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

[Tim Myers]

Several ways to put this question.......

"Is Being Non-Denominational better than being Denominational?"

"Is being Denominational better than being Non-Denominational?"

"As far as our walk with God goes, is there any difference between being Non-Denominational and being Denominational?"

"Are there any drawbacks (or benefits) from being either?"

 

[sensational]

Several ways to put this question.......

"Is Being Non-Denominational better than being Denominational?"

"Is being Denominational better than being Non-Denominational?"

"As far as our walk with God goes, is there any difference between being Non-Denominational and being Denominational?"

"Are there any drawbacks (or benefits) from being either?"

Obviously those who hold to a sacramental theology would argue those are tremendous benefits that non-denom churches lack. Those who dont would possibly see some of them (sacraments) as a drawback (eg reconciliation). The irony in my opinion is that non-denom churches are structured with a implicit if not explicit hiearachy and teach a specific theological perspective or tradition therefore are in reality very similiar to others they sometimes claim to be overly "authoritative".

In Christ,
JMS

 

[Frumious]

This topic is obviously a matter of personal views.

My concern with being defined by denomination is that many define themselves through their own interpretation of unfulfilled prophesy and decisions concerning the limitations of how God can or does work.

Many of these devined points are based on issues that are debatable, and actually have no bearing on salvation, nor on how one should live their day to day life. As such they cause division where there should be none.

 

[Brak]

Non-denominational is a denomination unto itself as far as I'm concerned. So I'm going to vote denominational is better, but it's a Russian ballot. Only one party on the ticket.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Several ways to put this question.......

"Is Being Non-Denominational better than being Denominational?"

"Is being Denominational better than being Non-Denominational?"

"As far as our walk with God goes, is there any difference between being Non-Denominational and being Denominational?"

"Are there any drawbacks (or benefits) from being either?"

IMO....


All congregations are EITHER denominational or non-denominational. Some are entirely independent, autonomous, with no formal relationship with any other congregation(s) and with no accountability beyond that in the congregation (and of course, God). Other congregations have formal relations with other congregations, they are associated as part of a institutional entity above and beyond the individual members thereof - usually under a common name, common corporate structure, common confession of faith.

IMO, it is not mandated that congregations formally associate with others. I see nothing essentially wrong or unbiblical about a congregation being non-denom. On the other hand, I tend to affirm community and cooperation- as well as accountability. And so I personally think that it is better for a congregation to be denominational.





.

 

[MrPolo]

Since the very term "denominate" means to deviate from the original identity, denominations are de facto not the original Church. And that includes those denominations that simply call themselves "non-denominational."

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Since the very term "denominate" means to deviate from the original identity, denominations are de facto not the original Church. And that includes those denominations that simply call themselves "non-denominational."

You need to consider the religious meaning, not the economic one.





.

 

[patricius79]

Several ways to put this question.......

"Is Being Non-Denominational better than being Denominational?"

"Is being Denominational better than being Non-Denominational?"

"As far as our walk with God goes, is there any difference between being Non-Denominational and being Denominational?"

"Are there any drawbacks (or benefits) from being either?"

I think these terms are used so confusingly

first of all if a Church is called "non-denominational" then it has a denomination ("non-denominational")

the issue to me is if we are in full communion with the Biblical Church (the Catholic Church)

 

[The Beautiful Heresy]

Neither, Jesus is better

 

[Byrd4God]

I wish we had "like" buttons on here....
I think the real question is not which is better but if your beliefs line up with the word of God...there are so many different denominations out there and I don't think that there is one that has all the right answers on everything...

 

[patricius79]

Obviously those who hold to a sacramental theology would argue those are tremendous benefits that non-denom churches lack. Those who dont would possibly see some of them (sacraments) as a drawback (eg reconciliation). The irony in my opinion is that non-denom churches are structured with a implicit if not explicit hiearachy and teach a specific theological perspective or tradition therefore are in reality very similiar to others they sometimes claim to be overly "authoritative".

In Christ,
JMS

I agree. that's just it. in every church (and online community) someone has the authority to excommunicate and severely discipline, right?

likewise the debate between S.S. and Tradition is very artificial since S.S. advocates routinely go beyond Scripture based on their denominational traditions

 

[Sum1sGruj]

As a non-denominational Christian, all my beliefs are simply shared by all denominations. But since I do not completely agree on any of them wholly, I am not part of one. I go to church not by denomination, but the cross that rests inside them. I believe in the sanctity of all denominations, as they are all for the love of Christ.

 

[SharonL]

From someone who has been raised as a Christian, married a different denomination, tried to find one to meet in the middle, then discovered the Spirit Filled life - I've seen a lot of rules and regulations in churches. I don't like to be called any label at this time - every non-denominational church I have been to has been closely what the Bible teaches us to be without all the man made rules and regulations.

I like the non-denominational.

 

[ldsfaqs]

Several ways to put this question.......

"Is Being Non-Denominational better than being Denominational?"

"Is being Denominational better than being Non-Denominational?"

"As far as our walk with God goes, is there any difference between being Non-Denominational and being Denominational?"

"Are there any drawbacks (or benefits) from being either?"

I would say it's important to be active with multiple religions, and objectively compare what they say, what the scriptures say, how they compare to each other, and find the True Church, with True Servants of God if it exists on the earth.

You will discover a lot by objectively seeking the truth, allowing God to show you his actual truths, rather than simply leaning on the understandings of a particular faith, unless you get lucky and come upon the True Church of Christ on the earth.

Me, I did this, saw that the various religions weren't following what the Bible actually said, and then found it.

 

[sdmsanjose]

I attend a non-denominational church. For me it has at least one advantage. When I say I am a non-denominational attendee then I will not be judged as a Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, etc.

