What is Non-Denominational?

[CopticChristian]

1. Accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
2. Baptism of water
3. Sealed by the Holy Spirit
4. Imatate Jesus Christ through the Grace of the Holy Spirit by obeying the Father through prayer and the Sacred Text which is to be a mirror of your spirit.

This may seem to simple,but it is only through the Precious Blood of Jesus we can achieve these things. It is nothing I can do by myself. The Bible is the mirror of a True Christian, but has to be done through prayer and Holy Spirit. I hope thiss explains what you wanted to understand.

Racing,

So what you are saying is that I have to do something and then God has to respond. My acceptance is my doing something. Making a decision is doing something.

 

[Daizies]

I think the best answer to the original question was given by Itwin way back in post #3, but there is one thing i would add. There is a more uncommon type of non-denominational church that may be attached to a Bible School that is an amalgam of the denominations that comprises the school. I attended one such church while attending Bible School. Basically they took the beliefs we all had in common and stuck to preaching on that. We had people across a large number of denominations from Baptists to Pentecostals. I think this is definitely the exception rather than the rule though, and I doubt this is the type of church the OP’s friend attends, but just throwing it in there for completeness.

 

[ltwin]

You would probably find that most so called “non denomonational peachers” actually
hold licenses and ordinations in both Baptist and Pentecostal denominations.

I suppose it’s possible that a minister would be licensed by a denomination but have been called by a church outside of that denomination to preach. If the minister’s denomination allows it, then the minister would continue to hold license with his denomination while the church would remain unaffiliated. That is possible, but I wouldn’t say it is a majority of all non-denominational churches.

It is also possible that a church is part of a denomination that practices congregational autonomy like the SBC (baptist) or the Assemblies of God (Pentecostal) attempting to downplay their denominational roots by saying that they are non-denominational. In a sense, you could say they aren’t being straightforward, but then again you can’t say that. In the case of the SBC, Baptist churches are autonomous and they can leave the SBC anytime. The SBC has no disciplinary or juridical authority over the local church. The Assemblies of God these days is more hierarchical, but it still prefers to call itself a “movement” rather than a denomination. Often a church will change its name from “First Baptist Church” or “First Assembly of God” to something generic like “Community Church” and will not mention its affiliation with the denomination.

However, I think most non-denominational churches are telling the truth when they say they are not affiliated with any denomination.

And, as I’ve mentioned before, there is a difference in a church having a Pentecostal or Baptist theology and that church being an affiliate of a Baptist or Pentecostal body. My church is Pentecostal, but we belong to none of the Pentecostal denominations. We are an independent church. In other words, non-denominational.

I dont think there is an official non denomonational license.

No, each church does it differently. In my church, ministers are licensed by the senior pastor or if he had already been licensed elsewhere the church just accepts the minister’s current credentials.

If you ask me its a bit deceitful.

Being a tradical Im a bit bias

It depends on the circumstances.

 

[ltwin]

I think the best answer to the original question was given by Itwin way back in post #3, but there is one thing i would add. There is a more uncommon type of non-denominational church that may be attached to a Bible School that is an amalgam of the denominations that comprises the school. I attended one such church while attending Bible School. Basically they took the beliefs we all had in common and stuck to preaching on that. We had people across a large number of denominations from Baptists to Pentecostals. I think this is definitely the exception rather than the rule though, and I doubt this is the type of church the OP’s friend attends, but just throwing it in there for completeness.

Sounds like the label “inter-denominational” would be a good fit. I sort of know what kind of churches you’re talking about.

