Why are some Christians so consumed with their denomination?

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,084
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It stifles discussion when you run down a rabbit hole and speak of irrelevant issues. You may go now.

So let me get this right, you ask a question and then dismiss answers as being experiential and therefore anecdotal, present a bunch of experiential data of your own (which apparently isn't anecdotal and therefore has more value), then start a rabbit trail about not being wedded to my words and complain when I respond?

What exactly are you hopng for in the course of discussion when this is your mode of engaging with people? It seems to me you want little more than wholehearted agreement. So go ahead, award yourself an A+, and we can move on to the next thread.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,566
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Why do so many identify by denomination first and Christian faith second?

Why do people choose to be called by a name first and then by the term human second? It's still identity, isn't it?

I see it here at the CH quite often. I read comments where the most important thing is to force someone into a denomination rather than argue a theological point.

I haven't seen anyone force anyone else into a denomination here on CH. Do you have proof of that? I do see people representing their denominational beliefs (who would choose to represent something they don't believe in???) though and insisting that it is truth and there is no problem with that at all.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Why do people choose to be called by a name first and then by the term human second? It's still identity, isn't it?



I haven't seen anyone force anyone else into a denomination here on CH. Do you have proof of that? I do see people representing their denominational beliefs (who would choose to represent something they don't believe in???) though and insisting that it is truth and there is no problem with that at all.
Josiah forcing myself and atpollard to be anabaptists. Others forcing me to be a Calvinist.
I believe in election and predestination because the Bible informs me, not because John Calvin told me.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,084
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Josiah forcing myself and atpollard to be anabaptists. Others forcing me to be a Calvinist.
I believe in election and predestination because the Bible informs me, not because John Calvin told me.

You wouldn't be clinging to your denominational interpretation of Scripture there, would you?

Some people disagree with election and predestination because of the way they interpret the Bible. But, you know, they must be wrong because only your interpretation could possibly be correct, right?
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,566
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Josiah forcing myself and atpollard to be anabaptists. Others forcing me to be a Calvinist.
I believe in election and predestination because the Bible informs me, not because John Calvin told me.

I don't see them "forcing" you to become a denomination but I do see them trying to categorize your beliefs in a way that can be discussed without some random here and there pickings.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Josiah forcing myself and atpollard to be anabaptists.


I cannot force you to anything...


You are verbatim parroting the Anabaptist view on baptism, echoing perfectly the denominational spin. I'm not forcing you to do so, you've chosen to do so. Over and over and over and over, in thread after thread. It's just several have noted this.


You are the promoting all these new inventions of the Anabaptist denomination.... the supposed Prohibitions on baptism, all these supposed limitations on baptism, all these supposed prerequistes on baptism, all these supposed chronological sequence mandates - all in the verbatim language of the Anabaptist denomination, perfectly echoing all the talking points. Over and over. You've learned the spin well..... and just verbatim echo them all. Over and over.

What is ironic in your case is that you frame all this as a rebuke of what you do. You insist that we just ignore and disregard denominational talking points and spins - but thats' ALL YOU DO, parrot exactly the talking points and spins of the Anabaptist denomination, it's ALL YOU DO on this point (but you do it well, you've memorized all it word-for-word). Then you insist that we must go ONLY by the exact words we find in Scripture - but you NEVER do this, never once even TRYING to quote the words that state all these new inventions, all these strict prohibitions and limitations, all these supposedly mandated chronological sequences and prerequities - you don't quote those Scriptures (and we all know why, my friend), so you DO the very thing you insist must not be done and must be totally disregarded if any does it.... and you won't do what you insist must be done, quote the words in the Bible that state what we do in regard to Baptism. Friend, NO ONE is FORCING you to do this.... you have chosen to do it.... over and over and over and over and over and over.



- Josiah
 

NewCreation435

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
4,914
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Staff Notice

Let's please stay on topic and not attack each other please. Address the OP Topic and not the person. The flaming rule states

Luke 6:31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.
This is a Christian site and members are expected to act with respect toward others.
Flaming or personal attacks will not be tolerated.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
You wouldn't be clinging to your denominational interpretation of Scripture there, would you?

Some people disagree with election and predestination because of the way they interpret the Bible. But, you know, they must be wrong because only your interpretation could possibly be correct, right?
No, I would not be clinging to a denomination at all. I would be reading the Bible and accepting what it says.
 

ImaginaryDay2

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
3,967
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
No, I would not be clinging to a denomination at all. I would be reading the Bible and accepting what it says.

