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

[Albion]

This also varies by country. A denomination may have the same name but not actually be the same church at all.

This is true, but on the other hand, the reason that people say Baptist or Anglican or Catholic or Presbyterian is mainly because they hold membership in that denomination. It is their church.

It's not intended to be an answer that explains every religious belief and practice that the person agrees with.

 

[Albion]

I wouldn’t say that I don’t know anything about the EOC. I know a bit, how much I would say is subjective depending on whom your speaking to.

I'm going to guess that you are sufficiently acquainted with Eastern Orthodoxy to recognize that when someone says "you are not Orthodox unless you have been baptized by a monk or Metropolitan," he or she is showing a lack of knowledge about the EOC.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I'm going to guess that you are sufficiently acquainted with Eastern Orthodoxy to recognize that when someone says "you are not Orthodox unless you have been baptized by a monk or Metropolitan," he or she is showing a lack of knowledge about the EOC.

Lol actually no I’m not. I do know that the church does believe that a person can be saved outside of the church and theologies can also be Orthodox outside of the church. So if a person holds to these Orthodox theologies even tho he may not consider himself to be an Orthodox he can at least say that his theology is Orthodox at least to some degree. I’ve never even attended an Orthodox Church although I have wanted to. Just haven’t had the gumption to go to the one in my area yet.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

You're right nondenominational is a little weird. If you're going to label yourself a Protestant generally you're either an Arminian or Reformed/Calvinist.

That should be your label. Not Christian, not nondenominational, not Baptist...etc. Because Baptists can be two sides of the coin. Lutherans can be either. It just gets so confusing among us Protestants. Either you're Arminian or you're Reformed. There is no inbetween really.

Baptists cannot be Reformed, even if they call themselves such. Accepting the five points of the Synod of Dordt doesn’t make you Reformed. There’s more to Reformed theology than that...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You're right nondenominational is a little weird. If you're going to label yourself a Protestant generally you're either an Arminian or Reformed/Calvinist.

That should be your label. Not Christian, not nondenominational, not Baptist...etc. Because Baptists can be two sides of the coin. Lutherans can be either. It just gets so confusing among us Protestants. Either you're Arminian or you're Reformed. There is no inbetween really.

And when one carries the label Christian it gets highly confusing. What kind of Christian? Eastern Orthodox Catholic Protestant, what?

If a person is either an Arminian or a Reformed/Calvinist, why can't both be identified as "Christian?"

 

[coffee4u]

This is true, but on the other hand, the reason that people say Baptist or Anglican or Catholic or Presbyterian is mainly because they hold membership in that denomination. It is their church.

It's not intended to be an answer that explains every religious belief and practice that the person agrees with.

Yes I get that, but I think denominational labels are more misleading than helpful. Even your own label of Anglican could have multiple meanings. Off the bat I know there is high and low Anglican and maybe other variants? If I say that I am Baptist (it is one denomination that I attend) you will assume it means the Baptist that you know from your own country. It could be completely misleading.

 

[Fidelibus]

I think the question should be.....are Non-Denominational churches Biblical? As far as I can tell, most non-denominational can only trace their roots to the second half of the 19th century. And even then a lot of these non-denominational have come and gone with more and more sprouting up every day. This don't sound very biblical to me.

Remember, Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return, it means that the Church will, until the end of time, remain essentially what she is.

What church can make this claim? What Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing? What Church can trace it's line of Apostolic succession in unbroken succession, to Peter himself? The Lutheran Church? Nope! The Church of England? Nope! The Mennonite church? Nope! The Presbyterian church? Nope! The Congregational church? Nope! The Methodist church? Nope! The Mormon ("Latter Day Saints") church? Nope! The Seventh Day Adventist church? Nope! I could go on and on and on.

So what Church is it that Jesus promised that the "gates of hell will not prevail against it?" What Church is it that Jesus promised will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. What Church is it that Jesus promised will survive until his return, and will remain until the end of time, remain essentially what she is? What Church is it that Scripture says is " the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." The churches I listed above? I think not! I am pretty sure you all know what church Jesus and I am talking about.

Have a Blessed day!

 

[BNR32FAN]

I think the question should be.....are Non-Denominational churches Biblical? As far as I can tell, most non-denominational can only trace their roots to the second half of the 19th century. And even then a lot of these non-denominational have come and gone with more and more sprouting up every day. This don't sound very biblical to me.

Remember, Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return, it means that the Church will, until the end of time, remain essentially what she is.

What church can make this claim? What Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing? What Church can trace it's line of Apostolic succession in unbroken succession, to Peter himself? The Lutheran Church? Nope! The Church of England? Nope! The Mennonite church? Nope! The Presbyterian church? Nope! The Congregational church? Nope! The Methodist church? Nope! The Mormon ("Latter Day Saints") church? Nope! The Seventh Day Adventist church? Nope! I could go on and on and on.

So what Church is it that Jesus promised that the "gates of hell will not prevail against it?" What Church is it that Jesus promised will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. What Church is it that Jesus promised will survive until his return, and will remain until the end of time, remain essentially what she is? What Church is it that Scripture says is " the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." The churches I listed above? I think not! I am pretty sure you all know what church Jesus and I am talking about.

Have a Blessed day!

Only the Eastern Orthodox Church accurately fits this description.

 

[WolfGate]

I think the question should be.....are Non-Denominational churches Biblical? As far as I can tell, most non-denominational can only trace their roots to the second half of the 19th century. And even then a lot of these non-denominational have come and gone with more and more sprouting up every day. This don't sound very biblical to me.