 

[zz912]

I skimmed through this thread, but must admit, I did not read everyones post. To me Non-Denominational would be what I am. I refure to myself a a Christian, but do not subscribe to any particular denomination. I follow the Word of God, Jesus Christ and Scripture. I do not consider myself Protestant, because I do not protest against any Church, even RCC. I see beauty in the Mass, I see beauty in a Chritian service. I have found many( Not all) RCR, find may way of viewing the Church, as the Body of Christ, being people and not in any particular instatution, slightly offensive.Then every one gets in debate of petra, petros,and Kepha. I’m not here to tell any one what to believe. I believe in the Trinity, Father, Son(Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit. Many mainstream denominations have a hang up when it comes to the Holy Spirit, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and us being Body, Soul, and Spirit, the annointed of Jesus Christ. That his sacrifice on the Cross was complete atoinment for all sin for those that believe.Being Non-Denominational is looking into the power Christ gave to all of us, his Church. It isn’t to try to take something away from any one else church, but to come to understand that all Christian have the Holy Spirit, dwelling within their spirit. It is a free gift we all have, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, all this was purchased on the Cross. We are all one third Holy Spirit, we can tape into that power through the Blood of Jesus. Elijah and Elisha understood this in the OT even before Jesus came down( The Word made flesh John 1:1-14). Jesus instituded this power to all the church.He told the 70 who were not Apostles to go out and preform miracles. Non_Denominationals are not protesting any one, we believe strongly in the power and gifts Jesus gave to all, to go out and preform miracles in Jesus name in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Have you ever actually researched and asked the question of WHY the Bible is Sacred Scripture? Who told you it was? And where did they get it from, or were told it was Sacred Scripture? What special authority did they possess to declare what was and what was not Sacred Scripture?

And have you ever considered that Sacred Scripture tells us there is ONE Faith? And yet we have a smorgasborg of Christian denominations so that everyone can shop around and pick the “faith” that they like (which is essentially making up your own faith).

 

[zz912]

If the church he goes to now practices believer’s baptism, then they wont accept infant baptism (assuming the friend was baptized as an infant).

As to why it would be important to “re-baptize” (though the church in question wouldn’t consider it a “re-baptism”):

*the Bible says we should be baptized
*baptism is a public proclamation of a private commitment to Christ
*just as Christ rose from the grave, in baptism we declare that in Christ we too rise from death to newness of life
*baptism is a faith strengthening act

You simply don’t understand fully what a covenant is, and what it entails. For a covenant to be effectual, there MUST be a ritual or ceremony, and the ritual or ceremony ACTUALLY CHANGES the person, it is NOT symbolic.

When I married my wife, we WERE changed. We entered a covenant and became family to one another, and that ritual of marriage changed us. It was not symbolic.

 

[ltwin]

You simply don’t understand fully what a covenant is, and what it entails.

Telling me I don’t understand something is over the top and unnecessary. I understand completely. A Catholic on this thread asked if non-denominational churches do not believe that baptism leaves an unchangeable mark upon the soul, then why is “re-baptizing” converts so important to some of them if it doesn’t mean anything to them. Since the person asked a good question, I provided an answer for them. Since this thread is about non-denominational churches, I figured its the perfect place to bring it up. I was not disparaging the Catholic view of baptism, only explaining why baptism was important to non-denominational churches.

 

[andrewstx]

Locally a lot of churches have dropped the name of the original denominations and have adapted name like “family worship center” that is or was and AOG church located next door so I am familiar with this case.

That church, family worship center only changed names while keeping the same doctrine.

Now I live in the country and there is a “cowboy church” near. It too claims to be "non denominational but I have found they are in the Southern Baptist Convention.

A huge Baptist church moved to the suburbs and changed their name to Crossroads Fellowship. They only changed the name and nothing else.

I get the feeling that this is mostly a fad amoung evangelical/fundamentalist churches, which were nearly all congregational in organisation from the start.

I really think this is a ruse, and I call these churches “non-denominational” churches that are in denominations, just independent congregational deominations.

 

[ltwin]

Locally a lot of churches have dropped the name of the original denominations and have adapted name like “family worship center” that is or was and AOG church located next door so I am familiar with this case.

That church, family worship center only changed names while keeping the same doctrine.

Now I live in the country and there is a “cowboy church” near. It too claims to be "non denominational but I have found they are in the Southern Baptist Convention.

A huge Baptist church moved to the suburbs and changed their name to Crossroads Fellowship. They only changed the name and nothing else.

