Which Is Better...Non-Denominational Or Denominational??......

justhappeneduponthis · Feb 3, 2013

Is it that "non-denominational" will lack a governing seminary? Many fear that this is the pathway to error and imbalance. But really the community churches spouting their non-denominational label and holding their conventions are becoming a denomination. The "us-them" consciousness is still there working contrary to Jesus' prayer in John 17. Lines of division. Preferences. Pigeon-holing of believers. Competitive team spirit. Vanity of men.

Consider the following:
The Sign Read...

I drove by this little unassuming building. Nothing really suggested that it was a church, but it had an orderly, colourful spring garden in the front, a rude cross in the middle of it and a sign over the door which read as follows:

Assembly of the Banquet Guests, Holding Nothing in Their Hands, and Desperate for the Generous Host To Arrive That They Might Kiss His Pierced Feet, and Feast and Act Upon His Every Word

Sounds like a good place. No presumptuous labels such as Glory, Victorious, World-Wide, Full Gospel, Shekinah or Soaring. Perhaps too they have caught the message that the Host has sent out the invitation to both good and bad (Matthew 22:8-10). They need only come, give thanks and hear. He will accomplish the rest. And He does.

Interestingly enough, the sign had thirty-three words. Significant number.

See also the link:
https://sites.google.com/site/conversationabove/new-under-the-son

bbbbbbb · Feb 4, 2013

justhappeneduponthis said:
Is it that "non-denominational" will lack a governing seminary? Many fear that this is the pathway to error and imbalance. But really the community churches spouting their non-denominational label and holding their conventions are becoming a denomination. The "us-them" consciousness is still there working contrary to Jesus' prayer in John 17. Lines of division. Preferences. Pigeon-holing of believers. Competitive team spirit. Vanity of men.

Consider the following:
The Sign Read...

I drove by this little unassuming building. Nothing really suggested that it was a church, but it had an orderly, colourful spring garden in the front, a rude cross in the middle of it and a sign over the door which read as follows:

Assembly of the Banquet Guests, Holding Nothing in Their Hands, and Desperate for the Generous Host To Arrive That They Might Kiss His Pierced Feet, and Feast and Act Upon His Every Word

Sounds like a good place. No presumptuous labels such as Glory, Victorious, World-Wide, Full Gospel, Shekinah or Soaring. Perhaps too they have caught the message that the Host has sent out the invitation to both good and bad (Matthew 22:8-10). They need only come, give thanks and hear. He will accomplish the rest. And He does.

Interestingly enough, the sign had thirty-three words. Significant number.

See also the link:
https://sites.google.com/site/conversationabove/new-under-the-son

I agree that many church names today border on the vain and the ridiculous. I also submit that many intentionally are contrived to confuse and obfuscate the beliefs of the church to the outsider in an effort to attract outsiders. Consider a new church in my city which has called itself "Sacred City Church". Of course, there is nothing sacred about this city nor is this city I live in named "Sacred". I found their website and after much sleuthing through it I was able to determine who they actually were - a Wesleyan church with mega-church pretensions.

The church you gave as your example tells me virtually nothing about what they believe, if anything. Most churches do have doctrinal beliefs and I think it best if those beliefs are communicated clearly and concisely. It avoids a lot of pain and confusion in the long run.

SilentShadow100 · Feb 23, 2013

Jesus promised to establish a church which would never be corrupted nor destroyed completely. In order for that to happen, the church can't be a doctrinally-anarchic group, as that type of group only leads to confusion. In essence, non-denominationalism is actually just a bunch of people with their own 1-person denominations, or in many cases, a church with a denomination they refuse to recognize. The true church would have to be a church with an unchanged, 2000 year old doctrine whose members are in communion with each other, which is the exact opposite of non-denominationalism.

now faith · Feb 23, 2013

SilentShadow100 said:
Jesus promised to establish a church which would never be corrupted nor destroyed completely. In order for that to happen, the church can't be a doctrinally-anarchic group, as that type of group only leads to confusion. In essence, non-denominationalism is actually just a bunch of people with their own 1-person denominations, or in many cases, a church with a denomination they refuse to recognize. The true church would have to be a church with an unchanged, 2000 year old doctrine whose members are in communion with each other, which is the exact opposite of non-denominationalism.

Tell me a denomination,that has the unchanged 2000 year old doctrine.

Denomination or non denomination,they both are groups of people sharing the same opinions.

With denominations you can get a basic idea of their beliefs.
Non denomination you just have to ask,or experience for yourself.

Even in denominations,there are many varieties of beliefs under the same name,and most oppose each other.

The best you can do is find a Bible based Church,who's main focus is Christ, Christ blood,Christ the way truth and the life.

Albion · Feb 24, 2013

now faith said:
Tell me a denomination,that has the unchanged 2000 year old doctrine.

Denomination or non denomination,they both are groups of people sharing the same opinions.

With denominations you can get a basic idea of their beliefs.
Non denomination you just have to ask,or experience for yourself.

Even in denominations,there are many varieties of beliefs under the same name,and most oppose each other.

The best you can do is find a Bible based Church,who's main focus is Christ, Christ blood,Christ the way truth and the life.

In other words, there's no important difference, denominational or "non-denominational."

SharonL · Feb 24, 2013

The church that the Bible speaks of is in your heart - a relationship between you and God. I was raised in so many denominations that were so busy telling you what you can't do that they failed to tell you what God can do. Once you really get a true relationship when you accept Jesus into your heart - that is the leading factor - manmade laws can confuse you, but if you have a close relationship between you and Jesus with the leading of the Holy Spirit - you will no longer worry about pleasing this denomination or that denomination - you will only concentrate on the leading of the Holy Spirit and your worship is between you and God no matter what church you are sitting in.

Albion · Feb 24, 2013

SharonL said:
The church that the Bible speaks of is in your heart - a relationship between you and God. I was raised in so many denominations that were so busy telling you what you can't do that they failed to tell you what God can do. Once you really get a true relationship when you accept Jesus into your heart - that is the leading factor - manmade laws can confuse you, but if you have a close relationship between you and Jesus with the leading of the Holy Spirit - you will no longer worry about pleasing this denomination or that denomination - you will only concentrate on the leading of the Holy Spirit and your worship is between you and God no matter what church you are sitting in.

I tend to agree about denominations, but it's not true that the only church is in your heart. The visible ekklesia, the local assembly, is very Scriptural and the sacraments almost totally dependent upon there being one, not to mention instruction in the faith and fellowship--also very genuinely Biblical concepts. Therefore, denominations are almost unavoidable, including those denominations that prefer to call themselves non-denominational, of course.

SharonL · Feb 24, 2013

Albion - sorry - I did not mean there should be no church - what I meant was no matter what church you sit in, the relationship is between you and God and you will be in a mood of worship at all times, never departing from your relationship with God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Albion · Feb 24, 2013

SharonL said:
Albion - sorry - I did not mean there should be no church - what I meant was no matter what church you sit in, the relationship is between you and God and you will be in a mood of worship at all times, never departing from your relationship with God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

I'm glad you wrote back to say that, Sharon, because I agree with you and others who make that point, but we also have had a lot of commentary lately to the effect that church attendance is not important...or worse.

shturt678 · Feb 25, 2013

Keeping Church in the Biblical perspective in light of Matt.20:1-16 and 22:1-14, sadly mis-interpreted in today's time ... my opinion only ... those that are "born again" God's way or ways are in the Church visual "OUTWARDLY" where the Lord Christ Jesus in heaven determines if one is in "INWARDLY" upon one's death.

no worry, just an opinion, we are all still Christians.

now faith · Feb 25, 2013

Albion said:
In other words, there's no important difference, denominational or "non-denominational."[/QUOTE

In my opinion no.

The reason being religion and all of its diversity,cones down to the local level.

People make up the Body of Christ,the only Church that matters.

A label or title never saved a single soul, Faith in Christ by his people bring the good fruits of the Spirit.

Albion · Feb 26, 2013

now faith said:
Albion said:

In other words, there's no important difference, denominational or "non-denominational."[/QUOTE

In my opinion no.

The reason being religion and all of its diversity,cones down to the local level.

People make up the Body of Christ,the only Church that matters.

A label or title never saved a single soul, Faith in Christ by his people bring the good fruits of the Spirit.

Click to expand...

But "non-denominational" is a term that's applied to congregations, visible church bodies. It is them that I compared to denominations, as the OP asked. The term is not normally applied to individuals. They would be called "unaffiliated" or independent, etc.

Generally speaking, we say that all true believers are part of the invisible church while the local congregations are the visible church. "The church" operates on both levels.

ChristOurCaptain · Mar 10, 2013

I don't buy the whole "non-denominational"-thing. It's more or less syncretism of elements of the low-church baptists, and pentecostals. Ain't nothing "Non-denominational" about it, even if they themselves claim that: "I'm just following the Bible".

Slaol121 · Mar 10, 2013

I think that denominations are defined by doctrine- and doctrine is very important. The bible is very clear on this.
---------------

The following excerpt from Thomas Dubay's Authenticity (Ignatius Press, 1997, ch. 8)...

"...Sound Doctrine

For biblical men, authentic teaching was considered more important than miracles in distinguishing the true prophet from the false. The former could be known in that his teachings were in accord with received revelation (Dt 13:1-6) The wrath of Yahweh breaks forth upon the heads of the false prophets who were not sent by him but speak visions of their own imagination. It was promised that in the new dispensation God would place a new spirit, a new power in the hearts of the people, and from this inner source they would obey his outer word (Ezek 36:26f; Jer 31:33). Jesus promised that this inner power, now known to be the Holy Spirit, would teach all that Jesus had taught (Jn 14:26). That man or woman cannot be of the Spirit who contradicts the truth the Lord has already committed to his Church. In this same spirit, St. Paul remarked at mid first century that no one can confess Jesus' lordship correctly without the aid of the Holy Spirit, and conversely no one who is speaking in the Spirit will ever utter a false statement about Jesus (1 Cor 12:3).

But as the first century wore on and false teachers began to proliferate, the New Testament writings became more and more vehement about the critical necessity of sound doctrine. Paul curses those who teach a gospel other than what has been taught (Gal 1:6-9). The Colossians are admonished not to be deceived by any seductive philosophy or mere human opinions (Col 2:7-8).... Paul on the other hand appealed to the traditions handed down by the apostles. So it goes in any age. Those deviating from the gospel speak of their position in attractive, relevant-sounding terms. But Paul was on to this sort of tactic. The author of Hebrews advises his readers not to be carried away by all sorts of strange teaching but rather to imitate the faith of their leaders (Heb 13:7-9).

The pastoral Letters abound in references to sound teaching as a crucial need toward the end of the first century. Timothy is to warn people against teaching false doctrines (1 Tim 1:3), and he is reminded that the Church of the living God is the pillar and safeguard of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). He is to guard the rich deposit of the faith with the aid of the indwelling Holy Spirit (2 Tim 1:14). This faith is to be handed on to trustworthy teachers and not to anyone at all (2 Tim 2:2). Then there follows a series of admonitions to correct error, even to the point of being persecuted, for there will come a day when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but will gather for themselves teachers who will tickle their ears with falsehood.

Titus receives the same message: Hold fast to the authentic tradition, encourage sound doctrine, refute those who contradict it (Titus 1:9; 2:1, 8). This pastoral insistence is of one piece with the rest of the Pauline emphasis on oneness of mind in doctrine and practice..."

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/doctrine.html

now faith · Mar 10, 2013

Slaol121 said:
I think that denominations are defined by doctrine- and doctrine is very important. The bible is very clear on this.
---------------

The following excerpt from Thomas Dubay's Authenticity (Ignatius Press, 1997, ch. 8)...

"...Sound Doctrine

For biblical men, authentic teaching was considered more important than miracles in distinguishing the true prophet from the false. The former could be known in that his teachings were in accord with received revelation (Dt 13:1-6) The wrath of Yahweh breaks forth upon the heads of the false prophets who were not sent by him but speak visions of their own imagination. It was promised that in the new dispensation God would place a new spirit, a new power in the hearts of the people, and from this inner source they would obey his outer word (Ezek 36:26f; Jer 31:33). Jesus promised that this inner power, now known to be the Holy Spirit, would teach all that Jesus had taught (Jn 14:26). That man or woman cannot be of the Spirit who contradicts the truth the Lord has already committed to his Church. In this same spirit, St. Paul remarked at mid first century that no one can confess Jesus' lordship correctly without the aid of the Holy Spirit, and conversely no one who is speaking in the Spirit will ever utter a false statement about Jesus (1 Cor 12:3).

But as the first century wore on and false teachers began to proliferate, the New Testament writings became more and more vehement about the critical necessity of sound doctrine. Paul curses those who teach a gospel other than what has been taught (Gal 1:6-9). The Colossians are admonished not to be deceived by any seductive philosophy or mere human opinions (Col 2:7-8).... Paul on the other hand appealed to the traditions handed down by the apostles. So it goes in any age. Those deviating from the gospel speak of their position in attractive, relevant-sounding terms. But Paul was on to this sort of tactic. The author of Hebrews advises his readers not to be carried away by all sorts of strange teaching but rather to imitate the faith of their leaders (Heb 13:7-9).

The pastoral Letters abound in references to sound teaching as a crucial need toward the end of the first century. Timothy is to warn people against teaching false doctrines (1 Tim 1:3), and he is reminded that the Church of the living God is the pillar and safeguard of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). He is to guard the rich deposit of the faith with the aid of the indwelling Holy Spirit (2 Tim 1:14). This faith is to be handed on to trustworthy teachers and not to anyone at all (2 Tim 2:2). Then there follows a series of admonitions to correct error, even to the point of being persecuted, for there will come a day when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but will gather for themselves teachers who will tickle their ears with falsehood.

Titus receives the same message: Hold fast to the authentic tradition, encourage sound doctrine, refute those who contradict it (Titus 1:9; 2:1, 8). This pastoral insistence is of one piece with the rest of the Pauline emphasis on oneness of mind in doctrine and practice..."

The Importance of Doctrine

What would keep non denominations from sound doctrine?

What denomination,did the Pauline writing refer to?

How can you teach the Gospel,if only to your select few.

Denomination,is man made opinion of the Word,and a select group who abide in religious tradition.
It is a Gospel of inclusion.

Oddly you can have multiple Churches of same label,who cannot agree among themselves.

In most denominations,there is diversity between themselves,so its ill logical to think denominations,are sound teaching because someones wrong.

I am not against them,only the ones who think so highly of their denomination that they become inclusive,and cease fellowships with others in Christ.

Albion · Mar 10, 2013

now faith said:
What denomination,did the Pauline writing refer to?

How can you teach the Gospel,if only to your select few.

Denomination,is man made opinion of the Word,and a select group who abide in religious tradition.
It is a Gospel of inclusion.

Oddly you can have multiple Churches of same label,who cannot agree among themselves.

In most denominations,there is diversity between themselves,so its ill logical to think denominations,are sound teaching because someones wrong.

I am not against them,only the ones who think so highly of their denomination that they become inclusive,and cease fellowships with others in Christ.

Any so-called "non-denominational" denomination suffers from the same weaknesses.

now faith · Mar 10, 2013

ChristOurCaptain said:
I don't buy the whole "non-denominational"-thing. It's more or less syncretism of elements of the low-church baptists, and pentecostals. Ain't nothing "Non-denominational" about it, even if they themselves claim that: "I'm just following the Bible".

You are completely wrong.
Unless you have been to all of them you are making assumption void of fact.

What is a low Church Baptist?

Why can't you just compare what is being done in a Church with The real authority,the Bible.

It is ignorant to pawn off your brothers and sisters as a bunch of......

When you think more of your Church club,than the Body of Christ it is idolatrous.

Albion · Mar 10, 2013

now faith said:
You are completely wrong.
Unless you have been to all of them you are making assumption void of fact.

No. That was pretty much agreed to earlier on. While there may be some few "non-denominational" churches here or there that look like Catholic or Mennonite churches, for example, the overwhelming majority are something very close to Baptist or Pentecostal or a combination of the two. And any "non-denominational" church that has a recognizable set of doctrines or pattern of worship is a denomination.

now faith · Mar 11, 2013

Albion said:
Any so-called "non-denominational" denomination suffers from the same weaknesses.

Well I would not call them so(called), because it's what they are.

I agree they suffer from the same weaknesses,like inclusion with in the local tribe.

But a who so ever may come type Church is a blessing,from Methodist,Baptist,Church of God etc.
My home Church is diverse in congressional background.

We do not have formal membership,our motto is if you have been here two times your a member.

now faith · Mar 11, 2013

Albion said:
No. That was pretty much agreed to earlier on. While there may be some few "non-denominational" churches here or there that look like Catholic or Mennonite churches, for example, the overwhelming majority are something very close to Baptist or Pentecostal or a combination of the two. And any "non-denominational" church that has a recognizable set of doctrines or pattern of worship is a denomination.

Hence the term Babtacostal!
Well I have heard of that,but where I live they are large over 2000 people.

Do you suppose those Churches combine the full gospel teaching( gift tongues etc) but do not practice them during Church,more in line with Pauls teaching on tongues.

So they would be liberal Baptist somewhat like Southern Baptist.

I.D.K not much to be concerned about, God bless

Which Is Better...Non-Denominational Or Denominational??......

Newbie

bbbbbbb

Guest

User

Veteran

Facilitator

Senior Veteran

Facilitator

Senior Veteran

Facilitator

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Facilitator

Augsburgian Catholic

Newbie

Veteran

Facilitator

Veteran

Facilitator

Veteran

Veteran

Similar threads