So being a biblical church now includes being able to trace your lineage back a couple of thousand years. That sounds like it is adding to the gospel to me. Don't agree.

 

[coffee4u]

Remember, Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return, it means that the Church will, until the end of time, remain essentially what she is.

What church can make this claim?

Those whose faith is in Christ is the church.
Romans 10:9

9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

They will comes from every church, from every denomination, from small cell groups, from places far away from established churches, they will even be thieves nailed to a cross.

 

[Fidelibus]

Only the Eastern Orthodox Church accurately fits this description.

Can you demonstrate this through apostolic succession?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think the question should be.....are Non-Denominational churches Biblical? As far as I can tell, most non-denominational can only trace their roots to the second half of the 19th century. And even then a lot of these non-denominational have come and gone with more and more sprouting up every day. This don't sound very biblical to me.

Remember, Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return, it means that the Church will, until the end of time, remain essentially what she is.

What church can make this claim? What Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing? What Church can trace it's line of Apostolic succession in unbroken succession, to Peter himself? The Lutheran Church? Nope! The Church of England? Nope! The Mennonite church? Nope! The Presbyterian church? Nope! The Congregational church? Nope! The Methodist church? Nope! The Mormon ("Latter Day Saints") church? Nope! The Seventh Day Adventist church? Nope! I could go on and on and on.

So what Church is it that Jesus promised that the "gates of hell will not prevail against it?" What Church is it that Jesus promised will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. What Church is it that Jesus promised will survive until his return, and will remain until the end of time, remain essentially what she is? What Church is it that Scripture says is " the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." The churches I listed above? I think not! I am pretty sure you all know what church Jesus and I am talking about.

Have a Blessed day!

Ok. So, with all that you've said here, Brother Fidelibus, it sounds like your evaluation of the meaning of "non-denominational" concludes that it denotes the presence of a heretical position whenever it is used by a Christian person.

Am I understanding you correctly on this?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Can you demonstrate this through apostolic succession?

Lol is that really necessary? I think we’ve all read about the church in Antioch in Acts. None of the apostolic churches refute the apostolic succession of the Eastern Orthodox Church. To my knowledge they all confirm it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Can you demonstrate this through apostolic succession?

Just out of curiosity what church were you referring to?

 

[Albion]

Yes I get that, but I think denominational labels are more misleading than helpful.

That could be, but that doesn't negate the point I was explaining.

Even your own label of Anglican could have multiple meanings. I know there is high and low Anglican and maybe other variants? If I say that I am Baptist (it is one denomination that I attend) you will assume it means the Baptist that you know from your own country. It could be completely misleading.

Well, it cannot be "completely" misleading, since it definitely indicates which denomination the person in question is affiliated with...and as I explained in my previous post, that is usually what anyone who is interested enough to ask is looking for.

It's rarely the case that when someone is asked about his religion or church, the purpose is to find out what he thinks about the Trinity or the Lord's Supper or how old a candidate must be before becoming eligible for baptism.

 

[coffee4u]

That could be, but that doesn't negate the point I was explaining.



Well, it cannot be "completely" misleading, since it definitely indicates which denomination the person in question is affiliated with...and as I explained in my previous post, that is usually what anyone who is interested enough to ask is looking for.

It's rarely the case that when someone is asked about his religion or church, the purpose is to find out what he thinks about the Trinity or the Lord's Supper or how old a candidate must be before becoming eligible for baptism.

I still think 'Christian' is the best label.

 

[Albion]

I still think 'Christian' is the best label.

In a theological sense, yes. But as we can see in the personal profiles of members here on CF, when that answer is selected, it tells everyone else that the person is part of the the religion that most Americans (to use one example) belong to. And that's all. That doesn't do much of anything to narrow down the range of possible beliefs that the person believes in or spiritual practices he engages in. Just to name any one of the denominations instantly conveys much more information. No, that doesn't mean that there isn't still some range, but it's much more meaningful than getting the reply, "Christian."

 

[PaulCyp1]

There is no such thing. "Non-denominational" means that a new church does not affiliate itself with any pre-existing denomination. That doesn't make it "non-denominational". It makes it a new denomination.

 

[coffee4u]

In a theological sense, yes. But as we can see in the personal profiles of members here on CF, when that answer is selected, it tells everyone else that the person is part of the the religion that most Americans (to use one example) belong to. And that's all. That doesn't do much of anything to narrow down the range of possible beliefs that the person believes in or spiritual practices he engages in. Just to name any one of the denominations instantly conveys much more information. No, that doesn't mean that there isn't still some range, but it's much more meaningful than getting the reply, "Christian."

If the same 'church' had identical doctrine across the world I would agree, but if I gave you a label you would automatically think of the one that you are familiar with. The world is not America.

There is no such thing. "Non-denominational" means that a new church does not affiliate itself with any pre-existing denomination. That doesn't make it "non-denominational". It makes it a new denomination.

This is about individual people not organizations. When someone says they are non-denominational I take it to mean they do not hold membership to any recognized church.

Just adding, I don't assume anything about their doctrine, I let their posts tell me that.

 

[Albion]

If the same 'church' had identical doctrine across the world I would agree, but if I gave you a label you would automatically think of the one that you are familiar with.

What you are opposed to is what we get when people answer "Christianity." To state a denominational name instead of that does not worsen the situation. It's just the opposite.

Why that isn't instantly understood is surprising, frankly. Yes, it's true that when someone says "Baptist" it doesn't automatically explain away the differences among Baptists, but it surely does a much better job of differentiating that individual's religious orientation than saying "Christian" would do.