For those that are truly nondenom...

[FreeinChrist]

are you happy with this forum?

[Tavita]

Just to get things straight and before I share why I'm not happy with this forum, can I ask what a true non-denom is?

Is a true non-denom someone who is affiliated with a denomination called Non-Denominational (:confused:), or, is it someone who has no denomination whatsoever?

Or, is it both?

Can those with the 'christian' icon be regarded as non-denom too? (seeing that they may not be affiliated with any denomination at all?

[New_Wineskin]

are you happy with this forum?

What do you have in mind ?

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Delete.

[HeyHomie]

No, I'm not happy with this forum.

For one thing, half of the threads have OP's that are basically sermons.

For another thing, we don't have a very good wiki, and because of that it allows other Christians to come in and post "teaching" posts to try to correct our doctrine.

[JHM]

Bye Now

[FreeinChrist]

Just to get things straight and before I share why I'm not happy with this forum, can I ask what a true non-denom is?

Is a true non-denom someone who is affiliated with a denomination called Non-Denominational (:confused:), or, is it someone who has no denomination whatsoever?

Or, is it both?

Can those with the 'christian' icon be regarded as non-denom too? (seeing that they may not be affiliated with any denomination at all?


There is no denomination called Nondenominational. There are, however, alot of churches that are independent of any denomination. They do not have an organization overriding them in regards to what missionaries to suport, what books to use in Sunday school, what pastor you can have, what doctrines you must obey.

But they are usually evangelical or fundamentalist, Trinitarian, sola scriptura, and preach a gospel of salvation by Christ alone. The churches are usually called "________Bible Church" or " ______ Community Church" or similar.

For the purposes of this forum, back when it was created, a Nondenominational member was one who was not part of a denomination, and as there was the rule that one must agree to the Nicene Creed, all were Trintiarian as well. Proselytyzing by denominational groups or by nonTrnitarians and others was not okay.


What has happened since 777 is that there is no longer a safe haven for Nondenominational Christians. In a naive belief that all who come to 4U should be able to post debate in this forum, the doors were left open for those of denomnations, whether Trinitarian or not, to come in and proselytyze, to preach to us poor ignorants, some to troll ....and I no longer see the discussions and support that was once here for Nondenominationals.

[FreeinChrist]

One other thing, you asked:
"Can those with the 'christian' icon be regarded as non-denom too? (seeing that they may not be affiliated with any denomination at all?"

Most nondenom will have just a Christian icon, so I would expect that. However, be aware that there have been those who use just a Christian icon who are in truth denominational and who are proselytyzing for that denom in this forum.

[Tavita]

Thanks for the quick reply, FreeinChrist.

No, I'm not happy with this forum.

This forum is non-denominational, which can have different meanings. But the dictionary meaning is: 'Not restricted to or associated with a religious denomination'. So I believe this forum should be for those who are non-denominational as you described, and for those who truly are affiliated with no denomination.

We have many people from denominations coming in here to debate with non-denoms, and 'preaching' or trying to teach non-denoms what their doctrines 'should be'. Not only that but calling non-denoms 'heretical' because they don't fit within the doctrines and rules of mainline denominations.

I think this suggestion from the General Theology forum is an appropriate suggestion for the non-denom forum...

"Theology posters are expected to understand that accusations of heresy, idolatry, anti-Christ, cult, non-Christian beliefs, etc., are very emotionally-laden. They are not conducive to clear discussion. While they are not forbidden in the context of a discussion, with evidence and examples and support, they are discouraged by themselves, as terms of insult."
http://foru.ms/t3272565-all-members-...-theology.html (http://foru.ms/t3272565-all-members-please-read-suggestions-for-proper-discussion-in-general-theology.html)

I find many people from many more denominations who post in the General Theology forum to be accepting of the fact that there are various and different beliefs within Christendom, and for the most part do not make charges of heresy etc, just because it doesn't fit their doctrinal beliefs.

I am non denomination, and I feel I have the right to express my own beliefs within this forum without charges of heresy. And I agree with HeyHomie that it's about time we had our own Wiki.

Thank you for opening this thread..
Tavs

[JHM]

Bye Now

[FreeinChrist]

Thanks for the quick reply, FreeinChrist.

No, I'm not happy with this forum.

This forum is non-denominational, which can have different meanings. But the dictionary meaning is: 'Not restricted to or associated with a religious denomination'. So I believe this forum should be for those who are non-denominational as you described, and for those who truly are affiliated with no denomination.

We have many people from denominations coming in here to debate with non-denoms, and 'preaching' or trying to teach non-denoms what their doctrines 'should be'. Not only that but calling non-denoms 'heretical' because they don't fit within the doctrines and rules of mainline denominations.

I think this suggestion from the General Theology forum is an appropriate suggestion for the non-denom forum...

"Theology posters are expected to understand that accusations of heresy, idolatry, anti-Christ, cult, non-Christian beliefs, etc., are very emotionally-laden. They are not conducive to clear discussion. While they are not forbidden in the context of a discussion, with evidence and examples and support, they are discouraged by themselves, as terms of insult."
http://foru.ms/t3272565-all-members-...-theology.html (http://foru.ms/t3272565-all-members-please-read-suggestions-for-proper-discussion-in-general-theology.html)

I find many people from many more denominations who post in the General Theology forum to be accepting of the fact that there are various and different beliefs within Christendom, and for the most part do not make charges of heresy etc, just because it doesn't fit their doctrinal beliefs.

I am non denomination, and I feel I have the right to express my own beliefs within this forum without charges of heresy. And I agree with HeyHomie that it's about time we had our own Wiki.

Thank you for opening this thread..
Tavs





I am one who has used the word "heresy" - just the other day in regards to a belief that Jesus is a created being, though immortal. I won't apologize for that as that belief is very mcuh a slap at Christ, IMHO.

Yes, there are varying beliefs within "Christianity", but some of those beliefs are going outside of Christianity - Jesus was a "good man" who has been "deifyied" ...or is an "ascended master" (New AGE) and "He didn't have a real body He just appearred to have one"...

We have left the door open to proselytzing to cults too.


I, for one, would like to see debate limited to those who are Nondenominational. I don't want to constantly see posts that are obviously from cult-like groups or denoms. I'd like more....but i would rather hear from others.

[FreeinChrist]

The only other furum which I regularly frequent is a computer forum where I also post. Some of the members there are extremely knowledgeable on that subject, and often word their remarks in "Geek Speak" which is utterly meaningless to me. I am not knowledgeable in the intricacies of the church(s) either, so I will have to ask you : "Where does what you have said leave me?"
From what I can tell, you belong here. :)

One doesn't need to understand all the intracacies.

[Tavita]

I am one who has used the word "heresy" - just the other day in regards to a belief that Jesus is a created being, though immortal. I won't apologize for that as that belief is very mcuh a slap at Christ, IMHO.

Yes, there are varying beliefs within "Christianity", but some of those beliefs are going outside of Christianity - Jesus was a "good man" who has been "deifyied" ...or is an "ascended master" (New AGE) and "He didn't have a real body He just appearred to have one"...

We have left the door open to proselytzing to cults too.


I, for one, would like to see debate limited to those who are Nondenominational. I don't want to constantly see posts that are obviously from cult-like groups or denoms. I'd like more....but i would rather hear from others.


I agree with you. If we have our own Wiki then we could deal with those who don't believe in the Trinity and the Nicene Creed. There is a set of forums for those beliefs.

I wasn't referring to your use of heresy towards a non-trinitarian a few days ago, but to having the experience of people calling myself and others 'heretics' who have teachings different to mainline christian thought, and knowing that we do believe in the Trinity and the tenets of the Nicene Creed, even if we don't like to say we keep creeds.

[Cris413]

Definition of a Christian, according to FreeinChrist.

A christian, for this forum, is defined as someone who accepts Jesus as the savior.

He or she is also a Trinitarian - believing in God in three persons, one essence. My question is this: Where in the bible is it written that your not a Christian, unless you believe in Trinitarism? I would like to read it myself.I don't know where the words "you are not a christian unless..." appear in the Bible...

However, John is pretty clear regarding the deity of Jesus Christ...

John 1:1 & 14

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Notice the "W" is capitilized...

This is pretty clear...and a fundamental of Christian belief...

I don't want to go too far into it because someone may come along and move my post to an brand new thread...:blush: (oops...did I type that out loud?)

[Cris413]

<snip>

What has happened since 777 is that there is no longer a safe haven for Nondenominational Christians. In a naive belief that all who come to 4U should be able to post debate in this forum, the doors were left open for those of denomnations, whether Trinitarian or not, to come in and proselytyze, to preach to us poor ignorants, some to troll ....and I no longer see the discussions and support that was once here for Nondenominationals.

I totally agree with this....

To be honest...even before 777 I had some serious concerns...which after 777 got magnified...

The spectrum of ND is so vast in itself...

Anyone remember 7thDiscipleofChrist? Wonderful young man who came to the forum...a new believer on fire for the Lord...he didn't stay very long though...

I remember his parting post...where he voiced his discouragement in continually having to defend the basic fundamentals of Christianity....

He was also promptly slammed to the ground in that thread by many....for voicing his...IMHO...very valid concerns :eek:

Now...after 777 this concern is not only about defending basic Christian fundamentals...but also sifting through every facet of the multitudes of different doctrines...(which is the very reason WHY I'm ND...to avoid such things and not be fed shovels full of different beliefs)

...many of which are not simply matters of "religiosity" but are down right FALSE TEACHING.

I had pretty mixed feelings regarding Erwin's vision of the changes of 777...

I thought...it would be great to have the opportunity to witness to the unsaved, atheists, agnostics and such...as well as to those that are in the bondage of "religiosity and ritual" who miss the "relationship"

...my concerns about what the 777 changes may lead to ...is pretty much what seems to be happening now...

A big ball of confusion that IMHO does more harm than good to those who are undecided and those not firmly grounded in the Word.

The good news is...that it's the Holy Spirit leads us to Christ...that brings wisdom and understanding and the increase

2Ti 2:25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth,
2Ti 2:26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.

