Denominationalism VS nondenominational Churches.

[1689Dave]

A simple way to show the difference between them would be the mom and pop neighborhood grocery store, representing the nondenominational church. And the chain store representing the denominational church. And then the super chain store representing a major institutional denomination. What the denominations all share in common is that they are not the church, but religious franchises that sell product to the church. Why they are not the church, the attendees are the church and body of Christ who buy religious product from them. Church = 11.32 ἐκκλησίαa, ας f: a congregation of Christians, implying interacting membership—‘congregation, church.’

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). In Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, p. 125). United Bible Societies.

From a nondenominational point of view, I have several problems with denominationalism. First, Paul teaches against it: “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?” 1 Corinthians 3:1–4 (KJV 1900)

Some franchises replace Christ as the savior. They become the dispenser of salvation usually through rituals unique to them. When you trust in a sacrament to save you it is nothing but another form of idol worship. Some franchises insist they are the Church apart from which there is no salvation. Even though scripture teaches that believers are the church.

The Biblical church model took form as a simple house church. The Apostles ministered to them just as they do today through their written words. In the New Testament, within each body God placed pastors, bishops, teachers, and elders. In fact the terms pastor, elder, and bishop carry identical meanings in scripture. They are the same person.

Eventually people strayed from this idea. They created an extra-biblical office called the Monarchical Bishop (ruled by one). This developed into the unbiblical Episcopal form of church government. Or one regional bishop ruling over several, again, falsely so-called, who would reign over several churches. An example; this gradually became the Bishop of Rome and the Roman Catholic church by the latter half of the second century.

 

[Albion]

The entire premise is in error.

Denominations are not worldwide or nationwide constructs that replace local assemblies, like some religious version of the military. Rather, they are associations of local congregations, but ones that have agreed-upon standards that almost any Christian would approve of--agreement with the Bible, orderly membership rules, responsible funding and record-keeping, and qualified ministers of the Gospel, for instance.

None of this is contrary to Scripture or Christian history. But the do-it-yourself approach to "doing church" certainly is!

 

[1689Dave]

The entire premise is in error.

Denominations are not worldwide or nationwide constructs that replace local assemblies, like some religious version of the military. Rather, they are associations of local congregations, but ones that have agreed-upon standards that almost any Christian would approve of--agreement with the Bible, orderly membership rules, responsible funding and record-keeping, and qualified ministers of the Gospel, for instance.

None of this is contrary to Scripture or Christian history. But the do-it-yourself approach to "doing church" certainly is!

They are unscriptural. They are business franchises with huge overheads that sell religion of a certain bias to the church (body of Christ). Some even sell Salvation!

 

[Albion]

From a nondenominational point of view, I have several problems with denominationalism. First, Paul teaches against it:

No, he doesn't.

Some franchises replace Christ as the savior.

So now you've moved from denouncing "denominations"--all denominations--to denouncing certain cults as though they are the epitome of denominationalism. It's a bogus argument.

They become the dispenser of salvation usually through rituals unique to them.

Such as?

When you trust in a sacrament to save you

What denomination trusts in a sacrament to save its people?

The Biblical church model took form as a simple house church. The Apostles ministered to them just as they do today through their written words.

But you advocate doing without an Apostle...or a duly appointed successor to one of the Apostles. So you cannot use this argument. Instead, your concept is that anyone who has read the Bible can make himself the church and it doesn't really matter if he has the approval of any church body (as was the case with Christian churches and as described in the Bible) right from the start.

In the New Testament, within each body God placed pastors, bishops, teachers, and elders.

Which of those do you fancy that you are yourself?

Eventually people strayed from this idea. They created an extra-biblical office called the Monarchical Bishop (ruled by one).

No, "they" didn't. You are referring to one denomination only. From that, you've fashioned a denunciation of all denominations.

 

[1689Dave]

No, he doesn't.