I get the feeling that this is mostly a fad amoung evangelical/fundamentalist churches, which were nearly all congregational in organisation from the start.

I really think this is a ruse, and I call these churches “non-denominational” churches that are in denominations, just independent congregational deominations.

I don’t know if its a ruse as much as it is a reflection of ecumenical trends within evangelicalism. Many Pentecostal churches today downplay their distinctive religious experience, and many Baptist churches are more “pentecostalized” today than ever before. Overall, the denominational differences that once divided evangelicals are just not at the forefront of debate anymore. Today, it can be hard to tell exactly what the differences are because everyone seems to be doing the same things. They preach the same sermons, they sing the same songs, and their churches all look the same. It can actually be really confusing navigating the evangelical landscape today. Unless the church actually has their denominational affiliation in their name, it’s sometimes impossible to know what they are except that they are evangelical.

 

[andrewstx]

I agree with you on one thing, their churches seem very nearly the same. Looking like theaters (Crossroads Fellowship), or shopping malls, or gymnasiums. They avoid looking like religous places or houses of worship, very secular.

I should have added deceptive to my description.

 

[andrewstx]

Actually I was raised in a non-denominational or as they say “un-denominational” denomination, the so called “churchof Christ”.

They used the word Christian to describe themselves and none other.

They also taught that everyone else was dammed.

That is why I dislike the word Chistian with no qualifiers.

I was raised in a denomination that used the word “christian” as sort of a brand name, and denied that title to anyone else.

I don’t really think that “just Christians” exist beause of my background.

By the way the “churches of Christ” also had no headquarters, and no adminstration above the local congregation. But they were and and are VERY denominational.

 

[ltwin]

Actually I was raised in a non-denominational or as they say “un-denominational” denomination, the so called “churchof Christ”.

They used the word Christian to describe themselves and none other.

They also taught that everyone else was dammed.

That is why I dislike the word Chistian with no qualifiers.

I was raised in a denomination that used the word “christian” as sort of a brand name, and denied that title to anyone else.

I don’t really think that “just Christians” exist beause of my background.

By the way the “churches of Christ” also had no headquarters, and no adminstration above the local congregation. But they were and and are VERY denominational.

See I think that’s where the confusion comes from. I don’t consider Churches of Christ “non-denominational”. To me, they are a (admittedly loosely organized) denomination (whether they use that term or not). They do (if I’m not mistaken) share the same practices and the same Bible colleges and they fellowship together. I reserve the non-denominational label for churches that are independent and not associated with a larger distinct group.

 

[manualman]

See I think that’s where the confusion comes from. I don’t consider Churches of Christ “non-denominational”. To me, they are a …

But isn’t that the infuriating part of trying to figure this out? Everybody sets their own definition and nobody knows for sure what each other means.

It’s a Tower of Babel reprise.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

I’ve had friends who belong to these types of churches. Generally, it means that the only stipulation for being a member is that you believe Jesus died to save you. To me, it is liberal Christianity. Anything goes on personal belief, as long as you accept Jesus.

Truth be told, they are Protestant, but they don’t want to be attached to that either. They are a “new” thing.

 

[ltwin]

I’ve had friends who belong to these types of churches. Generally, it means that the only stipulation for being a member is that you believe Jesus died to save you. To me, it is liberal Christianity. Anything goes on personal belief, as long as you accept Jesus.

Truth be told, they are Protestant, but they don’t want to be attached to that either. They are a “new” thing.

Most non-denominational churches I know are anything but liberal. They tend to fall on the conservative side of things. They believe in Jesus, the virgin birth, the 100 percent accuracy of Scripture, and they are anything but “anything goes.” There was a whole host of things I was told not to do in church. Homosexuality – no. Premarital sex — no. Rap music – no. Other kind of non/anti religious music – no. Smoking – no. Drinking – no. This is what I’ve encountered from non-denominational churches, both in my own and in others. If your experience has been different I’d love to hear about it.

