APPRECIATION OF NON-DENOMINATIONS

[1watchman]

To clearly approach the subject of "non-denominations", one must embrace BIBLE-ONLY,which does not allow for adding names, titles, beliefs and practices not given in the Word of God. Our God gives us a universal testimony as "unity of the faith", as He tells us (see also 1 Cor. 12:25). Man likes to have things go their way, so they go off and start something and give it a name. That is contrary to Holy Scripture and is multiplying yearly in the world. I think the saints will have to answer for that when we get to Heaven.

I see a good description of holding to the Bible at the web site: biblecounsel.net, which I find most helpful advocating a universal testimony. One can ask questions there. We need all the help we can get to stay in conformity to the mind and purposes of God. The Gospel must be made clear; Church truth must be made clear and fully in accord with our Holy Bible; and Spiritual life must be embraced, and is urged upon us to serve and please God ---would you say?

 

[ripple the car]

I am also meeting a lot of non-denom Christians who, while Sola Scriptura, are not Sola Fidé. Which I think is actually pretty cool.

 

[salt-n-light]

As a non-denom, yeah the foundation is the bible, I would argue that the bases is bible-only. Those are the records we have that have help give gravity to the nature of God. From there, everything else have branched out, my faith, the grace that God gives, how I function and display my worship, all this have to have roots.

Sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, those are not terms taken from the bible, I
m guessing those terms are to help pinpoint ones theology, so whenever another sect of Christianity like a Catholic or Orthodox brings that up and then calls Protestantism fallacy for it, I get confused.At the end of the day,people have to acknowledge that the only pure thing with Christianity is going to be the Word. Whatever religious practices, or things I did, or how I worship in deed, all that will pass like the vessel I have, but God's Word will not pass.

 

[JustRachel]

Many non-denominations are accepting of everything, even things going against the Bible. One must be very discerning.

 

[Albion]

Sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, those are not terms taken from the bible,...

True enough. But neither are Trinity, rapture, millennium, and so many others.

 

[dzheremi]

I find it strange that you can put "Non-Denominational" as your faith here...I don't really get what Non-Denominational is supposed to be, since that's an ecclesiastical position rather than a faith (maybe it'd be better put "unaffiliated"?), but I have had some good discussions and come to some agreements with some people describing themselves as such here on CF.

 

[salt-n-light]

Many non-denominations are accepting of everything, even things going against the Bible. One must be very discerning.

You can make that case with any denomination.

 

[salt-n-light]

True enough. But neither are Trinity, rapture, millennium, and so many others.

Yes but who created those terms and for what purpose? The "solas" weren't terms to refer to anything of the biblical content itself, but meant to distinguish the separating theologies between Protestants and Catholics.

Trinity, rapture, millennium, those are terms that are more directly referring to the scriptures itself.

 

[Kenny'sID]

True enough. But neither are Trinity, rapture, millennium, and so many others.

Exactly, and how sweet it is.

 

[Albion]

You can make that case with any denomination.

I recognize your point, but if someone puts "non-denominational" on his profile, it can mean that he belongs to an independent congregation that claims no denominational association OR that the person belongs to no congregation at all. I am not sure that the second one would be a correct use of the term, but that is how it is used by some members.

As for the idea that non-denominational churches are accepting of almost anything doctrinally, that is surely an exaggeration; however, there are two things that are typical of non-denoms.

First, they usually have very few stated doctrines, generally just the basics--God, the Bible, Christ, Salvation-- and frequently not much more.

Second, denominational congregations at least can be assumed by the onlooker to believe most of whatever that denomination is known for. With a non-denom, there are few clues.

 

[klutedavid]

To clearly approach the subject of "non-denominations", one must embrace BIBLE-ONLY,which does not allow for adding names, titles, beliefs and practices not given in the Word of God. Our God gives us a universal testimony as "unity of the faith", as He tells us (see also 1 Cor. 12:25). Man likes to have things go their way, so they go off and start something and give it a name. That is contrary to Holy Scripture and is multiplying yearly in the world. I think the saints will have to answer for that when we get to Heaven.

I see a good description of holding to the Bible at the web site: biblecounsel.net, which I find most helpful advocating a universal testimony. One can ask questions there. We need all the help we can get to stay in conformity to the mind and purposes of God. The Gospel must be made clear; Church truth must be made clear and fully in accord with our Holy Bible; and Spiritual life must be embraced, and is urged upon us to serve and please God ---would you say?

To start with a Bible as a basis you will need to accept at least some tradition. Without accepting church tradition over the first few centuries you will not have a New Testament to read.

The only way that we can identify the apostles letters is through these early church letters. Reject these church letters and you forfeit the New Testament.

 

[Albion]

Yes but who created those terms and for what purpose? The "solas" weren't terms to refer to anything of the biblical content itself, but meant to distinguish the separating theologies between Protestants and Catholics.

I find that a curious thing to say. Of course they relate to the Bible. To the extent that they were first used in order to differentiate reformed teaching from the Catholic belief system, that was done in order to summarize the main theological differences between the two.

That is a common practice even now when two different churches are involved in some debate. The terms used by either side are a sort of shorthand, but they are all about the different ways of interpreting Bible passages.

Trinity, rapture, millennium, those are terms that are more directly referring to the scriptures itself.

No, they aren't. The authority of Scripture, the role of Faith and its importance, and God's grace are all prominently discussed in the Bible.