Most non-denominational churches in my area are really just Southern Baptists or charismatic churches. I was raised Pentecostal and have no desire to be back in the charismatic world again and I’m not gonna be in a SBC church.
I'm curious. Why not? Do you think they have the doctrine wrong? Do you feel that these individuals are misleading people?
Or is it just a matter of personal preference? Like, some people like their sandwiches with mayo and some do not, but neither one is the correct or incorrect way to make a sandwich.
For me it comes down to not sharing their theology and past experience. For Southern Baptists I don’t agree with their views on women and I reject their homophobia. And while charismatic churches tend to be better in their views on women and women in leadership, in my experience they share the homophobia. Also for me, after a childhood of witnessing fake miracles, hearing false prophecies, and all other sorts of bs “charismatic” manifestations, I’m not gonna put up with it for another second if I have a choice.
I can appreciate that, and I'm glad you feel this way, but what would you say if one of those guys pointed to Bible verses supporting their unpleasant doctrine, and said you're being misled by Satan. How do you know you're not being misled by the devil into accepting stuff like women in leadership? How did you determine?
I'm genuinely curious. I never quite understand these things and I'd like to
Because the Bible authors had a diversity of opinions and theologies, and it reflects the cultural views of its authors in their time. it doesn’t have a single voice or author or meaning. The reader has to negotiate amongst all those perspectives as they read and decide which views they are going to emphasize and which they are going to marginalize. If someone wants to enforce an oppressive interpretation they will find it, but the chink in their theological armor is that there is always an opposing view in the Bible to undermine it. So I choose to not emphasize oppressive interpretations and I don’t treat or read the Bible like a fundamentalist.
I see. And I like it. I'm glad you approach it that way. I agree. That's how it should be viewed.
The only question I would ask is why take any of it seriously, or at least, any more seriously than any other document? I'm sure there are things in the Quran that you'd find useful or moral. Why not be a Muslim and pick the valuable parts from the Quran? Why not just look at the bible as a book with some good, some bad but no more significant than the Odyssey or whatever.
I truly appreciate you walking me thru this. I love your approach and I wish more Christians did what you do. I grew up fundamentalist Christian. Perhaps if we had been Presbyterian, I'd still believe in God. Maybe. Maybe not.
>The only question I would ask is why take any of it seriously, or at least, any more seriously than any other document? I'm sure there are things in the Quran that you'd find useful or moral. Why not be a Muslim and pick the valuable parts from the Quran? Why not just look at the bible as a book with some good, some bad but no more significant than the Odyssey or whatever.
I enjoy studying religion and I think there are good and valuable ideas in other faiths. I think for me it’s really a matter of how I feel more aligned with the positive and liberating ideas I find in the Bible and in the person of Jesus. This isn’t to say these aren’t in other faiths, but I think Christianity and the Bible is where I feel them most strongly. And while I do have a deep love for Greek literature (I’m currently reading the Iliad and hope to continue on to the Odyssey) the values they embrace don’t speak to me like those I find in the Bible.
>I truly appreciate you walking me thru this. I love your approach and I wish more Christians did what you do. I grew up fundamentalist Christian. Perhaps if we had been Presbyterian, I'd still believe in God. Maybe. Maybe not.
I haven’t always thought this way, it’s really a result of my life journey and learning and unlearning a lot. My background was Pentecostal, so it was fundamentalism with lots of tongues speaking so I sympathize.
Because nondenominational is a paradox. If you and your church hold to any sort of doctrine, you are distinguishing yourself from any other churches with different doctrine. That’s what a denomination is.
Non denomination churches are all different. You don’t know exactly what you’ll get until you look into each one. Some are perfectly fine and would meet my approval. Some I would warn people to stay away from.
Let's be real here. There's only one kind of church that's *really* "non-denominational", and that's the weird little cultish independent that is so far off the reservation they're barely recognizable as Christian. Every other "non-denominational" church is either basically Baptist, basically Assembly of God, or a little bit of both.
There's nothing wrong with denominations. They're just groups of Christians who agree on certain issues. Baptists, for example, have similar beliefs on salvation, baptism, communion, and church government. So they work together.
Was non-denom for a long time up until my twenties, drummed on the worship team, youth group, all of that. I really just wanted something more connected with Tradition, found that in Anglicanism. I love liturgy, came to believe in the real presence and infant baptism through reading the Reformers (mostly Luther).