 

[4Squarebaby]

I’ve had friends who belong to these types of churches. Generally, it means that the only stipulation for being a member is that you believe Jesus died to save you. To me, it is liberal Christianity. Anything goes on personal belief, as long as you accept Jesus.

Truth be told, they are Protestant, but they don’t want to be attached to that either. They are a “new” thing.

Curiously I can skip to another tread before a moderator deletes it when someone ask how could so and so be allowded communion,b be married in the church or have a funeral. It all boils down to how can they call themselves Catholic or Christian and how did they pass the membership test beyond being a legacy of their parents having them baptized

 

[CopticChristian]

Curiously I can skip to another tread before a moderator deletes it when someone ask how could so and so be allowded communion,b be married in the church or have a funeral. It all boils down to how can they call themselves Catholic or Christian and how did they pass the membership test beyond being a legacy of their parents having them baptized

4Square,

I understand. Since the posting is about Non-Denominational and Abide with me has stated that Itwin has summarized everything so well…I took the time to review all of Itwins postings and see things clearly.

Itwin tells us what the Church is from Itwins point of view…

The Church is the body of Christ. It is the vehicle by which God makes salvation known to the world.

Itwin then states that labeling someone in these groups Protestant would be better served by asking what they believe and states that there a variety of beliefs.

If you want to find out what this person’s new church believes, instead of using labels like “Protestant” you might understand him more and offend him less if you ask him things like, “What does your church believe about salvation? Does it teach free will or predestination? Once saved always saved or the possibility of backsliding? What does it believe about communion and baptism? What does it believe about ordained ministry? What does it believe about spiritual gifts? How does the pastor dress? What kind of music does your church sing: traditional hymns, praise and worship? What is the atmosphere: reserved or happy clappy? Does it try to be traditional or contemporary?”

Itwin says that they have a recognizable theology suggesting that the denononation of non is a denomination with a theology

I do find that while non-denoms do have a recognizable theology, they sometimes lack accountability when it comes to the top level leadership But for Pentecostals and Baptists (which practice congregational autonomy) and similar traditions, a local church going non-denominational is not unusual.

Itwin also tells me that with that identifiable theology they are always Protestant

Non-denominational churches are almost always evangelical Protestantism of one kind or another (some may be of a Baptist nature others a Pentecostal or charismatic nature etc. They have no problem defining what they believe.

Itwin says that Protestants denominate…

Yeah in a sense you are right. Protestants “denominate” themselves as Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Reformed, etc. But the word “denomination” also has the meaning of a particular organization of local churches. Therefore, there is the Baptist denominational family but within that denominational family there is the Southern Baptist Convention or the Cooperative Baptists or the American Baptists. These are specific Baptist denominations. And there is a Methodist denominational family, but within that family is the United Methodist Church and the Free Methodist Church and the Wesleyan Methodist Church. These are specific Methodist denominations.

Itwin then says that there is unsurety about denominating

Well, you’re privileging one sense of the word over the other. While the word “denomination” may have originated with the sense of “denominating” something, today people use it to refer to church bodies: the Southern Baptist denomination, the United Methodist denomination. Non-denominational churches use the term because while they may share the beliefs of the Southern Baptist or the United Methodists they are not “formally aligned” with that denomination.

Itwin has referred to the denomination of non as Protestant and uses the word over and over and then states “whatever that means”…

Asking someone who goes to a non-denominational church these type of specific questions does a lot more toward explaining that church than labels like Protestant (whatever that means anyway).

Itwin then declares what Protestanism is

Protestantism is a form of Christianity that comes out of the Catholic Church in the 16th century. Therefore, it is a branch of Western Christianity, distinguished from Eastern Christianity (Eastern Orthodoxy or Oriental Orthodoxy). Protestantism is “any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth.” In Germany (where the Reformation began), Protestants called themselves and still call themselves the evangelische Kirche (evangelical Church). “Evangelical” came from the Greek evangelion meaning “gospel” or “good news” and in the sense the Protestants used it referred to their belief that they were standing for “gospel truth.” Later, moderate Christian fundamentalists in the USA began to call themselves the “new evangelicals” and the “two houses” of American Protestantism was born: the mainline (or liberal or progressive or “ecumenical”) and the evangelicals (theologically conservative Protestants).