Praise God...it's all about Him...because if it were about us...even a little bit...I shudder to consider where the unsaved...and those new in Christ might be led reading through these threads...:eek:

Not only do I consider we should not ALL be lumped together...because what I see happening in this forum is an exponential increase in strife, discord and flaming...

...I think there should be even further division of what is considered ND...

As I read through these threads and see all these different "branches" of ND alone...New Age theology, Universalism, I'm not a Christian but I believe in Christ (whatever that's called) Legalists, Non-Trinitarians...some sort of Ray Bradbury/Twilight Zone belief system...not sure what that's called either...

:tutu: :swoon:

I personally would LOVE to go back to the forum rules that state anyone can read through the threads and post questions...but not be allowed to debate or proselytize.

I would also love to see sub-forums where people can choose to dialog with those of other faiths/doctrine...

IMHO...for this forum to thrive in the spirit of which it was intended...there MUST be that "safe haven" where like-minded believers can share their thoughts...

My apologies for the long post...these things have weighed heavily in my spirit for quite a long time...

ps...I purposefully didn't participate in the discussions back in June/July because I wanted to see what would happen with the changes....here we are...only just a few days shy of 3 months....and it's a MESS...IMO

[Svt4Him]

I think we should change some rules then. Personally I think the nicene creed should be a basic belief required for people to post here. Otherwise we get the amount of silly threads debating what should be foundational beliefs.

[Cris413]

I think we should change some rules then. Personally I think the nicene creed should be a basic belief required for people to post here. Otherwise we get the amount of silly threads debating what should be foundational beliefs.
Absolutely...I would like to expound on my post a bit...

I have seen posts by other denominations that clearly support basic Christian fundamental beliefs and have been blessed by many of them...

It's quite obvious...however...one must seriously have on the full armour of God to participate in these forums and to navigate through them unscathed...

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Delete.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Delete.

[Cris413]

I think if you want a Trinitarian forum thats Nondenom that fine. But you should not confuse Christians by saying that this place is Non denom, if it's going to be Trinitarian only.
The first time I ever read the Nicene Creed was when I signed on here at CF...or what used to be CF...

...and think what is meant by "catholic" in this sense means forming to the church universal (small "c"...not the RCC.

Let's not get confused on the term "universal" either...I'm not refering to "Universalism"...

but universal in the sense of present or occuring everywhere...not limited to a specific denom...

[New_Wineskin]

I think we should change some rules then. Personally I think the nicene creed should be a basic belief required for people to post here. Otherwise we get the amount of silly threads debating what should be foundational beliefs.

I agree as long as we finally get rid of that footnote and simple have "universal" . Having "catholic" in it is not needed since "universal" is just fine .

[JolieHeart]

I am NonDenominational Christian, meaning, I am a Christian who does not subscribe to a particular denominational religious church/organization.

Yes I am happy with this forum. Others are free to post here and I am free to post in other areas. No harm done either way. It is our own reaction to those posts which can be modified.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Some of the posters here are very passionate about what they believe. And of coarse it's human nature not wanting to be wrong, and also trying to prove your point can be trying. But yes, Im happy.

[Cris413]

I am NonDenominational Christian, meaning, I am a Christian who does not subscribe to a particular denominational religious church/organization.

Yes I am happy with this forum. Others are free to post here and I am free to post in other areas. No harm done either way. It is our own reaction to those posts which can be modified.
I'm just curious Jolie...how exactly should we modify our reaction to blasphemies, heresies and false doctrine?

[Cris413]

Some of the posters here are very passionate about what they believe. And of coarse it's human nature not wanting to be wrong, and also trying to prove your point can be trying. But yes, Im happy.

Yes...there are many who are now over joyed at the forum changes...so they can openly and without any fear of reprimand teach their false doctrine and babel on endlessly with their heresies and blasphemies...

Perhaps...the wisdom is not in "modifying" our reactions to such things...

...but moreso...not to subject ourselves to them at all...like many of the Spirit filled, Bible believing saints... grounded in sound doctrine...who have joined the mass exodus from these forums...

Will the last saint left...please remember to turn the lights out...:sigh:

[Tavita]

Yes...there are many who are now over joyed at the forum changes...so they can openly and without any fear of reprimand teach their false doctrine and babel on endlessly with their heresies and blasphemies...

Perhaps...the wisdom is not in "modifying" our reactions to such things...

...but moreso...not to subject ourselves to them at all...like many of the Spirit filled, Bible believing saints... grounded in sound doctrine...who have joined the mass exodus from these forums...

Will the last saint left...please remember to turn the lights out...:sigh:


Yes, it's a real tragedy they left. It would've brought a more stabilizing effect if they'd stayed, I think.

You know, when you speak of false teaching, what is false for some is not for others, and that's the dilemma in this ND forum, as you so stated a few posts ago.

I believe teachings like having to pay 10% tithe to an organisation, the prosperity gospel, and being taught to look upon elders and pastors as 'above' you, or 'thou shalt not touch God's anointed', etc, as false teachings. Yet, other's don't have a problem with it. So, what happens in a place like ND?

[Cris413]

Yes, it's a real tragedy they left. It would've brought a more stabilizing effect if they'd stayed, I think.

You know, when you speak of false teaching, what is false for some is not for others, and that's the dilemma in this ND forum, as you so stated a few posts ago.

I believe teachings like having to pay 10% tithe to an organisation, the prosperity gospel, and being taught to look upon elders and pastors as 'above' you, or 'thou shalt not touch God's anointed', etc, as false teachings. Yet, other's don't have a problem with it. So, what happens in a place like ND? You bring up a very interesting point Tavita...

Personally...I'm not opposed to certain "doctrinal" beliefs and don't really consider a lot of it "false teaching" some of it is simply minutiae and makes for interesting conversation....

the tithe for example...God loves a cheerful giver but I don't think spiritual chaos ensues if someone doesn't feel led to give...

I think the Bible does say we are to respect elders and pastors...but I don't think we are to elevate anyone to any high status...again...a topic for interesting discussion....

prosperity doctrine...absolutely a false teaching IMHO...but again...certainly a topic for good discussion...and there have been many...

The problem I see now in ND...is all of these interesting topics of conversation...where we can share beliefs without digging HUGE dark pits and creating giant stumbling blocks....are pretty much few and far between these days...

Seems like now we're even more so put in positions to defend the very fibre and fundamentals of Christianity...

Some I mentioned in my previous post...but collectively...lets just say doctrine opposed to the Nicene Creed...and are in direct conflict with the plain and simple truths of God's word....

With the HUGE influx of all these different belief systems and without the balance and "stabilizing effect" as you so aptly stated...I'm beginning to consider ND is not a very spiritually healthy place to participate anymore...

Something, I personally, need to give a lot of prayerful thought to...

[FreeinChrist]

I believe there are some core beliefs that need to be held to and the Trinity is a big one as that defines who Jesus is - God the Son, the Christ and that That He died and rose again, a bodily resurrection, and He will come again. Some of the other stuff is just less important...like tithing or prosperity teaching, etc.

What I am seeing these days is some real heretical teaching, and the most recent is that Jesus is a "created being" which takes away from Him as God. There have been other things since 777.

[Svt4Him]

I agree as long as we finally get rid of that footnote and simple have "universal" . Having "catholic" in it is not needed since "universal" is just fine .

I am ex-RCC, and I am fine with the word, but if that's something we as an area decide, then that's great. I have no problem with the universal church, or better yet one body, and I think it needs to be done.

As for the way it's modded here, we chose the mods, so if the non-denominational members want to buck up, then be active in the modding/choosing mods process as well as the rules.

[FreeinChrist]

The Trinitarian doctrine was introduced into Christianity by Constantine the Great, who was also the Pagan high priest. He proclaimed to be head of the Christian Church but maintained his Pagan priest hood.
That is very much not true. But this thread is not to argue the doctrine of the Trinity bur about how we feel about this forum and is it a safe haven fro the nondenoms.

I will address your claim in your other thread.

[HypnoToad]

are you happy with this forum?
I would prefer more rules and structure, more self-governing by the non-denoms. But, when the wiki system first started, I tried somewhat to help get things going, but usually only a couple of people would participate, and nothing could really get done. So, the whole thing just basically fizzled away. 7-7-7 didn't help, either.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Delete.

[Nadiine]

Do you think of yourself as the true Judaeo Christian and that Im the heretic. I was raised a Baptist and I have never seen a Baptist so eager to follow after the Catholic doctrine. I also see that there are many here that call themselves Protestants, only because they don't belong to the Roman Catholic Church. This is what the true protestants rebelled against: The Sunday Sabbath, Trinitarism, images in the church and any form of Paganism being joined to God. And that is according to history. Originally the Baptist were put to death as heretics for not keeping the Sunday Sabbath. Now look where we are at today.
As far as I see it, Erwin may as well have lumped JW's & Mormons in here with us - I see no difference in the teachings coming from these unorthodox groups.
They teach the SAME doctrines! What in the world is the difference?

But to the OP, non denom. is a wide & vast group - basically anyone can claim ANYTHING in this denomination. So seeing nontrinitarians & universalists doesn't shock me much. Just that after 7/7/7 Erwin opened up the floodgates - and this is just reaping what he sowed.

I belong to the Conservative Christian section in this area - and it's a mandate that you accept the Trinity/Christ's deity to be a member. Alot of us consider that our little safe haven.
Erwin's basically thrown everything else to the dogs imho. Even letting JW's & Mormon's have their 'christian' sections!!!!!!! :faint:

You're just left to battle it out endlessly as they continue to promote unorthodox doctrines, change the rules formally or get some peace in another area that makes it mandatory to accept the Trinity/Christ's deith to participate in that section.
They DO have threads for debate by those who aren't orthodox tho - so it does't shut everybody out - but they're just not allowed to post with the general conservatives & disagree with central Conservative Christian beliefs.

As I see it, anyone can hijack a religion to make claims of faith - it happens in every religion & they splinter off as they go.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Delete.