So now you've moved from denouncing "denominations"--all denominations--to denouncing certain cults as though they are the epitome of denominationalism. It's a bogus argument.



Such as?

What denomination trusts in a sacrament to save its people?



But you advocate doing without an Apostle...or a duly appointed successor to one of the Apostles. So you cannot use this argument. Instead, your concept is that anyone who has read the Bible can make himself the church and it doesn't really matter if he has the approval of any church body (as was the case with Christian churches and as described in the Bible) right from the start.


Which of those do you fancy that you are yourself?




No, "they" didn't. You are referring to one denomination only. From that, you've fashioned a denunciation of all denominations.

If you cannot say it briefly, you don't understand it well enough.

 

[Albion]

They are unscriptural. They are business franchises with huge overheads that sell religion of a certain bias to the church (body of Christ). Some even sell Salvation!

Now you're just raving. Prove any of that line-up to be genuine...and also show us how it applies to ALL denominations since that is what you set out to do in the Original Post, i.e. argue that non-denominationalism is better than denominationalism. Along the wa,y you've used as your evidence a number of different shortcomings (as you see it) but not any that apply to denominations generally.

You said that some don't believe in Christ as Savior. You said that some have bishops. You said that some believe that sacraments guarantee salvation. You said some even "sell Salvation." But you cannot name any existing denomination that fits such a profile.

 

[1689Dave]

Now you're just raving. Prove any of that line-up to be genuine...and also show us how it applies to ALL denominations since that is what you set out to do in the Original Post--argue that non-denominationalism is better than denominationalism. Along the way you've used as your evidence a number of different shortcomings (as you see it) but not any that apply to denominations generally.

You said that some don't believe in Christ as Savior. You said that some have bishops. You said that some believe that sacraments guarantee salvation. You said some even "sell Salvation." But you cannot name any existing denomination that fits such a profile.

I need not utter a chirp. Take it or leave it. But it is grounded in church history and scripture.

 

[Albion]

I need not utter a chirp.

Great. Then you've lost your argument.

Take it or leave it.

We have to leave it since you have been able to defend not a single one of your claims.

Do you have another issue that we could discuss? If so, please start a thread on that one.

 

[1689Dave]

Great. Then you've lost your argument.


We have to leave it since you have been able to defend not a single one of your claims.

Do you have another issue that we could discuss? If so, please start a thread on that one.

What topic?

 

[Albion]

What topic?

I meant to leave that up to you, considering that you were the person who started this one.

 

[1689Dave]

I meant to leave that up to you, considering that you were the person who started this one.

I'm not looking for an argument. But when I post it's well-researched, bullet proof, and on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

 

[Josiah]

The Universal Church...

The ancient Creed affirms that we believe in “one holy catholic church.” The word “catholic” here is an adjective meaning “universal, whole, complete, general, all-embracing” and should not be confused with a proper name of a denominational institution that applied the adjective to itself later.

We affirm the “mystical union of all believers,” “the communion of saints,” the “community of faith.” ALL believers in Jesus – across the centuries and continents – are united by our common faith in Christ as our Savior, united into the “household” or “family” of God, united as the “Body of Christ.” This communion, the church, this family is not limited by time or geography or institutional affiliations. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ. The church is CHRISTIANS – in this sense, not an institution. This is the primary and foremost meaning of “church.” See Ephesians 2:19-22, Ephesians 4:4, 1 Peter 2:9, Romans 12:4, Ephesians 1:1, Luke 17:21, etc.

We affirm in the Creeds that this corpus of Christians (past and present) is “one, holy, catholic, communion of saints” Note it’s all one expression, one truth. Christians are bound together as one community of faith in Christ. We are holy because through this faith in Christ we are forgiven, we are catholic because together we are the whole corpus of believers, and we are a communion or community or fellowship of saints (those made so by faith in Christ). See Matthew 16:18, 1 Peter 2:5 & 9, Mark 16:15, Romans 15:25, 1 Cor. 14:33 and 16:1, Eph. 1:1).