I'm sorry, Menno, but knowledge does not happen in a vacuum. The information you've disseminated on the site is hardly something one comes up with by "reading the bible and accepting what it says". The conclusions you come to are just too ingrained for me (and maybe others) to accept that. The reason why things are questioned is exactly as others have said - they are the cornerstone of Calvinist doctrine. An apple on the ground may say that it is not an apple because it is not attached to the tree, but it does not make it any less an apple. Likewise, you may say you are not Calvinist because you have no Calvinist affiliation, but...
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
I'm sorry, Menno, but knowledge does not happen in a vacuum. The information you've disseminated on the site is hardly something one comes up with by "reading the bible and accepting what it says". The conclusions you come to are just too ingrained for me (and maybe others) to accept that. The reason why things are questioned is exactly as others have said - they are the cornerstone of Calvinist doctrine. An apple on the ground may say that it is not an apple because it is not attached to the tree, but it does not make it any less an apple. Likewise, you may say you are not Calvinist because you have no Calvinist affiliation, but...
Don't be sorry.
The knowledge happened while I read God's word. You don't need a denomination to read and comprehend God's word.
It also should not be surprising if Christians read God's word and have the same conclusions.
Question: What came first, God's word or denominations?
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,084
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
No, I would not be clinging to a denomination at all. I would be reading the Bible and accepting what it says.

You'd be accepting what you believe it says, unless you want to think that everyone with a differing opinion is simply ignoring what it says. It's extremely arrogant to assume that your interpretation is the only one that could be correct.

What you're doing here is pretty much the exact thing you're railing against in the thread. You take your viewpoint (that aligns remarkably with Calvinist doctrine), refuse to accept that other viewpoints might be valid, and go as far as claiming that you're only accepting what the Bible says. At a stroke you're assuming that people with different views either don't bother to read their Bibles, or lack the understanding that is apparently highly concentrated in your - ahem - denomination.

I'm starting to wonder if this thread should be moved into the "Humor" section....
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
You'd be accepting what you believe it says, unless you want to think that everyone with a differing opinion is simply ignoring what it says. It's extremely arrogant to assume that your interpretation is the only one that could be correct.

What you're doing here is pretty much the exact thing you're railing against in the thread. You take your viewpoint (that aligns remarkably with Calvinist doctrine), refuse to accept that other viewpoints might be valid, and go as far as claiming that you're only accepting what the Bible says. At a stroke you're assuming that people with different views either don't bother to read their Bibles, or lack the understanding that is apparently highly concentrated in your - ahem - denomination.

I'm starting to wonder if this thread should be moved into the "Humor" section....

Perhaps you don't realize I was raised Mennonite. Do you really think I'm just accepting what I believed?
If I am remarkably close to some other view could it possibly be due to the fact that the Bible declares a truth that is understood by more than just myself?
Did the Bible come first or did denominations come first?
Does the Bible say their are elect?
Does the Bible say that those who are adopted were predestined?
Or am I just making it up?
 

George

Tis Theos Megas
Joined
Jun 15, 2015
Messages
908
Age
29
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Eastern Orthodox
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Why are Christians so consumed by their denomination? Someone said it earlier in this thread, but look how many ways Scripture is being interpreted, I disagree with you and then end up starting my own church and then you do as well and it goes on and on.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,084
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Perhaps you don't realize I was raised Mennonite. Do you really think I'm just accepting what I believed?
If I am remarkably close to some other view could it possibly be due to the fact that the Bible declares a truth that is understood by more than just myself?
Did the Bible come first or did denominations come first?
Does the Bible say their are elect?
Does the Bible say that those who are adopted were predestined?
Or am I just making it up?

With a name like MennoSota I figured you were probably Mennonite, and I'd hazard a guess you're from Minnesota.

You're still ignoring my point, which is that you're focussing on your interpretation of Scripture. Other people are focussing on their interpretation of Scripture. What's so bad about other people focussing on their interpretation of Scripture, that doesn't apply when you do it?

Clearly many people believe in election but that doesn't mean it's correct, merely that it's a conclusion that could be drawn from Scripture. Many other people don't believe in the concept of "the elect" and predestination. Some in both camps merely parrot what their Sunday School teacher said when they were 8 years old, and some in both camps draw their own conclusions following detailed study.

Unless you can explain what it is that other people are doing that is so wrong, without doing it yourself, you're merely spinning in the wind.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
You'd be accepting what you believe it says, unless you want to think that everyone with a differing opinion is simply ignoring what it says. It's extremely arrogant to assume that your interpretation is the only one that could be correct.

What you're doing here is pretty much the exact thing you're railing against in the thread. You take your viewpoint (that aligns remarkably with Calvinist doctrine), refuse to accept that other viewpoints might be valid, and go as far as claiming that you're only accepting what the Bible says. At a stroke you're assuming that people with different views either don't bother to read their Bibles, or lack the understanding that is apparently highly concentrated in your - ahem - denomination.

I'm starting to wonder if this thread should be moved into the "Humor" section....


Our friend INSISTS on two things:
1) We just ignore the "spin" of any denomination and
2) We go only by the words we all can read on the pages of the Bible.
He claims he himself does this.

But the extreme opposite is the case. What he has done - endlessly, in numerous threads - is parrot perfectly the verbatim spin of the Anabaptist denomination on the topic of Baptism. He obviously has learned this pov very well and echos it perfectly. But he has not even attempted to give the verses that state any (much less all) of the 16th Century radical, new inventions of the Anabaptists on this. NOTHING about baptism being prohibited, NOTHING about any stated prerequisites, NOTHING about all these limitations. He is ASSUMING a lot - while rebuking others for assuming. He is parroting a denomination view perfectly and verbatim - while rebuking others for what he claims is doing what he is doing.