[FreeinChrist]

Nevermind

[FreeinChrist]

As far as I see it, Erwin may as well have lumped JW's & Mormons in here with us - I see no difference in the teachings coming from these unorthodox groups.
They teach the SAME doctrines! What in the world is the difference?

Those two groups have their own congregational areas....so yes, this is a problem that their teachings are popping up here.

[Crispie]

I'm not a big fan of the people who think "non-denominational" is a form of denomination, as if all these churches who are non-denom have similar belief sets. Anyways, non-denom is the most biblically supported(divisions in the house, you get the idea). Unfortunately when you don't have a focused belief set, expect to see a lot of different beliefs being preached in OPs.

[Nadiine]

I'm not a big fan of the people who think "non-denominational" is a form of denomination, as if all these churches who are non-denom have similar belief sets. Anyways, non-denom is the most biblically supported(divisions in the house, you get the idea). Unfortunately when you don't have a focused belief set, expect to see a lot of different beliefs being preached in OPs.
K, but at the same time, you're DIVIDING from the others too...
you aren't joining "them", you go your way that's different from theirs. You can't avoid 'denominations' - everybody fits into a nitch whether they like name tags & terms or not.
I don't see why we have to feel any need to "be different" from them & WE have the "right" way of worshipping (isn't that what they say & do?). :scratch:

I see no difference in your post from a Baptist's post or Pentecostals... if we're all one body of Christ, then we are by being inclusive and open to all others - non denoms aren't all open & inclusive with Baptists & Luthrens & others. They point at them & say they're a denom. & it's wrong.
Same thing they do. I hope you see what I'm trying to relay. :angel: :wave:

[Cris413]

I believe there are some core beliefs that need to be held to and the Trinity is a big one as that defines who Jesus is - God the Son, the Christ and that That He died and rose again, a bodily resurrection, and He will come again. Some of the other stuff is just less important...like tithing or prosperity teaching, etc.

What I am seeing these days is some real heretical teaching, and the most recent is that Jesus is a "created being" which takes away from Him as God. There have been other things since 777.
I so totally agree with this...question is...what can be done about it now?

[Nadiine]

I agree with Free & Chris - I'm basically seeing JW & Mormon teachings being spread in here; they truly aren't much different than the 2 people who come and knock and my door & hand me their Watchtower or ride bikes in black pants & white shirt.
:swoon:
Revamp it with a little twist & WALLAH :idea:, call it something else that's christian. :doh:

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

I so totally agree with this...question is...what can be done about it now?In history, what they used to do is instruct the people not to buy, sale, or trade with those kind of Christians. They also would cut off their head or burn them at the stake. What they would do, is go out on a Saturday and look for people gathering at people houses, and if scripture could be found on them, then you would know that they were guilty.

[Cris413]

In history, what they used to do is instruct the people not to buy, sale, or trade with those kind of Christians. They also would cut off their head or burn them at the stake. What they would do, is go out on a Saturday and look for people gathering at people houses, and if scripture could be found on them, then you would know that they were guilty.
What are you talking about???

Are you implying...by suggesting a subforum...where like-minded believers can share their beliefs without being bombarded with false doctrine, heresies and blasphemies is somehow liken to cutting off peoples heads or burning them at the stake because I don't agree with them?

What is wrong with you?

You have the audacity take me to task and present that I could be guilty of persecuting those who follow Scripture....because I recognize unscriptural heresies/blasphemies when I read them and speak out against them...

What minister of the enemy has such a hold on you!

Listen MTAA...let me make this clear...you can believe whatever you like...that's between you and God...

Did you know...that further down on the Home Page...there are Non-Nicene Creed forums to participate in...One of the subforums being Non-Trinitarian...

Why not post there? Why here? My guess would be that you would prefer to lead people down the same path of destruction you are currently traveling...

Or perhaps...you simply have a heart to refute the truth in Scripture and dispute those who are followers of Christ Jesus...

I'm only suggesting some guideline for ND and voicing my thoughts regarding THIS forum...

For you to even suggest this is in ANYWAY a witch hunt or persecution of sound Scripture...is totally out of line...

It is, however, very reflective of your agenda and the condition of your heart...

In the time I have spent here...I've only asked one other poster to cease from commenting to me or my posts...

This will be the second...

...and I hope you will respect my request...

side note: under the old forum rules...your doctrine and you would have directed to a more appropriate forum long ago...

[LivingWordUnity]

There is no denomination called Nondenominational.If that's the case why did I get reported just because my definition of non-denominational did not conform to someone else's definition of it? If non-denominational isn't a denomination then anyone who considers themself to be non-denominational should be treated as such in this forum.

How can you say that it's not a denomination and at the same time demand strict conformity to someone's narrow particular belief for membership? Sounds like a denomination to me.

Unless this forum states that "Non-Denominational" is the the name of a specific denomination, there is no reason other than unfair anti-Catholic bias for anyone to say that I can't consider myself to be non-denominational.

[Svt4Him]

When we started, we stated only people with non-denom can debate here, but now it seems we have to have more clarification.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

What are you talking about???

Are you implying...by suggesting a subforum...where like-minded believers can share their beliefs without being bombarded with false doctrine, heresies and blasphemies is somehow liken to cutting off peoples heads or burning them at the stake because I don't agree with them?

What is wrong with you?

You have the audacity take me to task and present that I could be guilty of persecuting those who follow Scripture....because I recognize unscriptural heresies/blasphemies when I read them and speak out against them...

What minister of the enemy has such a hold on you!

Listen MTAA...let me make this clear...you can believe whatever you like...that's between you and God...

Did you know...that further down on the Home Page...there are Non-Nicene Creed forums to participate in...One of the subforums being Non-Trinitarian...

Why not post there? Why here? My guess would be that you would prefer to lead people down the same path of destruction you are currently traveling...

Or perhaps...you simply have a heart to refute the truth in Scripture and dispute those who are followers of Christ Jesus...

I'm only suggesting some guideline for ND and voicing my thoughts regarding THIS forum...

For you to even suggest this is in ANYWAY a witch hunt or persecution of sound Scripture...is totally out of line...

It is, however, very reflective of your agenda and the condition of your heart...

In the time I have spent here...I've only asked one other poster to cease from commenting to me or my posts...

This will be the second...

...and I hope you will respect my request...

side note: under the old forum rules...your doctrine and you would have directed to a more appropriate forum long ago... Everyone has an agenda, including you. You are for more division among Christians, and I am not. The acceptence of the Trinitarism doctrine is an denominational issue, and is this not the non - denominational forum?

[HypnoToad]

The acceptence of the Trinitarism doctrine is an denominational issue, and is this not the non - denominational forum?
Trinitarianism is not a denominational issue. There are people in denominations very different from one another who accept the Trinity. There are people in denominations very different from one another who reject the Trinity. There are people of the same denomination who disagree. The issue of the Trinity goes past denominational boundaries. It is a Scriptural issue, not a denominational one.

And non-denominational doesn't mean "anything goes". You're looking for the WWMC (liberal) forum for that. Non-denominational doesn't mean we ignore what Scripture says. Quite the contrary, a typical non-denominational motto is "where the Bible is silent, so are we." Meaning they will typically try to be very Scripturally-guided, not Scripturally wishy-washy. Scripture lays out the Trinity in many places. And the members of this forum have every right to make it a rule here if they chose to do so. Particularly since there is a separate section specifically for non-Nicene Christians, and that isn't this forum.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Trinitarianism is not a denominational issue. There are people in denominations very different from one another who accept the Trinity. There are people in denominations very different from one another who reject the Trinity. There are people of the same denomination who disagree. The issue of the Trinity goes past denominational boundaries. It is a Scriptural issue, not a denominational one.

And non-denominational doesn't mean "anything goes". You're looking for the WWMC (liberal) forum for that. Non-denominational doesn't mean we ignore what Scripture says. Quite the contrary, a typical non-denominational motto is "where the Bible is silent, so are we." Meaning they will typically try to be very Scripturally-guided, not Scripturally wishy-washy. Scripture lays out the Trinity in many places. And the members of this forum have every right to make it a rule here if they chose to do so. Particularly since there is a separate section specifically for non-Nicene Christians, and that isn't this forum. :sleep:

[Nadiine]

Everyone has an agenda, including you. You are for more division among Christians, and I am not. The acceptence of the Trinitarism doctrine is an denominational issue, and is this not the non - denominational forum?
My "agenda" is TO KEEP TO THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD.

And I beg to differ with you, over the past 10 years in moving around alot here in So. Cal., and having to find a new church every 2 yrs, I've visited MANY nondenom. churches personally and friends we have have gone to others that we know about; some churches I liked, some I didn't... but every single one of them stuck to a conservative Trinitarian format. And they all taught right out of the Bible. Every single one.

They aren't predominantly teaching what I'm reading here in this area - this is stuff I hear from 2 nonChristian religions that knock at my doors to witness to me. Slap a new bow on it & repackage it under another name & you have what I"m reading in this section recently.

The basic doctrine is the same, it's just altered teachings surrounding that falsity; arriving at the same result just with a different slant. What's the difference?

[Cris413]

Trinitarianism is not a denominational issue. There are people in denominations very different from one another who accept the Trinity. There are people in denominations very different from one another who reject the Trinity. There are people of the same denomination who disagree. The issue of the Trinity goes past denominational boundaries. It is a Scriptural issue, not a denominational one.

And non-denominational doesn't mean "anything goes". You're looking for the WWMC (liberal) forum for that. Non-denominational doesn't mean we ignore what Scripture says. Quite the contrary, a typical non-denominational motto is "where the Bible is silent, so are we." Meaning they will typically try to be very Scripturally-guided, not Scripturally wishy-washy. Scripture lays out the Trinity in many places. And the members of this forum have every right to make it a rule here if they chose to do so. Particularly since there is a separate section specifically for non-Nicene Christians, and that isn't this forum.
Thank you Xian for this very clear explanation.. :thumbsup:

The reason we go to our non-denom church is that the pastor teaches exponentially from the Bible.