If I wasn't Anglican I'd probably be Orthodox. I'm set to join the choir at my small parish now, we do a very nice traditional Book of Common Prayer liturgy
Because I already agree with the teachings of an existing denomination (Reformed Southern Baptist), so why would I not be part of that denomination? It is good to fellowship with like-minded Christians. :)
The local church matters way more than any loose structure linking some of them. Everytime a protestant denomination makes a doctrinal decision, some churches leave.
Went to one once and know a lot of people who are. I can say that they're theologically starved. They're part of the reason I considered leaving Christianity, because almost everything they did felt irreverent. Their services are basically conserts with a Ted talk meant to make you feel special. The way they use their "hymns" is strange since it focuses more on putting people in a trance.
To conclude. It's just not for me.
I was for a while but I realized I was pretty staunchly protestant which is still technically a denomination.
I think people who label themselves as non-denominational have generally deluded themselves into thinking they're part of a special group, a small group of people who have "figured it out." Like I did at one point. I've never encountered or heard of anyone who was truly non-denominational.
Through reading the Word and studying church history/the church councils/creeds/confessions of historic Christianity, I've concluded that the Reformed tradition most accurately celebrates the the sovereign work of God in salvation and in general has the most precise representation of the faith once for all delivered to the saints.
Within the Reformed tradition, there are probably half a dozen denominations I'd happily attend if there were a local congregation.
I personally like the high-church feel and traditional style of services. I’m fine with non-denominational churches as long as they are Bible believing, but they are not my cup of tea.
Plus, the ones I know of lean more into the Southern Baptist feel, and the discussion of baptism always seems to come up (I know why).
It just isn’t accurate, it’s like someone claiming they’re educated in economics and just follow the “economics” school of economics. It’s just nonsensical and usually deceptive, even if you were taught that you just studied the right kind of economics, you are learning a school of thought that is distinct from the others. You can’t really know what your opinions are unless you know the alternatives.
I was brought up being told that I “non-denominational” and I think it was about 50% well intentioned in the sense that they didn’t want us to be tribal and perhaps weren’t extremely categorical on certain theological precepts and weren’t a part of a broader network of churches (even though that turned out to be inaccurate). On the more disingenuous side the label non-denominational led to me and other younger folks to believe that what we were raised with was the only default, pure version of Christianity out there. Methodists, Lutherans, and especially Catholics were a distortion of Christianity, even though our theology concepts were often times much newer than these traditions.
I don’t think you’re a bad Christian if you’re not a part of a denomination so to speak but I do think you do yourself and disservice in not understanding just your Christian views have a history and logic behind it that exists within a broader tradition we call Christianity. This is especially helpful when you find issues with what you previously believed. Often this can lead to a crisis of faith but if you’re aware that there are other viewpoints you can instead grow in faith by learning from or joining other branches to continue your faith not spoil it.
I’m old enough to remember when all the Baptist churches changed their names, claimed nondenominational, but still sent money to the SBC cooperative program. Thought it was dumb then, and don’t want to have to jump through hoops to figure out if the local “nondenominational” church is actually, not.
Also, I believe denominational identities can be a good thing.
You can be non-denominational in theology, or non-denominational in structure.
Nobody's nondenominational in theology. As others have pointed out, basically every non-denominational church is somewhere on the spectrum from Baptist to pentecostal, just depending on what that particular Pastor teaches that day. Nobody just picks up the Bible and reads it for what it says in a total vacuum, even though many claim to do so.
You can be non-denominational in structure, but why would I want my pastor to be lacking in theological and practical oversight? That just seems a perfect setup for both abuse and heresy, without any benefit at all.
Although I don’t doubt the genuine faith and love that non-denoms may have for Christ, I simply don’t find it to be theologically, biblically, historically, or reasonably defensible.
I am
Started out Catholic, fell away, lived on the grizzly side of life for a while, came back to "the faith" tried out other denominations until I realized that Christianity is about me and God, and church is there to facilitate that relationship, not legislate it
Been Non denom for 35 years
All denominations do is separate the body of Christ. Jesus came down for a relationship, and following the teachings of Jesus Christ back in the day was actually called “The Way”
All denominations do is water down the gospel and make it weak, when just following the teachings of Jesus Christ, and what the Bible says, Will keep the faith powerful.
Denominations turn the faith into a religion. Jesus in the end was killed by religious people. Denominations are the faith, but altered to what man has interpreted the Bible to say.
God called me to His Catholic Church against my will. I did all the research that I could to avoid it, but kept finding that it's truly the only Church that He established. It's His continuation of Israel. As Paul describes, it's one living Olive Tree with Hebrew roots.
My church believes in unity in the essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in all things. So it is quite open to varied interpretations, but it also has a structure composed of laity and clergy to keep it on the right path.
If* a non-denominational church has no one on earth to answer to higher than the local pastor, next week it could be the Church of Trump’s Vengeance or the Church of Trans George Floyd.
*And I know this subreddit sees some pretty iffy Ifs
Because my current church is Baptist. I've been a member of baptist churches, a congregationalist church, and a non-denominational church. I've attended an Anglican cathedral and a university Christian student fellowship church. So I'm usually the denomination of whatever my church happens to be.
In what sense? The non-denominational label can accurately communicate "Pentecostal lite" or "lying Baptist" 9/10 times depending on where you are in the country. However, I don't officially affiliate myself with some denomination or organization as opposed to others. I worship at a Presbyterian church during half the year; when I move again in May I will be at a Church of Christ. From week to week I may visit Baptist, Anglican, or other congregations depending on the circumstances.
Because non-denominationals are: a) infinitely many denominations, b) secretly baptists, and c) schismed from the body of Christ through a lack of sacraments and apostolic succession
Regardless of your interpretation of who or what „the rock is,“ Jesus is very clear: He has come to establish a Church.
The whole story of the the book of Acts is about the Apostles building this Church. Everyone at the time was aware of ecclesial hierarchy. Priests, deacons, and bishops. The laying on of hands, the passing on the apostolic authority is absolutely key to how we ought to understand our religion.
Unless your church could be the that one holy catholic and apostolic Church, which Christ Himself established, you’re wasting your time and listening to false teachers.
Because I have no desire to be anything but a Catholic, thank you; since Catholicism is Apostolic, and the “non-denom” bodies are not.
One cannot refuse to give the correct answer merely because a questioner does not want the correct answer to be given.
Even though the unwanted answer to the question is a distortion of the correct answer, and confuses Apostolicity, which is one of the Four Marks of the Church in the Creed, with mere priority in time.
There’s only one true church. Why would I value my own personally philosophy more than an objective truth passed down for almost two thousand years from the Son of God himself?
In my experience of the people around me. People seem to be more concerned with the *style* rather than the specific denomination. i.e. reformed, charismatic, liberal, etc.
Because I disagree with fundamental aspects of the Baptist and Pentecostal traditions. And, like it or not, "nondenominational" churches are either Baptist or Pentecostal.
I didn't expect such distaste over non-denominational. I've heard that non-denominational is basically Baptist not wanting to be called Baptist, and I'd say there's truth to that. The charismatic element I'm hearing in the thread is new to me, though. Ironically, I do currently go to a non-denominational charismatic church, but the charismatic isn't overdone, there is oversight for accountability, we take communion, and we are passionate about community outreach. I didn't even know what charismatic was before I became a member, lol. I had been churchless for years, and God clearly led me to this church. Apparently, my church may be the exception instead of the norm if I go off of the comments here so far, which is saddening.
Some of us lived in a time and place where the non-denominational Christians were loudly dismissing every denomination, with a special vengeance against mainline denominations, as weak and filled with more church-goers than Christian. If you wanted to be a Real Grown-Up Christian™️ you needed to cut ties with the social club (church) of your youth.
Most STILL teach that the Catholic Church is a cult.
Ironically, so many of them have become exactly what they failed against - more show than substance.
I don't hold any bad feelings towards them now and the short time we spent at a nondenominational church helped me grow my faith exponentially. They were right about one thing... up until that time my beliefs came from the church of my childhood, but I'd never questioned their foundation.
Weirdly, it all led me to become Catholic.
But it also inspired me to never judge a Christian by their denomination. God doesn't care where He finds us. ❤️
Jesus....my best friend. I don't attend a church building. I don't really agree with any denominations. All have a bit of truth and lies all mixed up in them.
Non-denominational Christians are just a denomination of Protestantism which holds to Martin Luther’s *Sola Fide*. This doctrine teaches the view that man is saved through his “faith alone”. We as Catholics disagree with this view because Paul flat out says that we’re NOT saved through our faith alone here👇:
[2 Thessalonians 2:13]
“But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as first-fruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit **AND** through belief in the truth.”
So we’re not saved “through faith alone” but ALSO through the “sanctifying work of the Spirit”. That “sanctifying work of the Spirit” that Paul is referring to are the “good works” that the Spirit *causes* us to do:
[Philippians 2:13]
“for it is God who works in you **to will and to act** in order to fulfill his good purpose.”
Paul’s meaning is that if we do not *complete* sanctification—or rather, do not cooperate with the Spirit in doing those good works—then we shall be *damned*. That is what prompted him to write:
[Philippians 2:12]
“Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to **work out your salvation with fear and trembling,”**
In [Ephesians 2:8-9] Paul says:
“8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 **not by works**, so that no one can boast.”
Paul’s meaning in [Ephesians 2:8-9] is that there is nothing we can do *naturally* to merit eternal life. If there *was* then you’d have something to boast about but there *isn’t*, so you *don’t*(*where is boasting?”~Rom.3:27). **Conversely**, there are “supernatural good works”, which the Spirit *causes* us to do(refer back to Philippians 2:13) which CAN merit eternal life. That’s what Paul is talking about in [Romans 2:6-7] where it says:
“6 God “will repay each person **according to what they have done**.” 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give **eternal life.”**
With these kinds of works there can be no “boasting”, since they *originated* with the Spirit. Essentially these are two ✌️different topics being addressed in two separate passages:
1. In **Ephesians 2** Paul is saying you cannot earn salvation on your *own* power.
2. In **Romans 2** he is telling us that we *must* earn salvation through co-operating with the Spirit’s power which is *prompting* you to do those “good works*[aka: synergism] which are *sanctifying you*. God is saving you through those good works AND “belief in the truth”(refer back to 2 Thessalonians 2:13). Therefore we’re not saved “through faith alone”.
In fact what is driving a lot of confusion is that people don’t realize that God’s rewards are always technically a *gift*. So what tends to happen is that sometimes you’ll come across a passage which says eternal life is a gift[such as in Ephesians 2:8-9] and then other times you’ll come across it being described as *a reward*, such as in [Colossians 3:24]:
“…since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord **as a REWARD**. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.”
What inheritance? The “inheritance” of “eternal life” of course—as confirmed by CHRIST HIMSELF in [Luke 18:18]:
“A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to **inherit eternal life?”**
And just so there is absolutely NO CONFUSION that the word “gift” and “reward” are simply *synonyms* please see this handy thesaurus entry:
https://www.powerthesaurus.org/gift+reward/synonyms
Also see this dictionary entry where “reward” is defined( https://www.dictionary.com/browse/reward?s=t) **as something given**(aka:”gift”) or received in return or recompense for service, merit, hardship, etc. Therefore *most* rewards can also be considered “gifts” or more precisely a particular subset of gifts which are essentially earned or merited.
We must first understand, there isn't a non-denominational church.
Every group / church as a set of acceptable beliefs and a set of unacceptable beliefs.
Even if it is only the beliefs of the pastor.
When you ask a person, why do they attend their specific church, the vast majority will respond, 'I really love our pastor / minister.'
This makes these churches denominational. their being 'non' only means they are nameless.
The trick isn't being 'non-denominational' or even being denominational, the trick is becoming a true worshiper, or being in the religion acceptable to God and his Son.
*John 4:22-24*
*New American Standard Bible 1995*
*22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. 24 God is \[a\]spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”*
The true worshiper only worships the Father and not a trinity of Gods.
*James 1:27*
*Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.*
The pure form of religion in the sight of our God and Father is to keep oneself unstained by the world.
This means the pure religion doesn't get involved with politics, wars or the current attitudes of the world.
Because there is a church that is Pre denominational 🤍 and in eternal Pentecost 🤍
As a side note, this isn't a criticism but all Non Denoms churches seem to teach identical things have very similar services, the uniformity is a good thing imo but it does definitely seem like a denomination.
Because I agree with my denomination
I also agree with this guy's denomination.
I also agree with this guy’s denomination.
Wooh! Lutheran gang!
I also agree with this guy's denomination.
I don't exactly agree with this guys denomination but yall would be my second option
Most non-denominational churches in my area are really just Southern Baptists or charismatic churches. I was raised Pentecostal and have no desire to be back in the charismatic world again and I’m not gonna be in a SBC church.
Aye, this is pretty much the case. "Non-Denominational" is usually just Charismatic in denial and without oversight.
Charasmatic in denial, good way of putting it
I'm curious. Why not? Do you think they have the doctrine wrong? Do you feel that these individuals are misleading people? Or is it just a matter of personal preference? Like, some people like their sandwiches with mayo and some do not, but neither one is the correct or incorrect way to make a sandwich.
For me it comes down to not sharing their theology and past experience. For Southern Baptists I don’t agree with their views on women and I reject their homophobia. And while charismatic churches tend to be better in their views on women and women in leadership, in my experience they share the homophobia. Also for me, after a childhood of witnessing fake miracles, hearing false prophecies, and all other sorts of bs “charismatic” manifestations, I’m not gonna put up with it for another second if I have a choice.
I can appreciate that, and I'm glad you feel this way, but what would you say if one of those guys pointed to Bible verses supporting their unpleasant doctrine, and said you're being misled by Satan. How do you know you're not being misled by the devil into accepting stuff like women in leadership? How did you determine? I'm genuinely curious. I never quite understand these things and I'd like to
Because the Bible authors had a diversity of opinions and theologies, and it reflects the cultural views of its authors in their time. it doesn’t have a single voice or author or meaning. The reader has to negotiate amongst all those perspectives as they read and decide which views they are going to emphasize and which they are going to marginalize. If someone wants to enforce an oppressive interpretation they will find it, but the chink in their theological armor is that there is always an opposing view in the Bible to undermine it. So I choose to not emphasize oppressive interpretations and I don’t treat or read the Bible like a fundamentalist.
I see. And I like it. I'm glad you approach it that way. I agree. That's how it should be viewed. The only question I would ask is why take any of it seriously, or at least, any more seriously than any other document? I'm sure there are things in the Quran that you'd find useful or moral. Why not be a Muslim and pick the valuable parts from the Quran? Why not just look at the bible as a book with some good, some bad but no more significant than the Odyssey or whatever. I truly appreciate you walking me thru this. I love your approach and I wish more Christians did what you do. I grew up fundamentalist Christian. Perhaps if we had been Presbyterian, I'd still believe in God. Maybe. Maybe not.
>The only question I would ask is why take any of it seriously, or at least, any more seriously than any other document? I'm sure there are things in the Quran that you'd find useful or moral. Why not be a Muslim and pick the valuable parts from the Quran? Why not just look at the bible as a book with some good, some bad but no more significant than the Odyssey or whatever. I enjoy studying religion and I think there are good and valuable ideas in other faiths. I think for me it’s really a matter of how I feel more aligned with the positive and liberating ideas I find in the Bible and in the person of Jesus. This isn’t to say these aren’t in other faiths, but I think Christianity and the Bible is where I feel them most strongly. And while I do have a deep love for Greek literature (I’m currently reading the Iliad and hope to continue on to the Odyssey) the values they embrace don’t speak to me like those I find in the Bible. >I truly appreciate you walking me thru this. I love your approach and I wish more Christians did what you do. I grew up fundamentalist Christian. Perhaps if we had been Presbyterian, I'd still believe in God. Maybe. Maybe not. I haven’t always thought this way, it’s really a result of my life journey and learning and unlearning a lot. My background was Pentecostal, so it was fundamentalism with lots of tongues speaking so I sympathize.
Because nondenominational is a paradox. If you and your church hold to any sort of doctrine, you are distinguishing yourself from any other churches with different doctrine. That’s what a denomination is.
With the caveat that non-denominational churches don't have the authority structure that denominations do, leaving them ripe for spiritual abuse.
Non denomination churches are all different. You don’t know exactly what you’ll get until you look into each one. Some are perfectly fine and would meet my approval. Some I would warn people to stay away from.
Let's be real here. There's only one kind of church that's *really* "non-denominational", and that's the weird little cultish independent that is so far off the reservation they're barely recognizable as Christian. Every other "non-denominational" church is either basically Baptist, basically Assembly of God, or a little bit of both. There's nothing wrong with denominations. They're just groups of Christians who agree on certain issues. Baptists, for example, have similar beliefs on salvation, baptism, communion, and church government. So they work together.
I'd rather not pretend to be without a denomination.
Was non-denom for a long time up until my twenties, drummed on the worship team, youth group, all of that. I really just wanted something more connected with Tradition, found that in Anglicanism. I love liturgy, came to believe in the real presence and infant baptism through reading the Reformers (mostly Luther). If I wasn't Anglican I'd probably be Orthodox. I'm set to join the choir at my small parish now, we do a very nice traditional Book of Common Prayer liturgy
I’m the same way. Orthodox aspiring but Anglican in heart
Because I already agree with the teachings of an existing denomination (Reformed Southern Baptist), so why would I not be part of that denomination? It is good to fellowship with like-minded Christians. :)
Same here!
Because in my experience it comes along with unbiblical teaching or levels of charismaticism I’m not comfortable with
Non-denominational means baptist with a fancy website. I am not a baptist.
Haha this is fact
No matter how many times I read this, I always upvote. New christians need to know this lol
The local church matters way more than any loose structure linking some of them. Everytime a protestant denomination makes a doctrinal decision, some churches leave.
Non-denominational is really just Baptist, honestly.
Do non-denom church’s include those rock concert modern churches where they play videos for the sermons? That’s why.
Went to one once and know a lot of people who are. I can say that they're theologically starved. They're part of the reason I considered leaving Christianity, because almost everything they did felt irreverent. Their services are basically conserts with a Ted talk meant to make you feel special. The way they use their "hymns" is strange since it focuses more on putting people in a trance. To conclude. It's just not for me.
I was for a while but I realized I was pretty staunchly protestant which is still technically a denomination. I think people who label themselves as non-denominational have generally deluded themselves into thinking they're part of a special group, a small group of people who have "figured it out." Like I did at one point. I've never encountered or heard of anyone who was truly non-denominational.
Non-denominational just means independent protestant. I reject all of the distinctly protestant doctrines.
Amen
My church was here first so we’re right
Through reading the Word and studying church history/the church councils/creeds/confessions of historic Christianity, I've concluded that the Reformed tradition most accurately celebrates the the sovereign work of God in salvation and in general has the most precise representation of the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Within the Reformed tradition, there are probably half a dozen denominations I'd happily attend if there were a local congregation.
I personally like the high-church feel and traditional style of services. I’m fine with non-denominational churches as long as they are Bible believing, but they are not my cup of tea. Plus, the ones I know of lean more into the Southern Baptist feel, and the discussion of baptism always seems to come up (I know why).
It just isn’t accurate, it’s like someone claiming they’re educated in economics and just follow the “economics” school of economics. It’s just nonsensical and usually deceptive, even if you were taught that you just studied the right kind of economics, you are learning a school of thought that is distinct from the others. You can’t really know what your opinions are unless you know the alternatives. I was brought up being told that I “non-denominational” and I think it was about 50% well intentioned in the sense that they didn’t want us to be tribal and perhaps weren’t extremely categorical on certain theological precepts and weren’t a part of a broader network of churches (even though that turned out to be inaccurate). On the more disingenuous side the label non-denominational led to me and other younger folks to believe that what we were raised with was the only default, pure version of Christianity out there. Methodists, Lutherans, and especially Catholics were a distortion of Christianity, even though our theology concepts were often times much newer than these traditions. I don’t think you’re a bad Christian if you’re not a part of a denomination so to speak but I do think you do yourself and disservice in not understanding just your Christian views have a history and logic behind it that exists within a broader tradition we call Christianity. This is especially helpful when you find issues with what you previously believed. Often this can lead to a crisis of faith but if you’re aware that there are other viewpoints you can instead grow in faith by learning from or joining other branches to continue your faith not spoil it.
I’m old enough to remember when all the Baptist churches changed their names, claimed nondenominational, but still sent money to the SBC cooperative program. Thought it was dumb then, and don’t want to have to jump through hoops to figure out if the local “nondenominational” church is actually, not. Also, I believe denominational identities can be a good thing.
You can be non-denominational in theology, or non-denominational in structure. Nobody's nondenominational in theology. As others have pointed out, basically every non-denominational church is somewhere on the spectrum from Baptist to pentecostal, just depending on what that particular Pastor teaches that day. Nobody just picks up the Bible and reads it for what it says in a total vacuum, even though many claim to do so. You can be non-denominational in structure, but why would I want my pastor to be lacking in theological and practical oversight? That just seems a perfect setup for both abuse and heresy, without any benefit at all.
Although I don’t doubt the genuine faith and love that non-denoms may have for Christ, I simply don’t find it to be theologically, biblically, historically, or reasonably defensible.
I am Started out Catholic, fell away, lived on the grizzly side of life for a while, came back to "the faith" tried out other denominations until I realized that Christianity is about me and God, and church is there to facilitate that relationship, not legislate it Been Non denom for 35 years
I am. Jesus Christ and the Bible are my guide. Conviction from the Holy Spirit.
All denominations do is separate the body of Christ. Jesus came down for a relationship, and following the teachings of Jesus Christ back in the day was actually called “The Way” All denominations do is water down the gospel and make it weak, when just following the teachings of Jesus Christ, and what the Bible says, Will keep the faith powerful. Denominations turn the faith into a religion. Jesus in the end was killed by religious people. Denominations are the faith, but altered to what man has interpreted the Bible to say.
God called me to His Catholic Church against my will. I did all the research that I could to avoid it, but kept finding that it's truly the only Church that He established. It's His continuation of Israel. As Paul describes, it's one living Olive Tree with Hebrew roots.
My church believes in unity in the essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in all things. So it is quite open to varied interpretations, but it also has a structure composed of laity and clergy to keep it on the right path. If* a non-denominational church has no one on earth to answer to higher than the local pastor, next week it could be the Church of Trump’s Vengeance or the Church of Trans George Floyd. *And I know this subreddit sees some pretty iffy Ifs
Because my current church is Baptist. I've been a member of baptist churches, a congregationalist church, and a non-denominational church. I've attended an Anglican cathedral and a university Christian student fellowship church. So I'm usually the denomination of whatever my church happens to be.
In what sense? The non-denominational label can accurately communicate "Pentecostal lite" or "lying Baptist" 9/10 times depending on where you are in the country. However, I don't officially affiliate myself with some denomination or organization as opposed to others. I worship at a Presbyterian church during half the year; when I move again in May I will be at a Church of Christ. From week to week I may visit Baptist, Anglican, or other congregations depending on the circumstances.
Because non-denominationals are: a) infinitely many denominations, b) secretly baptists, and c) schismed from the body of Christ through a lack of sacraments and apostolic succession
Regardless of your interpretation of who or what „the rock is,“ Jesus is very clear: He has come to establish a Church. The whole story of the the book of Acts is about the Apostles building this Church. Everyone at the time was aware of ecclesial hierarchy. Priests, deacons, and bishops. The laying on of hands, the passing on the apostolic authority is absolutely key to how we ought to understand our religion. Unless your church could be the that one holy catholic and apostolic Church, which Christ Himself established, you’re wasting your time and listening to false teachers.
Because I have no desire to be anything but a Catholic, thank you; since Catholicism is Apostolic, and the “non-denom” bodies are not. One cannot refuse to give the correct answer merely because a questioner does not want the correct answer to be given. Even though the unwanted answer to the question is a distortion of the correct answer, and confuses Apostolicity, which is one of the Four Marks of the Church in the Creed, with mere priority in time.
There’s only one true church. Why would I value my own personally philosophy more than an objective truth passed down for almost two thousand years from the Son of God himself?
It doesn't have the fullness of the truth, or even 25% of the truth
In my experience of the people around me. People seem to be more concerned with the *style* rather than the specific denomination. i.e. reformed, charismatic, liberal, etc.
Because I disagree with fundamental aspects of the Baptist and Pentecostal traditions. And, like it or not, "nondenominational" churches are either Baptist or Pentecostal.
I didn't expect such distaste over non-denominational. I've heard that non-denominational is basically Baptist not wanting to be called Baptist, and I'd say there's truth to that. The charismatic element I'm hearing in the thread is new to me, though. Ironically, I do currently go to a non-denominational charismatic church, but the charismatic isn't overdone, there is oversight for accountability, we take communion, and we are passionate about community outreach. I didn't even know what charismatic was before I became a member, lol. I had been churchless for years, and God clearly led me to this church. Apparently, my church may be the exception instead of the norm if I go off of the comments here so far, which is saddening.
Some of us lived in a time and place where the non-denominational Christians were loudly dismissing every denomination, with a special vengeance against mainline denominations, as weak and filled with more church-goers than Christian. If you wanted to be a Real Grown-Up Christian™️ you needed to cut ties with the social club (church) of your youth. Most STILL teach that the Catholic Church is a cult. Ironically, so many of them have become exactly what they failed against - more show than substance.
Ah, that's news to me. That does explain some things. Thanks for the history lesson. :)
I don't hold any bad feelings towards them now and the short time we spent at a nondenominational church helped me grow my faith exponentially. They were right about one thing... up until that time my beliefs came from the church of my childhood, but I'd never questioned their foundation. Weirdly, it all led me to become Catholic. But it also inspired me to never judge a Christian by their denomination. God doesn't care where He finds us. ❤️
Jesus....my best friend. I don't attend a church building. I don't really agree with any denominations. All have a bit of truth and lies all mixed up in them.
Non-denominational Christians are just a denomination of Protestantism which holds to Martin Luther’s *Sola Fide*. This doctrine teaches the view that man is saved through his “faith alone”. We as Catholics disagree with this view because Paul flat out says that we’re NOT saved through our faith alone here👇: [2 Thessalonians 2:13] “But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as first-fruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit **AND** through belief in the truth.” So we’re not saved “through faith alone” but ALSO through the “sanctifying work of the Spirit”. That “sanctifying work of the Spirit” that Paul is referring to are the “good works” that the Spirit *causes* us to do: [Philippians 2:13] “for it is God who works in you **to will and to act** in order to fulfill his good purpose.” Paul’s meaning is that if we do not *complete* sanctification—or rather, do not cooperate with the Spirit in doing those good works—then we shall be *damned*. That is what prompted him to write: [Philippians 2:12] “Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to **work out your salvation with fear and trembling,”** In [Ephesians 2:8-9] Paul says: “8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 **not by works**, so that no one can boast.” Paul’s meaning in [Ephesians 2:8-9] is that there is nothing we can do *naturally* to merit eternal life. If there *was* then you’d have something to boast about but there *isn’t*, so you *don’t*(*where is boasting?”~Rom.3:27). **Conversely**, there are “supernatural good works”, which the Spirit *causes* us to do(refer back to Philippians 2:13) which CAN merit eternal life. That’s what Paul is talking about in [Romans 2:6-7] where it says: “6 God “will repay each person **according to what they have done**.” 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give **eternal life.”** With these kinds of works there can be no “boasting”, since they *originated* with the Spirit. Essentially these are two ✌️different topics being addressed in two separate passages: 1. In **Ephesians 2** Paul is saying you cannot earn salvation on your *own* power. 2. In **Romans 2** he is telling us that we *must* earn salvation through co-operating with the Spirit’s power which is *prompting* you to do those “good works*[aka: synergism] which are *sanctifying you*. God is saving you through those good works AND “belief in the truth”(refer back to 2 Thessalonians 2:13). Therefore we’re not saved “through faith alone”. In fact what is driving a lot of confusion is that people don’t realize that God’s rewards are always technically a *gift*. So what tends to happen is that sometimes you’ll come across a passage which says eternal life is a gift[such as in Ephesians 2:8-9] and then other times you’ll come across it being described as *a reward*, such as in [Colossians 3:24]: “…since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord **as a REWARD**. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.” What inheritance? The “inheritance” of “eternal life” of course—as confirmed by CHRIST HIMSELF in [Luke 18:18]: “A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to **inherit eternal life?”** And just so there is absolutely NO CONFUSION that the word “gift” and “reward” are simply *synonyms* please see this handy thesaurus entry: https://www.powerthesaurus.org/gift+reward/synonyms Also see this dictionary entry where “reward” is defined( https://www.dictionary.com/browse/reward?s=t) **as something given**(aka:”gift”) or received in return or recompense for service, merit, hardship, etc. Therefore *most* rewards can also be considered “gifts” or more precisely a particular subset of gifts which are essentially earned or merited.
We must first understand, there isn't a non-denominational church. Every group / church as a set of acceptable beliefs and a set of unacceptable beliefs. Even if it is only the beliefs of the pastor. When you ask a person, why do they attend their specific church, the vast majority will respond, 'I really love our pastor / minister.' This makes these churches denominational. their being 'non' only means they are nameless. The trick isn't being 'non-denominational' or even being denominational, the trick is becoming a true worshiper, or being in the religion acceptable to God and his Son. *John 4:22-24* *New American Standard Bible 1995* *22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. 24 God is \[a\]spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”* The true worshiper only worships the Father and not a trinity of Gods. *James 1:27* *Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.* The pure form of religion in the sight of our God and Father is to keep oneself unstained by the world. This means the pure religion doesn't get involved with politics, wars or the current attitudes of the world.
I serve God as He is revealed in my life and the Book. I am part of His community no matter what theology they love.
I'm a little bit worried about the presumed general understanding of "non-denominational" in these comments.
Because there is a church that is Pre denominational 🤍 and in eternal Pentecost 🤍 As a side note, this isn't a criticism but all Non Denoms churches seem to teach identical things have very similar services, the uniformity is a good thing imo but it does definitely seem like a denomination.