Itwin earlier stated that the Church is the way by which slavation is known and by the following explanation has an exclusive definition that applies to Itwins theology.

Most Protestants believe that “the Church” cannot be narrowed down to an institutional reality, like say the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church or the Anglican Church. These churches are just visible parts of a larger reality. The invisible church is all people who have been truly born again throughout the world. No matter their ecclesiastical affiliation or membership in a denomination, all true Christians are members of one body, the body of Christ.

Itwin then says that the Full Gospel Church is not the one true church, however if they are part of the Universal Church as Itwin describes, being a part must mean they are part of the whole and then what does this mean as to the Universal Church described earlier?

It has nothing to do with believing that one particular group who describes themselves as “Full Gospel” has the complete fullness of truth and therefore should be listened to without hesitation. Full Gospel churches have no magisterium, and they claim no infallibility. They also do not claim to be the “one true church”.

Itwin then tells me that the Church of Christ is not a non-denomational Church but they share the same practices, same Bible Colleges and fellowship.

See I think that’s where the confusion comes from. I don’t consider Churches of Christ “non-denominational”. To me, they are a (admittedly loosely organized) denomination (whether they use that term or not). They do (if I’m not mistaken) share the same practices and the same Bible colleges and they fellowship together. I reserve the non-denominational label for churches that are independent and not associated with a larger distinct group.

So I understand it quite well now. Non-denominationals are Protestant but you must ask them what they believe because the beliefs vary, meaning that they do not adhere to the Bible being the Pillar and foundation of Truth as there are many truths. The non are a denomination unto themselves as they have a recognizeable theology but share the same stuff as the Church of Christ that is not a non. They are part of the Universal Church that is the way that salvation is known but the reality of that being the true Church as defined by Itwin is in question because Full Gospel is not the true church and is part of the Universal Church that Itwin describes so I am left to wonder…but hey it is Protestant…

Whatever that means…

 

[SteveVH]

It’s a Tower of Babel reprise.

There’s probably more truth to that than we know. Seems like I’m speaking a different language all the time.

 

[CopticChristian]

There’s probably more truth to that than we know. Seems like I’m speaking a different language all the time.

Steve & Manual,

I think we have the makings of genius. All we do is sit down and write the play…

The Book of Mormon, The first Broadway Musical by Matt Stone and Trey Parker the Creators of South Park.

We contact Stone and Parker and we call it…

Non-denominational…A Tower of Babylon Reprise…

Opening act…

Guy wandering down the streets of New York…Time Square…there on the billboard is The Book of Mormon…and then cut to the corner…the guy in his drawers, the singing cowboy…singing…to the tune of Amen…

I’m a Non…sing it brother
I’m a Non…come on over

Non, Non, Non, Non, Non…

And the guy answers back…singing to the to the tune of the Animals Don’t let me be misunderstood…

Hey man…do you understand me now…

I’m just a man whose intentions are good
you singing there…don’t let me be misunderstood…

Do you think we have a hit?

 

[SteveVH]

Steve & Manual,

I think we have the makings of genius. All we do is sit down and write the play…

We contact Stone and Parker and we call it…

Non-denominational…A Tower of Babylon Reprise…

Opening act…

Guy wandering down the streets of New York…Time Square…there on the billboard is The Book of Mormon…and then cut to the corner…the guy in his drawers, the singing cowboy…singing…to the tune of Amen…

I’m a Non…sing it brother
I’m a Non…come on over

Non, Non, Non, Non, Non…

And the guy answers back…singing to the to the tune of the Animals Don’t let me be misunderstood…

Hey man…do you understand me now…

I’m just a man whose intentions are good
you singing there…don’t let me be misunderstood…

Do you think we have a hit?

I do indeed. :clapping::clapping::clapping: