"Non-denominational"??? What does that even mean?

Bible Highlighter said:

Can you name one? Even Protestant churches are in a way pointing back to Martin Luther. They are basically saying they are following him in a way because he started the Protestant Reformation.

Click to expand...

Well, if the connection is as weak or loose as this example you're using now, even non-denominational churches/congregations fall into that category. There are hardly any Catholic non-denominational congregations, after all. Non-denoms are almost always accepting of Bible Alone, Faith Alone, and the other Protestant basics, even if their statement of beliefs is skimpy.

That aside, are there any denominations that do not follow and dote upon a "specific" leader from the past like Calvin or Ellen G. White? Sure. The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Anglican churches, and most of the Pentecostal churches easily come to mind.

Bible Highlighter said:

Non-denominational churches do not have a set of formalized beliefs that is tied to a specific guy or church group. The beliefs in non-denominational churches varies greatly depending on a person's approach in interpreting God's Holy Word. One can be a radical Non-denominationalist, and one can be a liberal non-denomintionalist. So I would not say they fall under as a specific denominational group with a peg down set of beliefs. The idea of Non-denom is not declaring that we must have a label, and it is saying that we are not looking to some group of men in the past to build our faith, but we are looking to use the Word of God alone to do that with God's help.

Click to expand...

Exactly, " not declaring a label " is a label. They are autonomous and a 501C3.
If one wishes not to be associated with a worldly institution, merely call yourself a Christian.

2PhiloVoid said:

I hate to say this, but now I'm beginning to think I'm being misunderstood in this thread ... my concern has zero to do with evaluating the faith quality of other Christians.

Anyway, may the Lord's blessings be upon you and your family as well, Sister Bèlla! Have a great weekend!

Click to expand...

I understand you brother.

The conversation reminds me of something I read a few months ago. I'll share the images. You've probably seen them.

I don't think you're misunderstood per se, but the way we process spiritual information differs. Our makeup plays a part. Where do you fall on the spectrum?

I'm a Type 3/Devotional. While I understand the other three; that isn't my starting point. Relationship matters most. My responses reflect a deep connection with the Lord. Lots of spiritual encounters and 'practicing the presence of God' when I'm on track.

Amusingly, I'm an NT. But in spiritual matters I go to the other extreme. Maybe that isn't so strange.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

Since Paul discourages denominations, each claiming to follow a different figurehead, I conclude that denominations are no more than religious business franchises that divide the body of Christ. Those who claim not to be a denomination still form around a religious figurehead and like the others, they sell religious goods and services to the Church, which is the body of Christ.

Albion said:

Well, if the connection is as weak or loose as this example you're using now, even non-denominational churches/congregations fall into that category. There are hardly any Catholic non-denominational congregations, after all. non-denoms are almost always accepting of Bible Alone, Faith Alone, and the other Protestant basics.

Click to expand...

Again, but the non-denom church is not going to say they adhere to all aspects of a particular group leader in the past unless they are liberal and they simply like to contradict themselves. For the point of Non-denom is to not have any kind of label that identifies that we must be spoon fed that set of beliefs by some guys in the past vs. just reading the Word of God for yourself with asking God for the understanding on it.

You said:

That aside, are there any denominations that do not follow and dote upon a "specific" leader from the past like Calvin or Ellen G. White? Sure. The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Anglican churches, and most of the Pentecostal churches easily come to mind.

Click to expand...

The ROMAN Catholic church. So it started with the Roman believers, or some guy in Rome. Eastern Orthodox church. It started in the East. Anglican means “English” according tn Anglican source. The name “Anglican church” did not always exist and it was not a name mentioned in the Bible. Pentecostal churches (While they believe their beliefs come from the Bible) also point back to the Azusa street revival that was started by a specific guy. Basically if you don't see a practice clearly spelled out in the Bible, don't do it. But many do not think this way. They think their church traditons are on equal authority with God's Word. But Jesus appeared to condemn the traditions of men and He favored the authority of God's Word instead.

Many today do not study to show themselves approved unto God according to 2 Timothy 2:15. For it is written:

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15) (KJB).

2PhiloVoid said:

Yes, and I fully understand that. But I think we Christians need to work MORE on finding our common ground than on slicing and dicing each other over "who has it most right?"

Click to expand...

It is written:

“If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:” (1 John 2:10).

“If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing,...” (1 Timothy 6:3-4).

“To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isaiah 8:20).

Bible Highlighter said:

Again, but the non-denom church is not going to say they adhere to all aspects of a particular group leader in the past unless they are liberal and they simply like to contradict themselves.

Click to expand...

But you admit that these non-denoms do that, so there's nothing about non-denominationalism that precludes it.

For the point of Non-denom is to not have any kind of label that identifies that we must be spoon fed that set of beliefs by some guys in the past vs. just reading the Word of God for yourself with asking God for the understanding on it.

Click to expand...

I see. So you've given up the idea of them being led by a "specific" leader from the past like Calvin or Wesley. That's good.

The ROMAN Catholic church. So it started with the Roman believers, or some guy in Rome.

Click to expand...

Who was that? You said these churches follow a specific leader figure like Wesley, Ellen G. White, for example. So who is "the guy in Rome" that you have in mind?

Eastern

Click to expand...

Orthodox church. It started in the East.

Click to expand...

Oh please. You aren't even close to substantiating your claim with that.

Anglican means “English” according tn Anglican source. The name “Anglican church” did not always exist and it was not a name mentioned in the Bible.

Click to expand...

Well, no other Christian denomination always existed either, but the Church in Britain goes back to the time of the Apostles.

Pentecostal churches (While they believe their beliefs come from the Bible) also point back to the Azusa street revival that was started by a specific guy.

Click to expand...

Maybe. I don't think that's accurate to say since the Pentecostal revival actually has many different starting points, but some of those denominations are outgrowths of that Azusa Street movement.

Albion said:

But you admit that these non-denoms do that, so there's nothing about non-denominationalism that precludes it.


I see. So you've given up the idea of them being led by a "specific" leader from the past like Calvin or Wesley. That's good.



Who was that? You said these churches follow a specific leader figure like Wesley, Ellen G. White, for example. So who is "the guy in Rome" that you have in mind?


Oh please. You aren't even close to substantiating your claim with that.


Well, no other Christian denomination always existed either, but the Church in Britain goes back to the time of the Apostles.


Maybe. I don't think that's accurate to say since the Pentecostal revival actually has many different starting points, but some of those denominations are outgrowths of that Azusa Street movement.

Click to expand...

I can see that you are strongly against radical evangelic non-denominationalism with the Christian adhering to God's Word as their sole authority alone. You are obviously a part of a denomination strongly and so any attempt of my showing the truth on the topic will of course be rejected out of hand. So there is no point in arguing over the finer points. Your never going to get it unless you one day see that God's Word alone should be your final Word of authority alone in regards to the faith.

Anyways, may God's blessings be upon you even if we disagree strongly on matters of the faith.

Bible Highlighter said:

I can see that you are strongly against radical evangelic non-denominationalism with the Christian adhering to God's Word as their sole authority alone.

Click to expand...

Give it a rest. Your mistakes, when corrected by some other poster, were mistakes. That's all. If people on a discussion board disagree with something you've posted, it's not a sign that they are hostile towards the Bible or correct doctrine.

Maria Billingsley said:

Exactly, " not declaring a label " is a label. They are autonomous and a 501C3.
If one wishes not to be associated with a worldly institution, merely call yourself a Christian.

Click to expand...

Believers are to obey the laws of the land unless it conflicts with God's laws (See: Romans 13:1-7). Just because a church group follows the government's laws does not mean they are associated with the world and or seeking to be a part of the government itself.

1 Peter 2:17 says,
“Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.”

This does not mean we cannot be holy and separate from the world's sinful ways. This does not mean we hang out with those of the world.

Albion said:

Give it a rest. Your mistakes, when corrected by some other poster, were mistakes. That's all. If people on a discussion board disagree with something you've posted, it's not a sign that they are hostile towards the Bible or correct doctrine.

Click to expand...

I tend to take a more radical approach to God's Holy Word so we are bound to disagree (of course).
But I will not give it a rest when it comes to preaching the truth of God's Word, though. For I am commanded to “preach the Word” because that is what the Word says.

Albion said:

That's true, but many more of the denominations do NOT do that.

Consequently, this is not a valid reason for avoiding or denouncing churches other than non-denominational ones (many of which follow their own hero figure who, however, isn't as famous as the people you mentioned in your post).

Click to expand...

I'm not even sure 'many' is a good term to use. 'Some' would be better. A church I am still associated with even after 26 years is non-denominational. They were part of a world-wide network of churches but the leader had a very public fall and that put them off of being part of another network. Then they joined Ground Level which is a looser non-denominational grouping and recently they are independent again - the leaders of the church are still the same leaders of the church and the church's ethos has not changed. So I don't see an issue with their non-denominational status.

I'm currently part of another non-denominational church that has accountability both within the church and outside 'auditors' from some friendly other churches including an AoG church.

In both of these churches there is no 'hero' figure but there is a group of people dedicated to following God and plenty of checks and balances.

Bible Highlighter said:

Believers are to obey the laws of the land unless it conflicts with God's laws (See: Romans 13:1-7). Just because a church group follows the government's laws does not mean they are associated with the world and or seeking to be a part of the government itself.

1 Peter 2:17 says,
“Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.”

This does not mean we cannot be holy and separate from the world's sinful ways. This does not mean we hang out with those of the world.

Click to expand...

I think you are missing my point. Thank you for engaging! Be blessed.

Maria Billingsley said:

I think you are missing my point. Thank you for engaging! Be blessed.

Click to expand...

May God bless you, as well.

Bible Highlighter said:

Sorry. I disagree, my friend. If you don't agree with radical evangelical Non-Denomationalism that seeks to follow the narrow way, then you don't understand what I am trying to say here.

Click to expand...

That's a mouthful Adam ...

2PhiloVoid said:

Nope! That's not what I'm proposing, Monksailor.

I'm simply bringing up the technical semantic problem that the term "non-denominational" is open to being misused. It can, in essence, become a kind of "wax-nose." I'm not implying that Christians who use it are somehow not identifying themselves Christian-ly enough.

Yeah, I'm definitely not wanting to impugn the faith of any fellow Christian by wrangling about the uses of the term, "non-denominational."

Click to expand...

Then I am glad you cleared that up; you were NOT saying that they are "dancing," which for some faiths is sin, around and trying to evade specific identification or being a coward or are un-decidedly anything or even anything to do with Christianity in order to avoid any accountability. That would have been a terrible misnomer and worthy of much of my time in correcting that erroneous perception.

By the way, FYI "non-denominational" described here:
What does non-denominational mean? What do non-denominational churches believe?

This is a Christian Forum. If one identifies themself as Non-denominational it will be in that context, Christianity, unless they delineate from this understanding as that would obviously be needed. It means that, YES, they are a Christian, but they do not choose to fall under any particular specific sect or interpretation but rather as in authentic/original Christianity choose to be the Body of Christ, UNDIVIDED. Denominational-ism, in effect, was rebuked by the Apostle Paul directly (I follow Cephus, Apollos, or Paul) and prayed against by Jesus in His last recorded prayer as He looked to the cross (John 17 Unity of believers.)

There may be some who claim IGNORANTLY to be Non-denomiational not really knowing what they are saying here on a Christian site, BUT that is due to their ignorance and/or erroneous use here and NOT any fault of the honorable identification itself.

2PhiloVoid said:

Philosophically speaking? ALL of them. Presbyterian Church U.S.A., Southern Baptist, and the Christian Church/Instrumental.

Click to expand...

The Southern Baptist Convention is not compatible with the the beliefs of the PCUSA.

So, yeah, which one are you?