This is one reason we know we're not being spoon fed shovels full of some man's or some organization's opinion....

Also...any pastor/teacher - truly anointed... will always encourage us to spend time with the Lord in prayer and independent study...searching the Scripture on our own to make certain any extrapolation is as led by the Holy Spirit and not just the teachings of man....


Thank you again...for expounding on what ND actually is and particularly that Trinitarianism is not a denominational issue...and more often than not... transcends any other doctrinal differences...

</IMG>

[Cris413]

My "agenda" is TO KEEP TO THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD.

:amen: sister
<snip>

... but every single one of them stuck to a conservative Trinitarian format. And they all taught right out of the Bible. Every single one. It would be quite hard to teach from the Bible otherwise.

They aren't predominantly teaching what I'm reading here in this area - this is stuff I hear from 2 nonChristian religions that knock at my doors to witness to me. Slap a new bow on it & repackage it under another name & you have what I"m reading in this section recently.

The basic doctrine is the same, it's just altered teachings surrounding that falsity; arriving at the same result just with a different slant. What's the difference?I believe this is what is called....discerning spirits...

God bless you sister

Don't you think it odd...no matter what the OP...several of the threads are somehow turned to refuting the Trinity...:swoon:

[Nadiine]

:amen: sister
It would be quite hard to teach from the Bible otherwise.
I believe this is what is called....discerning spirits...

God bless you sister

Don't you think it odd...no matter what the OP...several of the threads are somehow turned to refuting the Trinity...
There have been 2 that were hit the hardest immediately: universal salvation and non trinity.
Interesting to say the least.
Now we're being introduced to God creating people PRIOR to the Creation story from Genesis - that were in heaven with God...
WHAT'S NEXT KIDS?
If something in the bible doesn't make sense or doesn't fit your preconcieved ideas, just MAKE UP SOME DOCTRINE to make it sound plausible & keep your belief; RATHER THAN CHANGE YOUR VIEW TO COMPLY W/ SCRIPTURE.

That's all I'm seeing here from a few. :doh: :sick:
Yes, for sure something needs to be done. Non denom doesn't mean that "anything goes" doctrinally; I agree w/ Xtian Jedi, that's over at the liberalist camp and it's why I'm NOT there.
Pretty soon, I may as well be there or in the JW/Mormon areas. :swoon: :swoon:

[New_Wineskin]

I think we should change some rules then. Personally I think the nicene creed should be a basic belief required for people to post here. Otherwise we get the amount of silly threads debating what should be foundational beliefs.

I agree .. the Nicene Creed but with the word "universal" to replace "catholic" so that the footnote can be removed .

[Tavita]

Originally Posted by Svt4Him http://www3.foru.ms/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://foru.ms/showthread.php?p=39271886#post39271886)
I think we should change some rules then. Personally I think the nicene creed should be a basic belief required for people to post here. Otherwise we get the amount of silly threads debating what should be foundational beliefs.




I agree .. the Nicene Creed but with the word "universal" to replace "catholic" so that the footnote can be removed .


I agree with both.


*as a side note to others here... a christian universalist can fully believe in the Nicene and Apostles Creeds... and even the five solas and Sola Scriptura if they want.

[Zecryphon]

There have been 2 that were hit the hardest immediately: universal salvation and non trinity.
Interesting to say the least.
Now we're being introduced to God creating people PRIOR to the Creation story from Genesis - that were in heaven with God...
WHAT'S NEXT KIDS?
If something in the bible doesn't make sense or doesn't fit your preconcieved ideas, just MAKE UP SOME DOCTRINE to make it sound plausible & keep your belief; RATHER THAN CHANGE YOUR VIEW TO COMPLY W/ SCRIPTURE.

That's all I'm seeing here from a few. :doh: :sick:
Yes, for sure something needs to be done. Non denom doesn't mean that "anything goes" doctrinally; I agree w/ Xtian Jedi, that's over at the liberalist camp and it's why I'm NOT there.
Pretty soon, I may as well be there or in the JW/Mormon areas. :swoon: :swoon:
"Non denom doesn't mean that "anything goes" doctrinally."

Actually, Nadiine, it kinda does. Non-denominational churches don't follow a specific doctrine when it comes to what they teach. They follow their interpretation of the scriptures. I went to a non-denom church that was Calvinistic in it's theology, yet the youth pastor was Arminian in his theology. I then went to another non-denom church that was a full blown emergent church with very little theology. There is nothing set in stone about what must be upheld when it comes to a non-denominational church. Since they have no one oeverseeing them or declaring what is Christian and what isn't, they are left to fend for themselves. So it can be any doctrine under the sun as long as it makes sense to the people in the church, it's "true" Christianity.

[PeacaHeaven]

There is no denomination called Nondenominational. There are, however, alot of churches that are independent of any denomination. They do not have an organization overriding them in regards to what missionaries to suport, what books to use in Sunday school, what pastor you can have, what doctrines you must obey.

But they are usually evangelical or fundamentalist, Trinitarian, sola scriptura, and preach a gospel of salvation by Christ alone. The churches are usually called "________Bible Church" or " ______ Community Church" or similar.

For the purposes of this forum, back when it was created, a Nondenominational member was one who was not part of a denomination, and as there was the rule that one must agree to the Nicene Creed, all were Trintiarian as well. Proselytyzing by denominational groups or by nonTrnitarians and others was not okay.


What has happened since 777 is that there is no longer a safe haven for Nondenominational Christians. In a naive belief that all who come to 4U should be able to post debate in this forum, the doors were left open for those of denomnations, whether Trinitarian or not, to come in and proselytyze, to preach to us poor ignorants, some to troll ....and I no longer see the discussions and support that was once here for Nondenominationals.
:thumbsup:

[PeacaHeaven]

are you happy with this forum?
I don't spend a lot of time at this forum and after the changes that were made I think I'm more unhappy than before. I'm mostly seeing basic Christianity being attacked and I'm getting sick and tired of seeing it.

I agree with someone elses post that theres a lot of preaching posts. I don't like that either and I stopped reading them. Most of the people doing their mini sermons refuse to attend church themselves so why are they coming here to teach us if they refuse to be taught by someone else? No I'm really not happy with the way it is because it is more and more hostile to fundamental Christian doctrine.

[Tavita]

Most of the people doing their mini sermons refuse to attend church themselves so why are they coming here to teach us if they refuse to be taught by someone else?

*bolding mine..

But that's the point.. ND means NO denomination. That can also be true of people who don't go anywhere near a denomination even if that denomination calls itself Non-Denominational.

And I could add that those who hold to denominational fundamental teaching are hostile to others who don't hold to it.

[PeacaHeaven]

*bolding mine..

But that's the point.. ND means NO denomination. That can also be true of people who don't go anywhere near a denomination even if that denomination calls itself Non-Denominational.

And I could add that those who hold to denominational fundamental teaching are hostile to others who don't hold to it.
Well then I might just leave this section alltogether and join in the Conservative section because this is just stupid and pointless. I hate to be so blunt about it but it is.
It looks to me like non denomininational just means whatever you believe is true and call it Christian. Or worse you don't even have to be Christian to be a non denominational. If thats true then why are we here as Christians?
And what is a Christian according to this denomination? Or do I even have to be a Christian to be here? This is making me very angry and it is confusing.:mad:

[Tavita]

Well then I might just leave this section alltogether and join in the Conservative section because this is just stupid and pointless. I hate to be so blunt about it but it is.
It looks to me like non denomininational just means whatever you believe is true and call it Christian. Or worse you don't even have to be Christian to be a non denominational. If thats true then why are we here as Christians?
And what is a Christian according to this denomination? Or do I even have to be a Christian to be here? This is making me very angry and it is confusing.:mad:


You don't have to be a christian to be non-denominational? .. of course not, but in the rules of this forum it states one has to at least agree to the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed is suppose to sum up what a christian believes, is that so? Where in the Nicene Creed does it say one has to believe in a three persons trinity, and one has to believe in eternal torment, for example?

Why is ND a denomination in the first place? It goes right against what the title says.. Non (non means no) Denomination. I know no-one can change that, but at least give those who don't hold to any denomination a chance.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

My "agenda" is TO KEEP TO THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD.

And I beg to differ with you, over the past 10 years in moving around alot here in So. Cal., and having to find a new church every 2 yrs, I've visited MANY nondenom. churches personally and friends we have have gone to others that we know about; some churches I liked, some I didn't... but every single one of them stuck to a conservative Trinitarian format. And they all taught right out of the Bible. Every single one.

They aren't predominantly teaching what I'm reading here in this area - this is stuff I hear from 2 nonChristian religions that knock at my doors to witness to me. Slap a new bow on it & repackage it under another name & you have what I"m reading in this section recently.

The basic doctrine is the same, it's just altered teachings surrounding that falsity; arriving at the same result just with a different slant. What's the difference?Because there are more churchs that teach Trinitarism, that does not make it true. Let's look at the word "Godhead" in some bibles, It is not a translation of scripture, but some mans interpretation. If you would follow your minds insted of your hearts, you would not be calling me a heretic. I am for the true word of God, and not some mans interpretation.

[Nadiine]

Because there are more churchs that teach Trinitarism, that does not make it true.
You're right, THE BIBLE MAKES THAT TRUE. The majority of churches just follow thru with what it absolutely teaches from Genesis to Revelation without having to create new & false doctrines to try to make excuses for what they find.

Let's look at the word "Godhead" in some bibles, It is not a translation of scripture, but some mans interpretation. If you women would follow your minds insted of your hearts, you would not be calling me a heretic. I am for the true word of God, and not some mans interpretation
I don't even NEED the word Godhead to prove a Trinity. The fact that all 3 are called God directly, were in the beginning together working and speaking together, have the attributes and abilities ONLY GOD CAN HAVE tell me they are a Godhead/Unit... not to mention the examples of oneness we have down here as perfect examples of plural oneness:
family and marital units.

I don't need JW or Mormon teaching about why Jesus isn't God - or why the 3 aren't GOD. or why Jesus is "a god" or why Jesus is created... which the bible clearly teaches in John 1 that 'without Christ, nothing that was created was made'. I guess He created Himself then.
The problems are endless. I don't even need the Godhead "error" -
and it's typical; if you can't explain a doctrine, just chip away at that foundation & work at to make it a translational error and remove the WRITING ITSELF if it does'nt fit what you like.
:yawn: :help:
(It always interests me why the blessings & salvational verses aren't "translational errors" - just the central teachings that make what Christianity is in and of itself).
:idea: always convenient... and usually coming from the unchurched I mite add.

[HypnoToad]

Where in the Nicene Creed does it say one has to believe in a three persons trinity,
"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty," - there's one;

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, ... God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God," - there's two;

"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified." - there's three.

and one has to believe in eternal torment,
I don't believe the creed specifies on that, but that's not in the rules for this forum, and no one has yet really suggested that should be there, as opposed to the Trinity doctrine.

[Ben12]

[/size]
You're right, THE BIBLE MAKES THAT TRUE. The majority of churches just follow thru with what it absolutely teaches from Genesis to Revelation without having to create new & false doctrines to try to make excuses for what they find.


I don't even NEED the word Godhead to prove a Trinity. The fact that all 3 are called God directly, were in the beginning together working and speaking together, have the attributes and abilities ONLY GOD CAN HAVE tell me they are a Godhead/Unit... not to mention the examples of oneness we have down here as perfect examples of plural oneness:
family and marital units.

I don't need JW or Mormon teaching about why Jesus isn't God - or why the 3 aren't GOD. or why Jesus is "a god" or why Jesus is created... which the bible clearly teaches in John 1 that 'without Christ, nothing that was created was made'. I guess He created Himself then.
The problems are endless. I don't even need the Godhead "error" -
and it's typical; if you can't explain a doctrine, just chip away at that foundation & work at to make it a translational error and remove the WRITING ITSELF if it does'nt fit what you like.
:yawn: :help:
(It always interests me why the blessings & salvational verses aren't "translational errors" - just the central teachings that make what Christianity is in and of itself).
:idea: always convenient... and usually coming from the unchurched I mite add.

I do not agree I have pointed out to you how John 3:15-17 have been mistranslated.

But let us get back to you who is so always right on; according to your principles.
You see you worship a god called orthodoxy; forget what scripture says; for get what is revealed to you, you have a graven image; orthodoxy.

Isaiah 4:1And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

The following is from Easton's Bible Dictionary

Trinity a word not found in Scripture, but used to express the doctrine of the unity of God as subsisting in three distinct Persons. This word is derived from the Gr. trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isaiah 44:6; Mark 12:29,32; John 10:30). 2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

I agree God is one, not three persons in one, not three God; or how some of our christians friends have expressed; “God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit” which also does not appear in scripture; not that that matters.

1. Notice “That the Father is a distinct divine Person”, where they get that from?
2. Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit.
3. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

The word person, trinity, godhead are all not scriptural so what is your foundation; orthodoxy another unscriptural word; and you all me a heretic

[Nadiine]

Trinity a word not found in Scripture, but used to express the doctrine of the unity of God as subsisting in three distinct Persons. This word is derived from the Gr. trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isaiah 44:6; Mark 12:29,32; John 10:30). 2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

I agree God is one, not three persons in one, not three God; or how some of our christians friends have expressed; “God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit” which also does not appear in scripture; not that that matters.

1. Notice “That the Father is a distinct divine Person”, where they get that from?
2. Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit.
3. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

The word person, trinity, godhead are all not scriptural so what is your foundation; orthodoxy another unscriptural word; and you all me a heretic
How lame that people get completely wiped out & hung up on a "word" - concepts exist whether there are words for them or not.
God is Spirit - so take 3 spirits and there you have it. the 3 ARE ONE. How hard can this be guys?

Jesus came down FROM HEAVEN, took on flesh (BECAME flesh) for the mission of shedding blood and dying for the remission (removal) of sin.

As a Spirit, He can hardly do that, can He? He took on flesh to fulfill the LAW in our place, (becomming the perfect man/human=GOD incarnate), then dying in man's place to provide atonement for all who would come to have faith in Him.

It's really quite simple - but, again, many can't see the forest for the tree stump in their way. I can't help that, I'm sorry.

**oh, an important PS: the word trinity does NOT have to be in the bible, anymore than the word "theocracy" has to be in the Bible to teach that Israel lived under a Theocracy.
just an FYI.

[Ben12]

How lame that people get completely wiped out & hung up on a "word" - concepts exist whether there are words for them or not.
God is Spirit - so take 3 spirits and there you have it. the 3 ARE ONE. How hard can this be guys?

Jesus came down FROM HEAVEN, took on flesh (BECAME flesh) for the mission of shedding blood and dying for the remission (removal) of sin.

As a Spirit, He can hardly do that, can He? He took on flesh to fulfill the LAW in our place, (becomming the perfect man/human=GOD incarnate), then dying in man's place to provide atonement for all who would come to have faith in Him.

It's really quite simple - but, again, many can't see the forest for the tree stump in their way. I can't help that, I'm sorry.

**oh, an important PS: the word trinity does NOT have to be in the bible, anymore than the word "theocracy" has to be in the Bible to teach that Israel lived under a Theocracy.
just an FYI.
You are the one changing things and rearranging so it will fit your preconceived bias; forget what scripture is saying just hand on to those worn out wine skins… What other truth have you and will you ignore to defend your turf.

[Zecryphon]

How lame that people get completely wiped out & hung up on a "word" - concepts exist whether there are words for them or not.
God is Spirit - so take 3 spirits and there you have it. the 3 ARE ONE. How hard can this be guys?

Jesus came down FROM HEAVEN, took on flesh (BECAME flesh) for the mission of shedding blood and dying for the remission (removal) of sin.

As a Spirit, He can hardly do that, can He? He took on flesh to fulfill the LAW in our place, (becomming the perfect man/human=GOD incarnate), then dying in man's place to provide atonement for all who would come to have faith in Him.

It's really quite simple - but, again, many can't see the forest for the tree stump in their way. I can't help that, I'm sorry.

**oh, an important PS: the word trinity does NOT have to be in the bible, anymore than the word "theocracy" has to be in the Bible to teach that Israel lived under a Theocracy.
just an FYI.
Yeah, what happened to the Bible being a spiritual book and not being meant to be taken, as Ben is so fond of saying "literally/carnally". He's all hung up on the word "person", which he seems to be taking literally in this case. Why? That's not how he interprets scripture.

To him everything is spiritual. Fire is not fire, but spiritual fire. Eternal is not eternal, but only an age. Therefore, if he actually followed his own reasoning, a person would not be a literal person but a spiritual person, which would mean Jesus was both flesh or as Ben would say "carnal" and God or as Ben would say again "spiritual", which would make sense, since He is God and man at the same time. There! Problem solved by a person with, according to our self-appointed teacher of false doctrines Ben12, "zero understanding of the deeper things of God!" LOL

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

[/SIZE]
You're right, THE BIBLE MAKES THAT TRUE. The majority of churches just follow thru with what it absolutely teaches from Genesis to Revelation without having to create new & false doctrines to try to make excuses for what they find.


I don't even NEED the word Godhead to prove a Trinity. The fact that all 3 are called God directly, were in the beginning together working and speaking together, have the attributes and abilities ONLY GOD CAN HAVE tell me they are a Godhead/Unit... not to mention the examples of oneness we have down here as perfect examples of plural oneness:
family and marital units.

I don't need JW or Mormon teaching about why Jesus isn't God - or why the 3 aren't GOD. or why Jesus is "a god" or why Jesus is created... which the bible clearly teaches in John 1 that 'without Christ, nothing that was created was made'. I guess He created Himself then.
The problems are endless. I don't even need the Godhead "error" -
and it's typical; if you can't explain a doctrine, just chip away at that foundation & work at to make it a translational error and remove the WRITING ITSELF if it does'nt fit what you like.
:yawn: :help:
(It always interests me why the blessings & salvational verses aren't "translational errors" - just the central teachings that make what Christianity is in and of itself).
:idea: always convenient... and usually coming from the unchurched I mite add.
But the list go's on and on and on. If Trinitarism was a matter of fact, then no one would be complaining. It would be a forgone conclussion, and there would be no scripture that contradicts it.

[Nadiine]

Yeah, what happened to the Bible being a spiritual book and not being meant to be taken, as Ben is so fond of saying "literally/carnally". He's all hung up on the word "person", which he seems to be taking literally in this case. Why? That's not how he interprets scripture.

To him everything is spiritual. Fire is not fire, but spiritual fire. Eternal is not eternal, but only an age. Therefore, if he actually followed his own reasoning, a person would not be a literal person but a spiritual person, which would mean Jesus was both flesh or as Ben would say "carnal" and God or as Ben would say again "spiritual", which would make sense, since He is God and man at the same time. There! Problem solved by a person with, according to our self-appointed teacher of false doctrines Ben12, "zero understanding of the deeper things of God!" LOL
touche' great point, and very true! Makes ya wonder doesn't it? :scratch: :confused:

I keep saying that this stuff is all selective to suit a preconceived doctrine they won't let go of.
If the bible says something, just reinterpret it "symbolically", or claim it's "Mistranslated" and POOF, you don't have to accept the conservative/fundamental way; it's something else for you now.

I see this done constantly and cults are easily born this way.

[Nadiine]

But the list go's on and on and on. If Trinitarism was a matter of fact, then no one would be complaining. It would be a forgone conclussion, and there would be no scripture that contradicts it.
Oh really? say that to the "homosexuality isn't sin" crowd & see how far you get there.

TRUTH doesn't rely or depend on who accepts it or not - the majority of the known world in earlier history believed that the earth was FLAT as a pancake too; did that make it true? No.
Truth is what it is by Fact - it doesn't rest on people's rejection or acceptance; it just IS.

[Tavita]

"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty," - there's one;

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, ... God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God," - there's two;

"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified." - there's three.


I'm aware the Nicene Creed describes the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

However it doesn't describe them as three separate 'persons'.

The Athanasian Creed describes the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as a Trinity with three distinct 'persons'.. or People.

Here is part of the Athanasian Creed...

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

This is what scripture says..

Joh 4:24 God is a spirit (not a person), and they who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth. (Jesus own words)


and one has to believe in eternal torment,

I don't believe the creed specifies on that, but that's not in the rules for this forum, and no one has yet really suggested that should be there, as opposed to the Trinity doctrine.

No, the Creed doesn't specify on that, but there are some in ND who do not want it spoken of, and I'm sure if they could have their way it would be in the rules that it can never be spoken of, as the Traditional and Mainline Churches considers it a Heresy.

I realize the Trinity doctrine is much stronger. But from what I can tell, no-one in ND is saying the Father is not God, or that Jesus is not God or that Holy Spirit is not God. They simply have a different perspective of who God is.. that God does not constitute three distinct 'persons'. They see God as 'One'. As Jesus said..

Mar 12:28 One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, "What commandment is the foremost of all?"
Mar 12:29 Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD;

[Tavita]

Yeah, what happened to the Bible being a spiritual book and not being meant to be taken, as Ben is so fond of saying "literally/carnally". He's all hung up on the word "person", which he seems to be taking literally in this case. Why? That's not how he interprets scripture.

To him everything is spiritual. Fire is not fire, but spiritual fire. Eternal is not eternal, but only an age. Therefore, if he actually followed his own reasoning, a person would not be a literal person but a spiritual person, which would mean Jesus was both flesh or as Ben would say "carnal" and God or as Ben would say again "spiritual", which would make sense, since He is God and man at the same time. There! Problem solved by a person with, according to our self-appointed teacher of false doctrines Ben12, "zero understanding of the deeper things of God!" LOL

Why are you posting in this thread, Zecryphon? This thread was begun by a mod for those who are Non-Denominational, and you are Lutheran.

[Nadiine]

Why are you posting in this thread, Zecryphon? This thread was begun by a mod for those who are Non-Denominational, and you are Lutheran.
I'll copy it for him & post it as my own? :holy: :holy: :idea:
*innocent look*
The point of the post is true tho - whatever denom. he is.

[Tavita]

I'll copy it for him & post it as my own? :holy: :holy: :idea:
*innocent look*
The point of the post is true tho - whatever denom. he is.

????

This is one of the concerns of the person who began this thread... that other denoms are coming into the non-denom forum to debate, and teach us poor non-denoms what is the true way. And here we have a Lutheran giving his two cents worth in this thread and you side with him????? :scratch:

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Why are you posting in this thread, Zecryphon? This thread was begun by a mod for those who are Non-Denominational, and you are Lutheran.Our mod: FreeinChrist, is a Baptist. That does not bother me, but dividing us one against the other, I don't like that.

[Tavita]

Our mod: FreeinChrist, is a Baptist. That does not bother me, but dividing us one against the other, I don't like that.

Yes, I know, but she is a Non-denom whose Non-denom denomination is Baptist inclined... get all that? :P

[Nadiine]

It's become painfully clear to me that formal denominations are actually SAFER than non denominationals -- at least you have a set doctrine you know you're being fed.

Why nondenom. people bash denominationalists is beyond me! I can't find any reason why it's "BETTER"! This section is living proof.

[Tavita]

It's become painfully clear to me that formal denominations are actually SAFER than non denominationals -- at least you have a set doctrine you know you're being fed.

Why nondenom. people bash denominationalists is beyond me! I can't find any reason why it's "BETTER"! This section is living proof.

No-one is 'bashing' other denoms, Nadiine. When are you ever going to get off your high horse.

That was one of the purposes of this thread.. for people to discuss why they are not happy with this forum, and one of those issues was people coming in from other denoms to debate and teach.... don't you get it????


:doh: :doh: :doh:

[Nadiine]

No-one is 'bashing' other denoms, Nadiine. When are you ever going to get off your high horse.

That was one of the purposes of this thread.. for people to discuss why they are not happy with this forum, and one of those issues was people coming in from other denoms to debate and teach.... don't you get it????


:doh: :doh: :doh:
Well this time you've taken MY post wrongly Tavita. It does happen doesn't it?

I was reading back a couple pages about your definition of 'nondenominational' and Zech's comment about them being "anything goes" since they have no governing body as to doctrine...
as I see it, that would make a denomination much SAFER in that they have safeguards in place as far as doctrine and format go.

So no, I wasn't BASHING anyone and I didn't think you guys were either; it was a general statement as I see this issue unfolding.
My point was, why do any nondenominationalists hold that theirs is "better"? When it really isn't; seeing as it can be wide open to anything at anytime with no protections in place.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Well this time you've taken MY post wrongly Tavita. It does happen doesn't it?

I was reading back a couple pages about your definition of 'nondenominational' and Zech's comment about them being "anything goes" since they have no governing body as to doctrine...
as I see it, that would make a denomination much SAFER in that they have safeguards in place as far as doctrine and format go.

So no, I wasn't BASHING anyone and I didn't think you guys were either; it was a general statement as I see this issue unfolding.
My point was, why do any nondenominationalists hold that theirs is "better"? When it really isn't; seeing as it can be wide open to anything at anytime with no protections in place. If I understand you correctly; you would like Non-Denom here to be, Denom doctrine specific. Yes?

[Nadiine]

If I understand you correctly; you would like Non-Denom here to be, Denom doctrine specific. Yes?
No I'm not saying that, I'm saying IF tavita's post is correct about the definition, then denominations are SAFER to be in due to having structure and governing bodies over the doctrine that will be taught within it.

If it's "anything goes", then anyone can make up anything and I don't see how that's "better" than picking a denomination to attend church.
Imo, that isn't better than being Baptist or Luthren or Reformed, etc. since it leaves the door wide open here for any heresies anyone wants to peddle.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

No I'm not saying that, I'm saying IF tavita's post is correct about the definition, then denominations are SAFER to be in due to having structure and governing bodies over the doctrine that will be taught within it.

If it's "anything goes", then anyone can make up anything and I don't see how that's "better" than picking a denomination to attend church.
Imo, that isn't better than being Baptist or Luthren or Reformed, etc. since it leaves the door wide open here for any heresies anyone wants to peddle. Yes, but who's denomination specific doctrine? See the problem. And this is the NON DENOM forum, and that is why it is called that.

[Zecryphon]

Why are you posting in this thread, Zecryphon? This thread was begun by a mod for those who are Non-Denominational, and you are Lutheran.
If the mod has a problem with me posting here she can ask me to leave. Since I am not addressing the original point of the thread, "am I happy with the non-denom forum post 7-7-07," but am addressing side issues, which are not related to the OP, such as what the word "person" means and if the trinity is Biblical, I don't believe I am in violation of any forum rules. But it's obvious you'd love to report me, cuz you don't like me "picking" on Ben, so why don't you just go ahead and do that? Also, before the changes all you had to do to be considered non-denom was either be a member of a non-denom church or be actively attending one. I am now a Lutheran, this is most certainly true, however, my name is still on the membership roster of my former non-denom church. So I guess that would make a me a non-denominational Lutheran! LOL

P.S.

Tavita, this is how FreeinChrist describes herself:

"Baptist - but I love my nondenom church!"

Now that to me reads as "I'm a Baptist who happens to attend a non-denominational church" not "I'm attending a non-denom church with Baptist leanings."

[Nadiine]

Yes, but who's denomination specific doctrine? See the problem. And this is the NON DENOM forum, and that is why it is called that.
There's already some in here who claim that they don't consider the Bible authoratitive - ie. "inspired" by God to man...
they didn't even want belief that the Bible is Truth to be a prerequisite to Christianity. What's next?
Without any bibles, it's every man for himself - opinion buffet. I believe this, so this is true. I don't believe that verse is inspired, so that's false.. etc.

If you have NO CODE, you have no foundation to even base Christian debate on; it's all subjective.
At that point, there's no point in bothering to show up here to discuss anything.
That's pretty much where it's heading.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

There's already some in here who claim that they don't consider the Bible authoratitive - ie. "inspired" by God to man...
they didn't even want belief that the Bible is Truth to be a prerequisite to Christianity. What's next?
Without any bibles, it's every man for himself - opinion buffet. I believe this, so this is true. I don't believe that verse is inspired, so that's false.. etc.

If you have NO CODE, you have no foundation to even base Christian debate on; it's all subjective.
At that point, there's no point in bothering to show up here to discuss anything.
That's pretty much where it's heading. But on the other hand it is an oppertunity to witness to them. I have never said that the word of God is not inspired by God. My complaint has been the interpretations of men given in place of translation. I am for the pure word of God, and not any mans interpretation, unless they are not sure what that word means. And even at that, they should give an explaination.

[Nadiine]

But on the other hand it is an oppertunity to witness to them. I have never said that the word of God is not inspired by God. My complaint has been the interpretations of men given in place of translation. I am for the pure word of God, and not any mans interpretation, unless they are not sure what that word means. And even at that, they should give an explaination.
Witness WHAT exactly???
There are 5000 doctrines spinning wildly around in here - pick one you like??
Witness what? confusion? great idea.

I PITY any newcoming baby believer and any lost person who doesn't know much about religion/Christianity.
This place impo does alot more harm than good.

WE CAN'T EVEN GET ON THE SAME PAGE... do you expect a novice to figure it out? lol

[Nadiine]

Witness WHAT exactly???
There are 5000 doctrines spinning wildly around in here - pick one you like??
Witness what? confusion? great idea.

I PITY any newcoming baby believer and any lost person who doesn't know much about religion/Christianity.
This place impo does alot more harm than good.

WE CAN'T EVEN GET ON THE SAME PAGE... do you expect a novice to figure it out? lol
a ps:
this is why I have always claimed that those who adhere to the fundamental tenets of Christian salvation WILL BE AND ARE ON THE SAME PAGE of sharing the same doctrine -
God's truth isn't confusing - false doctrines that creep in confuse it.