Some people have pre-conceived ideas about certain denominational churches. I am not too interested on the minor differences in main line Christianity. If you believe that Jesus Christ is divine, the Son of God, lived a sinless life, died willingly on the cross for the remission on sins, and God raise Him on the third day then that is very important to me. In addition if you strive to Love your God with all your heart, mind, and soul and love your neighbor as your self then I do not care if you baptize with full immersion or sprinkle water. Nor do I care if you speak in tongues or not.

You are a brother or a sister if you believe that Jesus is who He says He is and strive to live according to Luke 10:27

Luke 10:27
And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

I think it is very easy to get derailed about the most important issue of Christianity with other minor differences that wind up separating Christians.

Have you ever seen Christians separate over trivial issues?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I would say it's important to be active with multiple religions, and objectively compare what they say, what the scriptures say, how they compare to each other, and find the True Church, with True Servants of God if it exists on the earth.

You will discover a lot by objectively seeking the truth, allowing God to show you his actual truths, rather than simply leaning on the understandings of a particular faith, unless you get lucky and come upon the True Church of Christ on the earth.

Me, I did this, saw that the various religions weren't following what the Bible actually said, and then found it.

Do you now believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the true and only Church of God on the face of the earth and that all other churches and denominations are part and parcel of the Great Apostasy?

 

[ldsfaqs]

Do you now believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the true and only Church of God on the face of the earth and that all other churches and denominations are part and parcel of the Great Apostasy?

It's reasonable to assume that if the True and Living Church of God on the earth has been found, then all others would have some degree of apostasy to them, and also not be lead by the living oracles of God.

Either the Church is supposed to be One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism, in full unity as the Bible teaches, or it is not. If it be not, being something else, then by very definition it cannot be Gods, and it mixes the doctrines of men with the doctrines of God, just as the Bible also teaches. This is not to say there is not God therein, according to the faith of the individuals, and the accuracy of said doctrines and practices. And it is not to say that such individuals are not among Gods children as believers in Christ and righteousness. But, there can be only One Church authorized of God. Even Judaism was in apostasy when Christ came to the earth, and he called the Jews unto them, and chastised them for their "traditions" and having lost the doctrines of God, and there were all kinds of "sects" among them. Yet he still worshiped with them, like we Mormons happily will worship with you, and will only be critical of your traditions, having lost the faith once delivered. But like Jesus, we teach and ask you to come unto the fullness of the Gospel, and His Church, we do not belittle you. There may have been, and may be harsh words at times, but such is not our efforts. We focus on the Gospel, not on your errors, just as Christ and the Apostles did. And also just as the Apostles and Christ, we do not condemn other faiths, instead only teach the Gospel, asking them to come unto Him and the Fullness of His Love.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It's reasonable to assume that if the True and Living Church of God on the earth has been found, then all others would have some degree of apostasy to them, and also not be lead by the living oracles of God.

Either the Church is supposed to be One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism, in full unity as the Bible teaches, or it is not. If it be not, being something else, then by very definition it cannot be Gods, and it mixes the doctrines of men with the doctrines of God, just as the Bible also teaches. This is not to say there is not God therein, according to the faith of the individuals, and the accuracy of said doctrines and practices. And it is not to say that such individuals are not among Gods children as believers in Christ and righteousness. But, there can be only One Church authorized of God. Even Judaism was in apostasy when Christ came to the earth, and he called the Jews unto them, and chastised them for their "traditions" and having lost the doctrines of God, and there were all kinds of "sects" among them. Yet he still worshiped with them, like we Mormons happily will worship with you, and will only be critical of your traditions, having lost the faith once delivered. But like Jesus, we teach and ask you to come unto the fullness of the Gospel, and His Church, we do not belittle you. There may have been, and may be harsh words at times, but such is not our efforts. We focus on the Gospel, not on your errors, just as Christ and the Apostles did. And also just as the Apostles and Christ, we do not condemn other faiths, instead only teach the Gospel, asking them to come unto Him and the Fullness of His Love.

With a few minor modifications this could have been posted by a Roman Catholic.

Thank you.

 

[ldsfaqs]

With a few minor modifications this could have been posted by a Roman Catholic.

Thank you.

Indeed. And I take that as a compliment. They are after all the original established Church, thus most of their practices, theology, etc. is still the original. We are very much the same in most respects.

What is interesting to me is that we are closer to being the same than those whom they consider children, i.e. little catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, etc. Much of our theology is the same, especially when you get into the historical scholarship, much of our practices and Priesthoods are the same, and on and on.

But, I understand their perspective. Given their position, that is really the only position they can take.

It's also interesting to me that Mormonism wasn't established by any Catholics either. Most of the major people were a part of other religions of some Protestant variety. How could a faith be so Catholic yet none of it's founders were ever Catholic? Cause it's true!

 

[bbbbbbb]

Indeed. And I take that as a compliment. They are after all the original established Church, thus most of their practices, theology, etc. is still the original. We are very much the same in most respects.

What is interesting to me is that we are closer to being the same than those whom they consider children, i.e. little catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, etc. Much of our theology is the same, especially when you get into the historical scholarship, much of our practices and Priesthoods are the same, and on and on.

But, I understand their perspective. Given their position, that is really the only position they can take.

It's also interesting to me that Mormonism wasn't established by any Catholics either. Most of the major people were a part of other religions of some Protestant variety. How could a faith be so Catholic yet none of it's founders were ever Catholic? Cause it's true!

I have noted the similarities between the two from time to time on the unorthodox Theology board on Mormon threads, but you are the first to agree with me. Most Mormon posters seem horrified that the LDS might be compared positively with the Catholic Church. After all, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had some very cutting remarks directed toward that church as being part and parcel of the Great Apostasy.

BTW, don't ever tell an Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox Christian that you believe that the Catholic Church is the original established church.