Is Non-denomination Dangerous?

[trofimus]

If you meant "feminist", it's good that you aren't one. Feminism, at least in its present-day guise, is contrary to much of what Christians stand for.

If by "kings topped queens..." you mean that men have domineered women, I agree. If by it you mean that men should domineer or dominate women, I disagree.

In most cultures, men rule over women. I'd say that is an accurate fulfillment of the prophecy that "he shall rule over you". I see nothing in that statement, however, that it is God's will for men to rule over women.

Just logically... are you then in the position that God caused something what is not His will? Because it was not just a prophecy, it was a punishment.

Imagine a scenario, in which the USA will fall totally from God and God will say: "Because of what you did it, Russians will rule over you".

Is it not the will of God that Russians will rule, then?

 

[NoNameMcgee]

(directed at the title)

Nope, being non-denominational just means you don't tie yourself to one of the man made denominations.


That being said I'm sure there are man "non-denominational" folks in error or just lost in general... just like folks in every man made denomination...

 

[Dino246]

Just logically... are you then in the position that God caused something what is not His will? Because it was not just a prophecy, it was a punishment.

Imagine a scenario, in which the USA will fall totally from God and God will say: "Because of what you did it, Russians will rule over you".

Is it not the will of God that Russians will rule, then?

Allow me to relate your hypothetical example to a biblical example. God was not happy with Israel's rejection of Him. He warned of, and then allowed, other nations to "punish" Israel. What was God's will through it all? That Israel submit to Him.

What is God's will for men and women? That men rule women? That doesn't follow. Why would an all-wise and loving God put now-sinful man in charge over now-sinful woman? Why would God "punish" the woman for being deceived? Would it not make more sense for man to suffer punishment for his sin, rather than to "win" (to borrow the term from OneFaith) the "right" to subjugate half the population?

 

[Nehemiah6]

Would it not make more sense for man to suffer punishment for his sin, rather than to "win" (to borrow the term from OneFaith) the "right" to subjugate half the population?

God's ways generally do not make humanistic "sense". So that should never be the criterion for determining truth. And using the pejorative term "subjugation" is completely out-of-line in connection with God's commands.

Scripture is very clear that wives are to be IN SUBJECTION to their own husbands, From this it follows that women are forbidden to preach, teach, or usurp authority within the churches, and are commanded to be silent during worship meetings.

1 PETER 3
1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible,even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

 

[Dino246]

God's ways generally do not make humanistic "sense". So that should never be the criterion for determining truth. And using the pejorative term "subjugation" is completely out-of-line in connection with God's commands.

Scripture is very clear that wives are to be IN SUBJECTION to their own husbands, From this it follows that women are forbidden to preach, teach, or usurp authority within the churches, and are commanded to be silent during worship meetings.

1 PETER 3
1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible,even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

We have discussed this issue previously. We disagree, and I see little need to rehash the whole discussion. I will encourage you to consider how verses that specifically mention ‘wives’ and ‘husbands’ can be applied to men and women generally.

Further, stating “God’s ways generally don’t make humanistic ‘sense’” is not a refutation but a dismissal. God’s ways make perfect sense. To me, your understanding of them doesn’t.

 

[DustyRhodes]

I'm not sure if this is non denominational. However my choice is reading
scripture everyday on my own and meditate on same scripture. Putting
myself in God's hands and coming ever closer to Him. I've had some brief
experience in denominations and all are quick to nail your feet to the ground
and believe whatever their Creeds may be. In scripture, Isaiah says "we will
run and not grow weary for our God will be our strength; we will fly like the
eagle, we will rise again. Surrendering to God and giving our will away to
Him so we always follow His will and not our own is a straighter path to
Him than any denomination. Having said that I would highly recommend
a beginning Christian should align with a credible church that has a scripture
study while at the same time following what the Word says until they can fly
on their own. Taking Jesus as an example, if He stayed in the status quo,
there would have been no Christ crucified today. He followed the law of
His Father rather than the law of man.

 

[p_rehbein]

Are non-denominational Churches dangerous?


Only to denominational ones!

 

[fredoheaven]

I agree . . . I call them Heinz 57 baptists. Also, I view the Bible churches in the same light. Many of them were originally baptist - but they became ashamed of the name, or feared that folks just wouldn't come.

"Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain" (Psalms 127:1).

I'm ashamed of those that are ashamed of the rich, biblical heritage of baptists.

Amen!