[Cris413]

Personally, I see no problem with Denoms as such...

As noted our brother Zecryphon is Lutheran and our sister FreeinChrist is Baptist but attends an ND church...

So...IMHO...it's not the label of this or that denom...but the Christian fundaments that are important...

So...I think we should change the name of the forum from ND to non-fruit-loops....

[Tavita]

My point was, why do any nondenominationalists hold that theirs is "better"? When it really isn't; seeing as it can be wide open to anything at anytime with no protections in place.

Why does there have to be competition?

Why can't each side just share their beliefs without trying to conform the other to theirs?

Because everybody wants to be right.

And that's the big issue... the flesh want to be 'right'.

[Cris413]

The alternative would be to change the name from ND to Non-trinitarian or the Wild and Wacky World of Who Knows What...or WWWWKW for short....


Oh wait...there is ALREADY a Non-trinitarian forum...

[HeyHomie]

"Non-denominational" doesn't mean "anything goes."


Yes, actually, it does.

For all intents and purposes, anybody anywhere can organize a congregation and give it any name they want, and then teach whatever they want from behind the pulpit. For most of us who self-identify as non-denominational, we do so because we attend a church that was started by a person or group that did so apart from the direction or approval of some councilor authority, and which does not answer to any such authority. Naturally, probably 95% of such churches are going to adhere to the Nicene Creed, but there's always that small percentage that won't.

For practical purposes, what separates a non-denominational believer from a denominational believer is the litmus test of headquarters. From a philosophical standpoint, this litmus test eats dirt. But from a practical standpoint, it's golden.

If you're a Catholic, your congregation has a headquarters (in Vatican City). If you're a Mormon, your congregation has a headquarters (in Salt Lake City). If you're a Methodist, your congregation has a headquarters (wherever your council is headquartered). In contrast, someone who is truly non-denominational goes to a church that doesn't answer to any headquarters.

If we want to limit "teaching" posts in this forum to those who are truly ND, then we need to do two things: 1) Unambiguously define "Non-denominational," and 2) Find a means of verifying that those who self-identify as ND are truly ND according to the definition we propose. And no, saying that you belong to the "One True Church" and thus don't belong to a denomination does NOT automatically make you ND.

So let's focus on how we're going to define "Non-denominational." I say we go back to the "headquarters" litmus test. So let's consider putting something in our wiki like "A non-denominational church does not answer to any governing heirarchy in matters of doctrine, finances, staff employment, buildings, or any other matter. Any decisions that affect a non-denominational congregation are made by that congregation, outside of the influence of any outside authority."

Of course, since it's possible that someone could be non-Nicene and still be ND, then let's also add something to the effect that, to make "teaching" posts here, you have to adhere to the Nicene Creed.

Are these reasonable points?

[Tavita]

If the mod has a problem with me posting here she can ask me to leave. Since I am not addressing the original point of the thread, "am I happy with the non-denom forum post 7-7-07," but am addressing side issues, which are not related to the OP, such as what the word "person" means and if the trinity is Biblical, I don't believe I am in violation of any forum rules. But it's obvious you'd love to report me, cuz you don't like me "picking" on Ben, so why don't you just go ahead and do that? Also, before the changes all you had to do to be considered non-denom was either be a member of a non-denom church or be actively attending one. I am now a Lutheran, this is most certainly true, however, my name is still on the membership roster of my former non-denom church. So I guess that would make a me a non-denominational Lutheran! LOL

P.S.

Tavita, this is how FreeinChrist describes herself:

"Baptist - but I love my nondenom church!"

Now that to me reads as "I'm a Baptist who happens to attend a non-denominational church" not "I'm attending a non-denom church with Baptist leanings."


Well, you can keep your side issue's going if the OP wants, it's up to her.

But I don't have to listen to you, do I.

Ignore.

[Tavita]

Personally, I see no problem with Denoms as such...

As noted our brother Zecryphon is Lutheran and our sister FreeinChrist is Baptist but attends an ND church...

So...IMHO...it's not the label of this or that denom...but the Christian fundaments that are important...

So...I think we should change the name of the forum from ND to non-fruit-loops....

Maybe we can call it 'Open To All Denominations' then, and forget about those who are no denomination at all, and who want to talk about the other things that mainline denoms don't want to talk about. :doh:

You have a WHOLE board of Denominations you can visit.

[Tavita]

The alternative would be to change the name from ND to Non-trinitarian or the Wild and Wacky World of Who Knows What...or WWWWKW for short....


Oh wait...there is ALREADY a Non-trinitarian forum...

You're going a bit overboard there..

Who said anything about the Trinity going? That's something you assume they want. They just want to discuss it and say how they view it. They are not lobbying to have it removed.

[Cris413]

Yes, actually, it does.

For all intents and purposes, anybody anywhere can organize a congregation and give it any name they want, and then teach whatever they want from behind the pulpit. For most of us who self-identify as non-denominational, we do so because we attend a church that was started by a person or group that did so apart from the direction or approval of some councilor authority, and which does not answer to any such authority. Naturally, probably 95% of such churches are going to adhere to the Nicene Creed, but there's always that small percentage that won't.

For practical purposes, what separates a non-denominational believer from a denominational believer is the litmus test of headquarters. From a philosophical standpoint, this litmus test eats dirt. But from a practical standpoint, it's golden.

If you're a Catholic, your congregation has a headquarters (in Vatican City). If you're a Mormon, your congregation has a headquarters (in Salt Lake City). If you're a Methodist, your congregation has a headquarters (wherever your council is headquartered). In contrast, someone who is truly non-denominational goes to a church that doesn't answer to any headquarters.

If we want to limit "teaching" posts in this forum to those who are truly ND, then we need to do two things: 1) Unambiguously define "Non-denominational," and 2) Find a means of verifying that those who self-identify as ND are truly ND according to the definition we propose. And no, saying that you belong to the "One True Church" and thus don't belong to a denomination does NOT automatically make you ND.

So let's focus on how we're going to define "Non-denominational." I say we go back to the "headquarters" litmus test. So let's consider putting something in our wiki like "A non-denominational church does not answer to any governing heirarchy in matters of doctrine, finances, staff employment, buildings, or any other matter. Any decisions that affect a non-denominational congregation are made by that congregation, outside of the influence of any outside authority."

Of course, since it's possible that someone could be non-Nicene and still be ND, then let's also add something to the effect that, to make "teaching" posts here, you have to adhere to the Nicene Creed.

Are these reasonable points?
I think quite reasonable...

I don't think it's "ND" that's the problem...you are quite correct...many different doctrines fall under the auspice of "ND"...

I think the problem lies in the lack of guidelines for core Christian fundamentals.

Personally...I think the adherence of the Nicene Creed or something similar to it is a good place to start...

It seems after the 7/7/7 changes...our mods...who were once..."sheepdogs" watching over the congregation for not only flamming, spamming and such but also for adherence to the Nicene Creed...

I had to agree to the Nicene Creed to become a member of what was once CF...

Now, our poor mods have been relegated to babysitters...hands tied and thrown into a closet...and let the house party ensue....

[Nadiine]

I think quite reasonable...

I don't think it's "ND" that's the problem...you are quite correct...many different doctrines fall under the auspice of "ND"...

I think the problem lies in the lack of guidelines for core Christian fundamentals.

Personally...I think the adherence of the Nicene Creed or something similar to it is a good place to start...

It seems after the 7/7/7 changes...our mods...who were once..."sheepdogs" watching over the congregation for not only flamming, spamming and such but also for adherence to the Nicene Creed...

I had to agree to the Nicene Creed to become a member of what was once CF...

Now, our poor mods have been relegated to babysitters...hands tied and thrown into a closet...and let the house party ensue....
Pretty much Chris.... but then prior to 7/7/7, it was US that our hands tied behind our backs by the rules that didn't allow us to be able to discuss issues and opinions properly - we couldn't call anything what we thought it was - it led to some real issues here.
It seems they've untied our hands (for the most part) to tie the hands of mods/staff.

And one other point I'd make is that some of these mods are HAPPY with the new changes and prefer the "house party".

[Tavita]

We have a section of forums here called Christian Forums, then down underneath is a set of forums called, Non-Nicene Forums. So, I would have to take it that the Christian Forums are already Nicene. Is that true or not?

[Cris413]

You're going a bit overboard there..

Who said anything about the Trinity going? That's something you assume they want. They just want to discuss it and say how they view it. They are not lobbying to have it removed.
Oh come on Tavita...

I'm trying to get a little light hearted over the issue...find a little humor in a situation that really isn't funny at all...

But...if I were to get all serious...this is what I would say...

The Bible is very clear...throughout...regarding staying away from false teachers, heretics, blasphemers, prosperity doctrine, those that cause division and discord, endless disputes regarding the Law....

Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus are real good places to start reading regarding such things...

And since I'm about one click away from saying goodbye to this forum...frankly...I really don't care much about phrasing things according "Netiquette" or what anyone thinks about it either...

Here just a small sampling of the heresies running rampant through ND at the moment...

and this doesn't even touch on theTwilight Zone and Tales From the Darkside poo poo that seems to be going hand and hand with it...

Denying Jesus came in the flesh

Denying creation

Denying the Trinity

Theistic evolution

Denying the sovereignty of God

Denying God's holy, righteous judgment

Denying God's grace and mercy

:eek:

Totally out of control!

[Tavita]

Oh come on Tavita...

I'm trying to get a little light hearted over the issue...find a little humor in a situation that really isn't funny at all...

But...if I were to get all serious...this is what I would say...

The Bible is very clear...throughout...regarding staying away from false teachers, heretics, blasphemers, prosperity doctrine, those that cause division and discord, endless disputes regarding the Law....

Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus are real good places to start reading regarding such things...

And since I'm about one click away from saying goodbye to this forum...frankly...I really don't care much about phrasing things according "Netiquette" or what anyone thinks about it either...

Here just a small sampling of the heresies running rampant through ND at the moment...

and this doesn't even touch on theTwilight Zone and Tales From the Darkside poo poo that seems to be going hand and hand with it...

Denying Jesus came in the flesh

Denying creation

Denying the Trinity

Theistic evolution

Denying the sovereignty of God

Denying God's holy, righteous judgment

Denying God's grace and mercy

:eek:

Totally out of control!

Pity I can't see your expression and body language then... sorry I didn't get the joke.

[Tavita]

Is this an issue about the Nicene Creed, or the Trinity (which is not stated in the Nicene), or false teachings or what?

False teachings are not the same as false doctrine.

I'm confused.

[Cris413]

We have a section of forums here called Christian Forums, then down underneath is a set of forums called, Non-Nicene Forums. So, I would have to take it that the Christian Forums are already Nicene. Is that true or not?
One would think so...wouldn't they....

[Cris413]

Pity I can't see your expression and body language then... sorry I didn't get the joke.
Yes...that is a bit of a problem...'specially since I was cracking up...laughter is contagious...;)

[Cris413]

You're going a bit overboard there..

Who said anything about the Trinity going? That's something you assume they want. They just want to discuss it and say how they view it. They are not lobbying to have it removed.
'course they're not lobbying to have it removed...otherwise...they would be just fine and dandy in the Non-Trinitarian forum...

Honestly...if it were simply mentioned here or there...I might not have even noticed...

But it has permeated the forum...no matter what the OP is...in endless dispute of the Trinity...

So seems to me...we're talking about proliferation of this doctrine...not simply discussing it in passing or sharing thoughts.

Oh...not to mention how our belief in the Trinity has us trapped in old wine skins or goat skins or whatever kinda skin we're in....pass the Lubriderm!

[Tavita]

'course they're not lobbying to have it removed...otherwise...they would be just fine and dandy in the Non-Trinitarian forum...

Honestly...if it were simply mentioned here or there...I might not have even noticed...

But it has permeated the forum...no matter what the OP is...in endless dispute of the Trinity...

So seems to me...we're talking about proliferation of this doctrine...not simply discussing it in passing or sharing thoughts.

Oh...not to mention how our belief in the Trinity has us trapped in old wine skins or goat skins or whatever kinda skin we're in....pass the Lubriderm!

LOL..

I've only seen it discussed in two threads Cris, maybe I don't get around enough.

New Wineskin said something very true yesterday, He said if people just didn't respond to those posts or threads they would just simply disappear. People don't have to respond, they don't have to get involved, just steer clear of the thread. It's actually worked that way in CF since I've been here anyway. It wasn't until christians started to 'refute' universalism that it became such a big thing in here. I've seen this belief shared in Gen Theology with hardly a blink of the eye, and the threads just peter out by themselves.
It's the same principle as hearing about an antiChrist type movie.. all the christians get up in arms over it and as a result more people go see the movie. If they had just kept quiet the thing would have disappeared form sight with hardly a thought.

[Cris413]

Pretty much Chris.... but then prior to 7/7/7, it was US that our hands tied behind our backs by the rules that didn't allow us to be able to discuss issues and opinions properly - we couldn't call anything what we thought it was - it led to some real issues here.
It seems they've untied our hands (for the most part) to tie the hands of mods/staff.

where's the happy medium?

[Godslilgurlalways]

Not really,


I think the forum was kind of better the way it was at first I think everyone was more united and together and supporting each other how can we reach out to non-christians if we are not as unified as necessary I think at time they are unified more then us at time which isn't a good thing.

[Zecryphon]

Well, you can keep your side issue's going if the OP wants, it's up to her.

But I don't have to listen to you, do I.

Ignore.
This from a woman who claims to want "free speech" and "open communication" for all. Guess she's mad at me cuz I didn't tickle her itching ears. LOL

[Nadiine]

where's the happy medium?
Actually there's a thread poll going on right now about the warnings system coming back - mods are discussing it all right now.

I gave my 2 cents about if we go back to warnings, we at least need our hands with the rules allowing us some leverage to debate properly - becuz we had alot of good Christians leaving over the past year bcuz of the stupid warnings - the rules made it impossible for us to debate properly.
Alot of good people left in anger & frustration - I was tempted myself.

I also mentioned to keep the rule in place where we get notified to edit a post first before getting a warning.
Anyways, that's going on right now.:angel:

[Nadiine]

This from a woman who claims to want "free speech" and "open communication" for all. Guess she's mad at me cuz I didn't tickle her itching ears. LOL
Amazing huh. :scratch: :scratch:
I think you made a zinger of a point w/ Ben's post earlier & it mite not be appreciated. Who knows, but it's telling.

[Nadiine]

Honestly...if it were simply mentioned here or there...I might not have even noticed...

But it has permeated the forum...no matter what the OP is...in endless dispute of the Trinity...

So seems to me...we're talking about proliferation of this doctrine...not simply discussing it in passing or sharing thoughts.
BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENGO! :thumbsup:
It's chronic bombardment. Just 2 wks ago we had another thread go off topic into that & YET ANOTHER trinity thread was spawned from it. :doh: :sleep:
I may as well go hang out in the JW/Mormon sections.

Oh...not to mention how our belief in the Trinity has us trapped in old wine skins or goat skins or whatever kinda skin we're in....pass the Lubriderm!
no, that's wineBAGS ^_^ :P

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Witness WHAT exactly???
There are 5000 doctrines spinning wildly around in here - pick one you like??
Witness what? confusion? great idea.

I PITY any newcoming baby believer and any lost person who doesn't know much about religion/Christianity.
This place impo does alot more harm than good.

WE CAN'T EVEN GET ON THE SAME PAGE... do you expect a novice to figure it out? lol I have to admit that you have made a good point about new Christians being confussed. Now that is a more important than who,s right about if God is triune. But here is a question; where in scripture duz it say you need to believe that God is Triune to be a Christian. I have put many thousands of hours into my studies, and have never seen any hint of such a thing.

[FreeinChrist]

If that's the case why did I get reported just because my definition of non-denominational did not conform to someone else's definition of it? If non-denominational isn't a denomination then anyone who considers themself to be non-denominational should be treated as such in this forum.

How can you say that it's not a denomination and at the same time demand strict conformity to someone's narrow particular belief for membership? Sounds like a denomination to me.

Unless this forum states that "Non-Denominational" is the the name of a specific denomination, there is no reason other than unfair anti-Catholic bias for anyone to say that I can't consider myself to be non-denominational.

That is ridiculous, LWU.

From http://www.answers.com/topic/denomination?cat=biz-fin

de·nom·i·na·tion (dĭ-nŏm'ə-nā'shən) http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/pron.gif
n.

A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.
You are Catholic - you belong to a church that has a large group of congregations united under a common faith and name and has a single administrative and legal heirarchy.

Whether you identify it as a denomination is not important as it is identrified as a denomination by Protestants.

Nondenominational churches are NOT united under a single administrative and legal heirarchy, is NOT united under a common faith but can vary quite a bit as to what they believe.

You are merely trying to circumvent the definition in an attempt to proslytyze here.

[Godslilgurlalways]

It's king of sad we have went from:

Uniting all christians as one body (I support)

To:


Friendly forums for you



I am pretty sure many see what I am seeing. A once christian site is going down the drain. We are more divided then ever. This forum took a hit even though the one that most of us voted for was a majority but it was 60/40 spilt we were the 60% so, instead the change was for those on the 40% side b/c at the end up the day it was the 40 percent that one not the 60 almost like it would have been better to just not vote all (sorry for the little rant right there:) (lol):)

[FreeinChrist]

Trinitarianism is not a denominational issue. There are people in denominations very different from one another who accept the Trinity. There are people in denominations very different from one another who reject the Trinity. There are people of the same denomination who disagree. The issue of the Trinity goes past denominational boundaries. It is a Scriptural issue, not a denominational one.

And non-denominational doesn't mean "anything goes". You're looking for the WWMC (liberal) forum for that. Non-denominational doesn't mean we ignore what Scripture says. Quite the contrary, a typical non-denominational motto is "where the Bible is silent, so are we." Meaning they will typically try to be very Scripturally-guided, not Scripturally wishy-washy. Scripture lays out the Trinity in many places. And the members of this forum have every right to make it a rule here if they chose to do so. Particularly since there is a separate section specifically for non-Nicene Christians, and that isn't this forum.
Amen!!

[FreeinChrist]

Our mod: FreeinChrist, is a Baptist. That does not bother me, but dividing us one against the other, I don't like that.
I am identified as Baptist and my theology is Baptist...however, I have attended a nondenominational evangelical church for 14 years now. When Erwin, the owner of this site, set up these congregations, I asked him about it and he reassured me that I was free to post (and debate and debate then was limited to the members of each congregation only) in the Baptist and Nondenom....and Fundamentalist.


In this thread, however, I would really like the opinions of those who are truly nondenom.

[Spiritofprophecy]

Greetings in the name of Jesus: :hug:

My Interpretation of "Non denominational".:

Is that there is not, a preset truth of men applied to the word. Or, that one must speak, only in scriptures as to doctrines.

Things Like ..Satan is Jesus brother. and any thing Not directly written as doctrine in the word, is then addition to the word, and denominational, which there are thousands of additions. And all additions are contrary to Gods word, rev21. add not nor take away.

Gods words are pure, and additions unto what is pure; does contaminate that which is pure. And we should hold to every" Jot and tittle" of the word. And add not nor take away.

And all those who add, or take away from Gods eternal truth and word. I call these brothers in Christ. " denominations of men."

So "believe not doctrines not first taught by Jesus or his disciples". If Jesus or disciples didn't teach it, dont believe it, its doctrines of men, or denominational.

I pray my words do not offend, God bless Christians in forum, and all those who use it. :wave:
</IMG></IMG>

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

I am identified as Baptist and my theology is Baptist...however, I have attended a nondenominational evangelical church for 14 years now. When Erwin, the owner of this site, set up these congregations, I asked him about it and he reassured me that I was free to post (and debate and debate then was limited to the members of each congregation only) in the Baptist and Nondenom....and Fundamentalist.


In this th