Congregations…

Christians usually associate together, congregating or assembling typically for the purposes of public worship, mutual cooperation, edification, support and accountability. Such a gathering in a given place and time is technically called a “congregation” (although the term “church” may be used here in a secondary sense as in Our Savior Lutheran Church of Snowflake Arizona; this use is seen in Scripture, too – see Galatians 1:2, 1 Thessalonians 1:1). These associations may assume some institutional aspects (like our congregation) but the “church” is the people, not the institution. Actually, the Christians who associate in that congregation are but a small, tiny part of the “church catholic” – the whole family of believers, past and present.

By their very nature, congregations also include non-believers in their midst (some seekers, some “hypocrites”), Matthew 13:47-49 seems to indicate we should not be too obsessed about that, just preach the word and love all people (God will sort it all out). Of course, clearly unrepentant sinners and heretics should not be embraced since they can harm or even destroy the fellowship, and give a “false witness” to the community.

Because Christians are spread out all over the world, it’s no surprise that that are literally millions of congregations – some huge, some tiny, some with institutional aspects, some just an informal gathering in a living room. Several congregations are mentioned in the New Testament (Galatians 1:2, 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 1 Corinthians 1:2, Revelation 1:4, etc.).

A good congregation is where the Word is rightly taught and the Sacraments rightly administered. Too often, people join (and leave) congregations for reasons that are secondary – at best! They may even overlook the important thing for irrelevant things.

The function of the church is to teach (Matthew 28:20, Deuteronomy 6:7, 2 Timothy 4:2), make disciples (Matthew 28:19, Ephesians 4:12-13, Acts 1:8, 1 Peter 2:9), worship (Hebrews 10:24-15), share Holy Communion (Acts 2:42), forgive the repentant (Matthew 18:21-22, Matthew 18:15-20), offer comfort (2 Corinthians 1:3-4), care for the sick and needy (James 5:14, etc.), encourage and hold each other accountable (1 Thessalonians 5:14), serve and minister for the Gospel since ALL CHRISTIANS are ministers – everyone is a part of the team (1 Corinthians 12:4-26, 1 Peter 4:10). It is a cooperative, community ministry. To misquote President Kennedy, “Ask not what your church can do for you, ask what you can do for your church!”

Denominations…

Congregations may be denominational or non-denominational.

“Non-denominational” congregations are autonomous, independent, isolated and separate – with no formal relationship with any other congregation and with no accountability beyond itself. They are isolationists.

“Denominational” congregations have bonded together with others, usually for reasons similar to why Christians bonded together with others in congregations. These congregations work and serve together, provide mutual accountability and support, etc.

Usually denominations have a common “Confession” (statements of doctrines and beliefs), a common name and a common governance and polity. In some, this is well developed and regarded as binding, in some it’s pretty loose with a lot of “room” for the local congregation to apply such as they wish.

There are no examples of denominations in the New Testament, although that certainly does not imply the NT is against such. While some historians argue there were none until the 4th century, we do see at least some elementary aspects of cooperation in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) and the collection for the saints. For the first 300 years, Christianity was illegal and so a bit of an underground religion – more a movement than anything – often on the run and meeting informally and occasionally even secretly in “house churches.” This changed when Christianity was made legal in the 4th century and therefore an obvious denomination almost immediately resulted.

Today, there are literally thousands of denominations, although about 90% of Christians are in 8 or so groupings of such (sometimes called "Faith Communities"). The fact that there are billions of Christian people, millions of congregations and thousands of denominations has no relevance to the fact that there is ONE, holy, catholic, communion of saints. Irrespective of our institutions, WE are ONE by virtue of our one Lord Jesus, our one faith in Christ, our one baptism (Ephesians 4:5-6, Romans 12:5, Ephesians 4:25, 1 Corinthians 10:17 and 12:12-26).


.

 

[Albion]

I'm not looking for an argument.

Good. Then post something for discussion that isn't framed as a denunciation of almost all Christians.

 

[1689Dave]

Good. Then post something for discussion that isn't framed as a denunciation of almost all Christians.

How about the church in the great end-time apostasy?

 

[Albion]

Denominations…

Congregations may be denominational or non-denominational.

“Non-denominational” congregations are autonomous, independent, isolated and separate – with no formal relationship with any other congregation and with no accountability beyond itself. They are isolationists.

Yes, and each one of them amounts to a very small denomination, if we think about it for a moment. The typical non-denominational church has a set of beliefs, certain standards concerning admission of people to membership, certain rituals like baptism and holy communion, etc.

It's not that non-denominational congregations disavow the wrongs of the well-known denominations. They just do it on their own, which can often be worse, considering that there is no higher authority to supervise anything and keep order. That's why many non-denominational congregations are whatever the pastor wants it to be. Often he's the person who started it up on his own, and when he leaves or dies, the congregation is likely to founder.

 

[Albion]

How about the church in the great end-time apostasy?

That could be interesting.

 

[1689Dave]

That could be interesting.

Another could be Doctrines that destroy lives. Jesus said it is a way to identify tares. History is rife with proof of this. I have lots about Pentecostalism and its roots in Voodoo. Possibly more if I dig it out.

 

[Josiah]

Yes, and each one of them amounts to a very small denomination, if we think about it for a moment. The typical non-denominational church has a set of beliefs, certain standards concerning admission of people to membership, certain rituals like baptism and holy communion, etc.

It's not that non-denominational congregations disavow the wrongs of the well-known denominations. They just do it on their own, which can often be worse, considering that there is no higher authority to supervise anything and keep order. That's why many non-denominational congregations are whatever the pastor wants it to be. Often he's the person who started it up on his own, and when he leaves or dies, the congregation is likely to founder.

I largely agree.

But in MY experience, non-denoms DO have a set of beliefs (just as denominational ones do) they just like to hide them. That seems to be the primary reason why they are non-denominational, they don't want to admit their beliefs and policies, they want to hide them. Indeed, I think to MOST Americans, "non-denominational" MEANS has no particularly beliefs. They are NOT of any organization that HAS beliefs.

Example: My older brother for years attended a huge, mega Non-Denomininational church (you'd know it if I identified it). I attended the church with him a few times. As a self-confessed theology junkie who holds that truth matters, I asked him what his church believes. He had no idea but said he'd ask. Evidently he had to ask quite a bit. Mostly he got "we believe what the Bible states' (just like Mormons, JW's, Oneness Pentecostals and every heretic who ever lived). And he was told by one of the ministers, "We are embracing of all believers; doctrines divide and separte but we embrace" (or words to that effect). FINALLY, not a pastor but a church secretary gave him their Statement of Faith (interesting that none of the pastors chose to share that!!!!!) and he gave it to me. The most worthless, empty, vague thing I've ever seen - except for the mention of the Trinity, any Mormon and pretty much every heretic in history could agree with it. THAT'S what non-denoms are about, in my experience. Works in our uber-relativistic world in which we live. Echoing the governor's sarcastic question, "What is truth?"

I'm sure there are non-denoms that have clear statements of faith but then I'd need to ask, "if your teachings are those of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, why aren't you a part of the OPC? Do you simply want to evade all accountability? Do you simply not want to cooperate with others?"




.

 

[1689Dave]

What I see is that most churches including Institutional, directly experience Christ as the savior. Some of the Sacramental Churches proclaim themselves to be the savior through the use of sacraments.

 

[Lamb]

What I see is that most churches including Institutional, directly experience Christ as the savior. Some of the Sacramental Churches proclaim themselves to be the savior through the use of sacraments.

Then you don't know the Lutheran beliefs concerning the Sacraments.