Denominationalism VS nondenominational Churches.

Faith

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
1,180
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
How come, Faith? I assume that you were reacting to the preceding comments about Lutheranism, but what??
I was considering going to a ND a church but don’t want to end up in a cult. Or cult-like church.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I was considering going to a ND a church but don’t want to end up in a cult. Or cult-like church.
I see. It wasn't about Lutheranism after all. ;)

Don't be overly afraid of non-denominational churches. And not because of the fear that they're cultic. Some few are, but most are like Baptist churches or Fundamentalist churches of some sort, which, however, is not what you have been considering with either Catholicism or Lutheranism.

Most are going to be quite different from the doctrines and also the worship style of both Catholic and Lutheran churches, which I'm thinking would raise a red flag for you, though.

But if you are alarmed about the talk of cults, that would be possible, especially if we were thinking of a non-denom that denied the Trinity or had its own prophets, or something like that, but this is not what you are likely to encounter.

Just ask around about any NDs you are thinking of, check their website, and drop in as a visitor a time or two. You should be able to make a good decision.
 
Last edited:

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
1,871
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
I was considering going to a ND a church but don’t want to end up in a cult. Or cult-like church.
The big Institutional churches are not mentioned in the Bible. All you will find there are ND house churches or simple meetings in an existing structure. So you are better off looking for something similar. If you look at the bloody history of the Institutional churches, it should be clear that the Biblical model for a church is much to be preferred. Just don't expect too much in the present religious climate.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The big Institutional churches are not mentioned in the Bible.

Nor is electricity, powerpoint, youth groups, books, passing around little cut up pieces of Weber's Bread with little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice once a month, or pastors wearing Aloha shirts and sandles.

I'd like to see your statistical reports as to the attendance of churches in the first 300 years.... I didn't know we had reliable stats for that. How do you know how big those churches were? How do you know they had no institutional aspects (no finances, no leadership, no policies)?

I'd agree there was no full-blown DENOMINATION prior to the 4th Century (although aspects of such existed immediately, sort of proto-denomination). But I disagree with you that ERGO Denominations are wrong. By that rublic, you'd need to argue that Christians can't use the internet because there's no evidence that all Christians did no before the 4th Century. It seems clear to me that the Bible does NOT forbid Christians from associating together, congregations DID exist before the 4th Century. If individual Christians can so associate, why not gatherings of such? Christians:congregations as congregations:denominations.




.
 

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
1,871
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
Nor is electricity, powerpoint, youth groups, books, passing around little cut up pieces of Weber's Bread with little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice once a month, or pastors wearing Aloha shirts and sandles.

I'd like to see your statistical reports as to the attendance of churches in the first 300 years.... I didn't know we had reliable stats for that. How do you know how big those churches were? How do you know they had no institutional aspects (no finances, no leadership, no policies)?

I'd agree there was no full-blown DENOMINATION prior to the 4th Century (although aspects of such existed immediately, sort of proto-denomination). But I disagree with you that ERGO Denominations are wrong. By that rublic, you'd need to argue that Christians can't use the internet because there's no evidence that all Christians did no before the 4th Century. It seems clear to me that the Bible does NOT forbid Christians from associating together, congregations DID exist before the 4th Century. If individual Christians can so associate, why not gatherings of such? Christians:congregations as congregations:denominations.




.
What about Nadab and Abihu? They offered strange fire and God killed them. Strange fire is adding to scripture something that is not there. Faith comes by hearing the word. How can you have faith in anything not found in scripture? Isn't anything not of faith a sin?
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What about Nadab and Abihu? They offered strange fire and God killed them. Strange fire is adding to scripture something that is not there. Faith comes by hearing the word. How can you have faith in anything not found in scripture? Isn't anything not of faith a sin?

We're not talking about doctrine, we're talking about praxis. Your insistance that it is forbidden for congregations to associate together. I reject your whole premise that if something isn't mentioned in the Bible ergo it is forbidden. By your "logic" we are wrong to be posting on the internet because nowhere does the Bible mention Christians posting on the internet.

See post 64



.
 

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
1,871
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
We're not talking about doctrine, we're talking about praxis. Your insistance that it is forbidden for congregations to associate together. I reject your whole premise that if something isn't mentioned in the Bible ergo it is forbidden. By your "logic" we are wrong to be posting on the internet because nowhere does the Bible mention Christians posting on the internet.

See post 64



.
Denominations are not the church. The people who hire them are the church. The denominations are nothing more than religious business franchises that peddle a product of a certain bent to those who hire them. They are not found in scripture.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I'd agree there was no full-blown DENOMINATION prior to the 4th Century (although aspects of such existed immediately, sort of proto-denomination). But I disagree with you that ERGO Denominations are wrong. By that rublic, you'd need to argue that Christians can't use the internet because there's no evidence that all Christians did no before the 4th Century. It seems clear to me that the Bible does NOT forbid Christians from associating together, congregations DID exist before the 4th Century. If individual Christians can so associate, why not gatherings of such? Christians:congregations as congregations:denominations.

That's right. The NT is clear that believers are supposed to come together for various religious reasons, and we know that they did so from very early times.

While there is no legal, incorporated, name for it, we know that the Christian faith was referred to as "The Way" from the early days, and "Christian" itself was mentioned as the moniker in the Bible itself.

In addition, it's not as though each city had a congregation and had no contact with other Christians. We often read on these pages that Paul went around (as did other Apostles) advising different congregations and sending letters sent with advice that we now call Epistles. These are now books of the Bible. It is incorrect to think of early congregations as jealously independent of any association with others of their kind.

What's more, the distinction between bishops and presbyters appeared very early when the number of churches had grown enough that an overseer was needed to handle the newer congregations in the "suburbs" of the great cities of the Middle East.
 
Last edited:

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
1,871
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
That's right. The NT is clear that believers are supposed to come together for various religious reasons, and we know that they did so from very early times.

While there is no legal, incorporated, name for it, we know that the Christian faith was referred to as "The Way" from the early days, and "Christian" itself was mentioned as the moniker in the Bible itself.

In addition, it's not as though each city had a congregation and had no contact with other Christians. We often read on these pages that Paul went around (as did other Apostles) advising different congregations and letters that we now call Epistles were sent with advice. These are not books of the Bible. What's more, the distinction between bishops and presbyters appeared very early when the number of churches had grown enough that an overseer was needed to handle the newer congregations in the "suburbs" of the great cities of the Middle East.
The problem is that denominations are forbidden by Paul and scripture does not support them.

“For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?” 1 Corinthians 3:4 (KJV 1900)
 

Faith

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
1,180
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Denominations are not the church. The people who hire them are the church. The denominations are nothing more than religious business franchises that peddle a product of a certain bent to those who hire them. They are not found in scripture.
And yet you state that you’re Baptist.
 

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
1,871
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
And yet you state that you’re Baptist.
I gravitate in that direction. But in registering they ask for a denomination. The name 1689Dave shows I identify Baptists of the 1600s. No denomination here.
 

Faith

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
1,180
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I gravitate in that direction. But in registering they ask for a denomination. The name 1689Dave shows I identify Baptists of the 1600s. No denomination here.
Then maybe you should change your religious affiliation on here. Just a thought.
 

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
1,871
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
1,871
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
Baptist is too misleading.
Not really. It means the baptism (submersion) of adult believers in water. So now you know I oppose infant "baptism" as a heads up.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
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 (and perhaps directly to God).

“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.

Christians:congregations as congregations:denominations.

Denominations are a corpus of congregations that have joined together. Some are “episcopal” in nature meaning they are “top down.” These have a strong “chain of command,” often the local congregation is legally owned by the denomination, and often ministers are placed into congregations by the denomination (albeit nearly always with input by the congregation). Some are “congregational” in nature, “bottom up”, meaning each member congregation is somewhat independent, owning their own facilities and calling their own ministers (although usually from an approved list and with denominational assistance). Many denominations are a combination of both.

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. 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 (both showing associating and cooperating). For the first 300 years, Christianity was mostly an illegal, underground religion – more a movement than anything – often on the run and meeting informally and occasionally even secretly in “house churches” as the illegal status required. This changed when Christianity was made legal; almost immediately a denomination was formed.

Today, there are literally thousands of denominations, although about 90% of Christians are in 8 or so groupings of such. 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).



.
 

Faith

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
1,180
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Not really. It means the baptism (submersion) of adult believers in water. So now you know I oppose infant "baptism" as a heads up.
Yeah well, I was Baptized as a baby and there’s nothing wrong with that.
 

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
1,871
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
Top Bottom