There CAN be an honest, good discussion on this point. But IMO, MennoSota (assisted a bit by a couple of others) has made this impossible. Don't misunderstand me, I like this poster and think on many points he has great contributions. But this seems to be one where he is extremely defensive and simply refuses to engage in any discussion whatsoever. His need to put people on his ignore list supports my thought here. In my 17 or so year posting WAY too much at forums like this, when people know their position is weak, they tend to do what MennoSota is doing here. I "get it" but I lament how it simply terminates any meaningful discussion.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Why are Christians so consumed by their denomination? Someone said it earlier in this thread, but look how many ways Scripture is being interpreted, I disagree with you and then end up starting my own church and then you do as well and it goes on and on.
So selfishness is a main factor. Rather than seek to understand what God is saying, we gravitate to interpretations that fit our own desires and wishes.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
For awhile I thought that this thread was stalemated, owing to the diversity of the claims, but I think we have now achieved some clarity.

People who belong to an independent and non-denominational congregation may call themselves "non-denominational," but people who refuse to join with other Christians while holding to an identifiable set of religious beliefs are not really non-denominational Christians. They are unaffiliated but not necessarily undenominational.

It is not universally true among them, but it is common for such unaffiliated Christians to adopt and affirm the distinctive beliefs of certain denominations that they agree with. In so doing, they become de facto Adventists, Baptists, or whatever. They are little different, then, from nominal Catholics or inactive and non-practicing Amish, Episcopalians, or Mormons.

Here on this thread we have been discussing, or dealing with, that very real phenomenon.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
For awhile I thought that this thread was stalemated, owing to the diversity of the claims, but I think we have now achieved some clarity.

People who belong to an independent and non-denominational congregation may call themselves "non-denominational," but people who refuse to join with other Christians while holding to an identifiable set of religious beliefs are not really non-denominational Christians. They are unaffiliated but not necessarily undenominational.

It is not universally true among them, but it is common for such unaffiliated Christians to adopt and affirm the distinctive beliefs of certain denominations that they agree with. In so doing, they become de facto Adventists, Baptists, or whatever. They are little different, then, from nominal Catholics or inactive and non-practicing Amish, Episcopalians, or Mormons.

Here on this thread we have been discussing, or dealing with, that very real phenomenon.



In this age of UBER-individualism (sadly, even among Christians) people LOVE to go it alone, be "a unique individual" (they say that as if that's a good thing). This carries over into doctrine. "I agree with NO ONE and NO ONE has ever agreed with me!" they shout as if that's good. All of Christianity is me, myself and I. THAT'S all that matters, all that's important. Extreme individualism entered with the Enlightenment - and it's matastasised, like a cancer, all over Christianity. The move to non-denoms, anti-creeds is all just symptoms of the cancer. And it's all mixed with a HEAVY dose of its necessary companion relativism (there is no truth, just your opinion - and your opinion is the only one that counts).


Community, humility, truth - these, sadly, are ancient and in large part abandoned concepts. And this has sadly infected Christianity. The result is the individualism we see ("What the Bible says to ME...." etc., etc., etc), the rise of non-denominationalism (where every church wants total independence to do and say WHATEVER it wants), anti-theology and anti-creeds (truth is your personal, individual opinion). The Enlightenment - a pagan philosophical movement - has totally infected Christianity, the matastasis has been nearly total. Houston, we've got a problem. But it's where we are. And the disease will advance, unchecked, as long as we embrace it. Yup, as all know, it's one of my constant rants, lol


A blessed Lenten season to all...


- Josiah



.


- Josiah




.
 
Last edited:

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
For awhile I thought that this thread was stalemated, owing to the diversity of the claims, but I think we have now achieved some clarity.

People who belong to an independent and non-denominational congregation may call themselves "non-denominational," but people who refuse to join with other Christians while holding to an identifiable set of religious beliefs are not really non-denominational Christians. They are unaffiliated but not necessarily undenominational.

It is not universally true among them, but it is common for such unaffiliated Christians to adopt and affirm the distinctive beliefs of certain denominations that they agree with. In so doing, they become de facto Adventists, Baptists, or whatever. They are little different, then, from nominal Catholics or inactive and non-practicing Amish, Episcopalians, or Mormons.

Here on this thread we have been discussing, or dealing with, that very real phenomenon.
What came first, the Bible or denominations?
You constantly place the denomination in front of the Bible. Why do you do that?
 

ImaginaryDay2

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
3,967
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What came first, the Bible or denominations?
You constantly place the denomination in front of the Bible. Why do you do that?

I don't think that's what Albion has done here. He's brought clarity to what's being discussed. And, I believe, that 'unaffiliated' might be a good descriptor for you as well. You've repeatedly said you hold to no denominational affiliation, however your posts point to the truths extolled by several Calvinist denominations (despite your refusal to acknowledge that).
 
Top Bottom