Non denominational

[Romanos]

Would you say that this title in itself is a denomination?

 

[Josiah]

Would you say that this title in itself is a denomination?

No.

IF the congregation (a gathering of Christians in a given place and time) is in complete, absolute isolation and independance - in NO WAY associated with anything or anyone outside of it itself alone (save for maybe God), then it is non-denominational. And there are many of those these days.


.

 

[Albion]

No.

The issue is tricky because there are so many uses of the term, and there is no set of doctrines unfailingly associated with any "non-denominational" church or individual.

The main reason that non-denominational churches/congregations are called by that title is that they don't owe anything to any higher church organization or authority like the Baptist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, and Presbyterian conferences, federations, dioceses,, etc. AND they are not simply unaffiliated while continuing to adhere to the traditional beliefs, etc. of one of those denominations.

What I really disagree with is the use of the term non-denominational by people who mean by it that they are personally better or more faithful than Christians who belong to any of the recognized denominations. There is certainly no 'badge of honor' being worn by people simply on account of exempting themselves from the fellowship and valid authority of any or all Christian denominations.

 

[Messy]

Would you say that this title in itself is a denomination?

To me it just sounds like evangelical.

 

[Josiah]

There is certainly no 'badge of honor' being worn by people simply on account of exempting themselves from the fellowship and valid authority of any or all Christian denominations.

Agree.

It's a status some churches give to SELF in order to evade any accountability and cooperation... and often to give the IMPRESSION that what they believe (and they tend to do a good job keeping that a secret) is "just what everyone believes" but the fact that they can't find even one congregation among the MILLIONS that exist that it agrees with tells you that's just not true.

I was sort of homeschooled... actually it was a program of a huge Christian school; they had a "resident" and "home" option. For "home" it supplied the curriculum, did the testing, provided resources of teachers etc., provided opportunities for sports and arts, and some opportunities for "fellowship." But it was largely a homeschool situation. The school was huge - over 500 students in K-12. But the mega church that ran it NEVER disclosed that it was Baptist. Actually, Southern Baptist Convention. This was a deep, dark secret - I only found out because one of my teachers (one of the junior pastors there let it slip). "We don't want to divide" What they really meant was they didn't want to stand for anything or admit their beliefs and teachings. I wonder how often this happens... that SUPPOSED "non-denominational" churches (those that CLAIM that) actually aren't. I think SOME "non-denoms" aren't - they just keep their teachings and affiliations a deep, dark secret.

But yes, IFthe congregation is associated with ANYTHING or ANYONE other than it itself exclusively.... if it has some body of beliefs shared by another congregation, if it accepts any accountability outside of itself (other than God) then it's denominational. But some congregations/parishes aren't like that. They are do-it-yourselfers. Absolute isolationists. Pure individualists. Agreeing with none but the one that single congregation/parish sees in the mirror, accountable to no one and nothing except how it feels God feels about it. Pure ME-ism applied to a congregation. That's "non-denominational." Sounds pretty American and modern, huh?



.

 

[Albion]

To me it just sounds like evangelical.

another term that's almost impossible to pin down without adding a lot of exceptions.

 

[Messy]

another term that's almost impossible to pin down without adding a lot of exceptions.

I went to a full evangelical church in the 80s. Lol full evangelical sounds so arrogant. We have the full gospel, like there's also half full, just like milk.

 

[Albion]

I went to a full evangelical church in the 80s. Lol full evangelical sounds so arrogant. We have the full gospel, like there's also half full, just like milk.

Good one!

But you know that "evangelical" means Gospel-centered, so all kinds of churches claim the term.

There's the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, for example, or the Quaker body, Evangelical Friends Church International, neither of which is anything like the churches you are referring to.

 

[Castle Church]

I wonder how often this happens... that SUPPOSED "non-denominational" churches (those that CLAIM that) actually aren't. I think SOME "non-denoms" aren't - they just keep their teachings and affiliations a deep, dark secret.

It is actually quite common in this area. The churches are generally affiliated with the SBC or one of the Pentecostal denominations, but you would not know unless you know......you know? The church I am a member at is a large UMC church that does not advertise that they are UMC, their name is very non-denominational sounding and their website and information don't mention the UMC, but the pastor does talk about Methodism at times.

 

[Albion]

Hmmm. I wonder if we're talking there about congregations that actually ARE affiliated with the SBC or the UMC or some other denomination while carefully concealing that fact and while representing themselves as "non-denominational." (?)

OR is the point simply that many denominational congregations have taken to changing their names in the belief that "denomination" has a bad reputation in the minds of a lot of people who think of denominations as legalistic, divisive, and old-fashioned?

If, for example, a denominational church were to change its name to "REBIRTH CHURCH," the idea would be to appear more welcoming, but that would be just their preference UNLESS the church and its minister were also to claim to be non-denominational now!

 

[Lamb]

Would you say that this title in itself is a denomination?

I personally think it's a denomination. Every person who says they're non-denominational, believe that the Lord's Supper and baptism are symbolic only. They're not too far off from Baptists but I don't know if there is much of a difference?

 

[Albion]

I personally think it's a denomination. Every person who says they're non-denominational, believe that the Lord's Supper and baptism are symbolic only. They're not too far off from Baptists but I don't know if there is much of a difference?

The reason I'm reluctant to say that it's a denomination is because the term non-denominational is claimed by a wide range of churches and people with a wide range of beliefs. So what exactly is the "it" there?

The truth is, however, that in practice, MOST of the churches that identify themselves as non-denominational are in line with the Baptist view of the sacraments and other matters, just as you noted.

 

[Castle Church]

Hmmm. I wonder if we're talking there about congregations that actually ARE affiliated with the SBC or the UMC or some other denomination while carefully concealing that fact and while representing themselves as "non-denominational." (?)

OR is the point simply that many denominational congregations have taken to changing their names in the belief that "denomination" has a bad reputation in the minds of a lot of people who think of denominations as legalistic, divisive, and old-fashioned?

If, for example, a denominational church were to change its name to "REBIRTH CHURCH," the idea would be to appear more welcoming, but that would be just their preference UNLESS the church and its minister were also to claim to be non-denominational now!

Valid point, in the case of the UMC church I mentioned I think that it is the later, it is an attempt to grow the church on a non-denominational mega-church model. In the case of several others in the area is is the former, in particular a few SBC churches that I am aware of.

 

[Albion]

Valid point, in the case of the UMC church I mentioned I think that it is the later, it is an attempt to grow the church on a non-denominational mega-church model. In the case of several others in the area is is the former, in particular a few SBC churches that I am aware of.

Thanks. Sounds like an idea took hold among SBC churches that didn't affect other groups/denoms. Perhaps because of the impression sometimes given by that word "Southern."

 

[SetFree]

Non-denominational means just that, NOT associated with any known Christian denomination.

So it's silly with trying to compare a non-denominational believer to one of the many denominations out there.

I was raised in the mainstream Church of Christ denomination, however I am non-denominational I learned the main seminary doctrine they are on is Preterism, which is just one of the tethers of men's doctrines. When The Holy Spirit urge to get down to in-depth Bible study hit me, that distinction really came out.

This is why I am non-denominational, because many in the seminaries are deceived about many things written in God's Word, and thus instead create pop traditions to fill the empty gaps in their understanding. And the preachers under their systems that do have a better Biblical understanding become trapped by their system to preach only what the seminary promotes, otherwise they could lose their retirement pension. Lord Jesus did not promote any such type of system, and as a matter of fact that kind of system points to His disdain of what the deeds of the Nicolaintans were about.



NICOLAITANS

Rev 2:6,14-15. Irenaeus (Haer. 1:26, section 3) and Tertullian (Praescr. Haeret. 46) explain, followers of Nicolas one of the seven (Acts 6:3,5) as there was a Judas among the twelve; confounding the later Gnostic Nicolaitans with those of Michaelis explains Nicolas (conqueror of the people) is the Greek for the Hebrew Balsam ("destroyer of the people,"
bela°

±am
); as we find both the Hebrew and Greek names, Abaddon, Apollyon; Satan, devil. A symbolical name. Lightfoot suggests a Hebrew interpretation,
nikola
, "let us eat"; compare 1 Cor 15:32. Not a sect, but professing Christians who, Balsam like, introduce a false freedom, i.e. licentiousness. A reaction from Judaism, the first danger of the church. The Jerusalem council (Acts 15:20,29), while releasing Gentile converts from legalism, required their abstinence from idol meats and concomitant fornication. The Nicolaitans abused Paul's doctrine of the grace of God into lasciviousness; such seducers are described as followers of Balsam, also in 2 Peter 2:12-13,15-19; Jude 4,7-8,11 ("the son of Bosor" for Beor, to characterize him as "son of carnality":
bosor
= flesh). They persuaded many to escape obloquy by yielding as to "eating idol meats," which was then a test of faithfulness (compare 1 Cor 8 and 1 Cor 10:25-33); they even joined in the "fornication" of the idol feasts, as though permitted by Christ's "law of liberty." The "lovefeasts" (Jude 12) thus became pagan orgies. The Nicolaitans combined evil "deeds" which Jesus "hates" with evil "doctrine."
(from Fausset's Bible Dictionary, Electronic Database Copyright © 1998, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

 

[Albion]

This is why I am non-denominational, because many in the seminaries are deceived about many things written in God's Word, and thus instead create pop traditions to fill the empty gaps in their understanding.

Logically speaking, you probably should give up Christianity and church-attendance altogether, given that attitude.

For one thing, becoming "non-denominational" because the church you had belonged to taught Preterism makes little sense since the great majority of Christian churches and denominations do NOT believe in Preterism. You had a hundred of them to choose among...and instead opted out.

And the same principle applies if you think some churches are Communist-oriented or pay their ministers, or something else you don't care for.

And the preachers under their systems that do have a better Biblical understanding become trapped by their system to preach only what the seminary promotes, otherwise they could lose their retirement pension. Lord Jesus did not promote any such type of system, and as a matter of fact that kind of system points to His disdain of what the deeds of the Nicolaintans were about.