Biblical Church IS Catholicism as I explained in my post, and you did not even attempt to refute it. You say we see no Earthly head, and yet Peter is CLEARLY the head, as evidenced by the verses I showed. Another interesting fact: Peter's name is mentioned in the NT 195 times! Second place? John with 27! And whenever the Apostles are listed, PEter is first, and Judas is last, clearly showing Peter's importance.

First of all I haven't read your posts...Peter is not the earthly head, He says Himself in 1Peter 5 :1 Therefore, I exhort you the elders among you, AS YOUR FELLOW ELDER and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and partaker also of the Glory that is to be revealed...Peter was just the same as all the other Elders in the church..Said who, said he Peter....I shall read your posts..
 

glasgowchick

Gives Glory to God !!!
Uncertaindrummer said:
I would have to argue against there being no authority in the Church. The Bible clearly shows MEN, not just God, assuming and being given, positions of authority. Matthew 16: 16-19 clearly shows that Peter had authority. The Church was BUILT on him, and he was given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever he bound and loosed on Earth would be bound and loosed in Heaven. That is some authority right there!

Matthew 18: 15-18 CLEARLY shows that the Church has authority. And yet, it has to be somewhat man-oriented, because if one takes one to the Church, and the Church is governed only by Jesus ALONE with no earthly representative, who is to say what the Church is? If Jesus has an Earthly representative, however, the passage becomes clear. He DOEs have an earthly representative, the Church's Magisterium and Pope.

Luke 10: 16 says that whoever listens to the Apostles listens to Jesus. Now, that is some seriousy authority! And the Apostles HANDED ON this authority, as is evidenced by the choosing of Matthias to replace Judas in the beginning of Acts. In the Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15, we CLEARLY see a authoritative and ORGANIZED body in the Church.

2 Thessalonians 3: 14-15 Paul CLEARLY shows HIS authority. And yet you would still claim that Divine Authority is the only authority? You could technically make the argument somehow--although it would be strained--that Jesus used the Apostles for this, but the Apostles ALSO handed this authority ON:

1 Timothy 5: 1-9 Paul is instructing Timothy on what he should allow and NOT allow. Timothy is not an Apostle yet he HAS authority.

Then of course, 1 Timothy 3: 15, which describes the Church as the Pilalr and Foundation of Truth. And yet, somehow, the Church has no authority? This is clearly senseless.

As you can see, not only IS there evidence of a Biblical authoritative Church, there is strong evidence. And there is certainly NO evidence from the Bible that the Bible is to be our only authority.

Hi again, Now I have read your post, I agree with what your saying about authority, But I disagree that Peter was the head of the Church here on earth...We know what Mathew 16 is all about for times sake on my part I will not retype it out..Eph 2:20 " And are built apon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets Jesus Christ Himself being the Chief cornerstone"
The Apostles [ including Peter but not limited to Peter ] AND the prophets built and makeup the foundation of the church. How can Peter alone have the church built upon him when the Scriptures teach otherwise?..Even at that, Jesus Christ is the chief conerstone? The whole Church is built apon him not Peter.. 1Cor 3:10-11, 10 According the the Grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master builder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon, But let everyman take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11 For other foundations can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Paul said that HE LAID THE FOUNDATION..Peter could not have been "this rock" as Jesus was talking about then, Here is the deciding point for the Catholic, They must either accept true foundation, the Lord Jesus Christ, or reject him for the pope and his false foundation...you cannot have then both." For other foundations can no man lay than that is laid..Which is Jesus Christ. Paul also rebuked Peter because he backslid from the faith and became a hypocrite and took, overturned others faith also...
I have said all I am going to say on this matter. Not because I don't have an answer but because I refuse to go into Scriptual battle....peace...
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
glasgowchick said:
Here is the deciding point for the Catholic, They must either accept true foundation, the Lord Jesus Christ, or reject him for the pope and his false foundation...you cannot have then both.
We do accept Christ as the foundation of our faith.... to imply otherwise is foolish or deceitful.

There is a difference between Catholic theology and Catholic ecclesiology.
I have said all I am going to say on this matter. Not because I don't have an answer but because I refuse to go into Scriptual battle....peace...
Well, this is the reason I've tried to shy away from this thread..... when confronted by Protestants ignorant and arrogant judgements about the Catholic Church, we respond by showing (from Scripture) valid and historically tested evidence of our faith.

.... what it boils down to is that we have an ecclesiology based on Scripture, Tradition, history, and REASON.

All a Protestant can do is counter with the circular logic of your "Bible-only" heresy.... once that fails (time and time again) it is quite clear that your attacks on the RCC are a matter of "I'm right, they're wrong".

Peace in Christ,
Scott
 

glasgowchick

Gives Glory to God !!!
This is not a reply to anything, just messing about with the format seein what I can and cant do here...
blessed are the poor in Spirit for thiers is the kingdom of heaven...
 
Top