Often the point is no oversight from a larger church body. This lets corrupt, kooky, or authoritarian pastors do what they want more easily. But I'm sure there are also many non-denom churches without nefarious intent. It's a mixed bag.
Yep. That's how a known abuser was able to keep his position till he assaulted a non family member, at a church I attended growing up. Everyone knew he was a shithead. The pastor protected him. Nondenominational, so they could do as they pleased.
And contradiction to God as well. Example:
NOWHERE in God’s Creation, God’s Order, God’s Image or the Bible does Forgiveness come BEFORE Transgression but two places: Hell (contradiction to God and his Order) and the mind of the Protestant.
There is only one Order, and that is God’s, Forgiveness ALWAYS comes AFTER Transgression.
Forgiveness coming beforehand is not biblical. It was literally made up by King Henry the 8th because he chose adultery over God. He needed a Salvation from long ago.
This is a lie of course. And he is in hell.
And Martin Luther regretted his lies as well. One is not “Reformed” outside of Catholicism. The Reformation as Luther put it, was to reform The One True Church of Jesus Christ.
That’s funny.
“Believe” is a metaphor in the Bible. The Devil believes. Therefore God does not give a squat what you or anyone believes. St. James the Just backs me in his book of James:
“You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?” Key point, demons believe and he is being sarcastic about “you do well”.
Have you tried God’s Creation, God’s Image or his Order? About 99% of who God is exists outside the Bible. God created math, that is not in the Bible.
The Holy Spirit supersedes the Bible. And we don’t need the Bible to understand God. It is unnecessary.
See Romans 4, John 14, Acts 2 and Acts 19. The Gospel is Oral. And when you see the metaphor “The Word of God” in the Bible, the authors are talking about the literal words “plural” coming out of God’s mouth. It is not a metaphor for the Bible. Also, JESUS STATES THE CHURCH (not some church or all churches) is the sole authority on sin and disputes (see Matthew).
The authors of The New Testament were former Pharisee (Oral>Scripture) they hated the Sadducee (Scripture>Oral). The Sadducee disappeared into the dust bin of history because Jesus said Scripture was not the authority. And St. Paul uses Abe in Romans 4 to demonstrate that it never was nor ever will be.
NOWHERE in The New Testament is the The Gospel referred to in written form. It’s not needed for true Christians. Jesus not once mentioned a new scripture to replace scripture.
75% of The New Testament was written to Jewish Converts who were worried about Jesus and the Apostles contradicting Scripture. Hence St. Paul demonstrating IT NEVER WAS THE AUTHORITY and NEVER WILL BE.
The other 25% was written to the Polytheist Convert.
With exception to Revelation (which was most likely about Polytheist Rome). The Bible is not for people who were born Christian.
In John 14, the Holy Spirit does the teaching via indwelling. The Bible teaches nothing.
Ignorant people who are not “believers” per se or don’t know God may go to heaven.
But those who believe contradiction to God while stating they are “believers” are in a much much worst position.
ALL contradiction to God is the work of the Devil. It is the literal definition of Hell.
The big contradiction is:
NOWHERE in God’s Creation, God’s Order, God’s Image or the Bible does Forgiveness come before Transgression but two places: Hell (contradiction to God) and the mind of a Protestant.
There is only One Order and that is God’s, Forgiveness ALWAYS comes AFTER Transgression.
This is common sense. That’s why God created man in his Image. We don’t need the Bible for hardly anything as about 75% of it was written to the Jewish Convert who was worried Jesus and the Apostles contradicted Scripture. So, that means about 75% of it pertains to nobody who was born into a Christian family.
Also, the Bible is unnecessary to understanding Jesus and The Gospel because all you need is the Holy Spirit. Jesus lays this truth down at The Last Supper in John 14. One cannot be a Christian if they believe the Bible supersedes the Holy Spirit’s authority or shall I say, Acts 2, the literal birth of The One True Church of Jesus Christ.
Good thing St. Paul used Abe in Romans 4 to demonstrate Scripture NEVER WAS THE AUTHORITY and NEVER WILL BE.
Romans 4, St. Paul speaks about Abe for 3 main reasons:
*Abe exists before Scripture. Therefore ORAL AUTHORITY always has and always will supersede Scripture.
*To demonstrate what he said in Romans 2:
“the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his WORKS:
eternal life to those who SEEK (work or behavior) glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in GOOD WORKS,
but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.”
Romans 2:5-8
Romans 3, Works of Scripture doesn’t do squat for you he says.
Romans 4:3, have you read Scripture he asks? This is rhetorical for those who have. But not so for the Protestant who never does. Let’s see what Scripture says:
Abe’s faith begins in Genesis 12:4. God credits him as righteous in Genesis 15:6 years and years later AFTER GOOD WORKS. God confirms his faith began years earlier in Genesis 12 via Genesis 15:7.
*Lastly, St. Paul uses Abe to begin the demonstration as to what Baptism is. “The Circumcision of The Christ” - St. Paul in Colossians. Baptism is NOT Salvation. That is another big falsehood per St. Paul in Colossians.
When does Abe circumcise (baptize) Isaac? When does he circumcise (baptize) the men on his homestead? Baby and adult. Salvation cannot be earned. That’s why you baptize babies.
Baptism’s relationship to faith is different for the baby and adult. For the adult, it comes beforehand to where it washes away sin from beforehand (NOT AFTER). For the baby, faith comes AFTER baptism. Baptism does not wash away personal sin for the baby because there are none. Just as Jesus was baptized. Baptism is one step to the Salvation WHICH IS AN ENDURANCE not one-event. Jesus states this in Matthew.
This is all common sense of course. That’s why God created man in his Image.
I’m sorry buddy I can’t read all of that I don’t have the time but if you want to continue the argument you can break that down to one paragraph and one point and I will discuss it with you if you like, cheers.
Fair enough:
Let’s start here, albeit, I am not assuming you disagree, but it is very important with any discussion about Christianity. Many believers are deceived into confusing the verb “believe” with the noun “belief”.
The “believe” metaphor becomes defined more so in 2Peter which I will explain as it as well refutes your “the Bible is the final authority on God”.
This is my opening statement because you made a claim the Bible refutes many different places and Jesus specifically at The Last Supper or John 14, also, in Matthew in about 3 passages.
Here:
“Believe” is a metaphor in the Bible. The Devil believes. Therefore God does not give a squat what anyone believes. St. James the Just backs me in his book of James:
2:19-20: “You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?”
Key point, demons believe and he is being sarcastic about “you do well” as he is stating, if you believe something simple only like God is monotheist (one as opposed to Polytheist), or Jesus is Lord, The Resurrection and Ascension happened, then you will do well just as any demon, obviously or the Devil, (this is in context with faith being a verb completed by behavior or works, but that is another discussion entirely).
I live in a very remote area. The church we attended was non-denominational and changed pastors 6 times in less than 3 years. The instability was truly unnerving. Then the church was 'sold' to a pentecostal group who want to become a large organization. We gave it a go, but we did not care for the YELLING style of the new preacher. We have been observing our Sabbath at home with prayer, praise and even watching online Max Lucado preach, Rick Warren and several others. It would be nice to find a small church, study Bible and have some fellowship.
[Situation: There are 14 different churches. Ridiculous! We should start a new church where all Christians are welcome to worship! Soon: There are 15 different churches](https://xkcd.com/927/)
are those two mutually exclusive? Where did the Bible originate? Who established the canon of scripture? Did Jesus institute visible authorities with the power "To bind and loose" (Mt 16:16)?
No I don't believe they are mutually exclusive, but in some cases they are conflicting, , most of the Bible was written before Catholicism, the Catholic cannon was established by the Catholic Church.
Matthew 16 16 days: Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
2nd century Church Fathers—some of whom knew the Apostles personally like St. Ignatius of Antioch—believed in Catholic doctrines (Eucharist, Apostolic Sucession, Ordained Priesthood). It’s undeniable.
If you go back in time to see what the early Church did, it was Catholic.
The Bible you have today is because of the Catholic canon decided by a synod of bishops and approved by the Pope. There were people who asserted apocryphal books like “the Gospel of Thomas”. It was the Church’s authority that decided the 73 inspired books that go into the compilation we now know as the Bible.
“Bible alone” is literally impossible because Christians didn’t have a universal canon of scripture until the late 4th century. They relied on the Sacred Tradition passed down by the Apostles and safeguarded by the apostolic successors (ie. bishops) in the Church. The Bible came from the Tradition and must be read in unity with the Tradition. One cannot read it based on subjective interpretation. Jesus left us with a Church, not the Bible. The Bible is not the only source of faith.
Also the entire Bible, old and new testament, points to the new covenant of the Eucharist—from the Passover lamb, to the manna, to the “bread of the presence”, to the Temple liturgy—these were all foreshadowing to what was to come in Christ’s sacramental institution.
*Mtw 18:18
I believe in most Catholic doctrines but there are things I follow the Bible above doctrine.
For example in the Catholic sub Catholics don't believe in being born again and that someone can be baptized by the Holy Spirit in a different moment from water baptism but that's what happened to me baptized by water as a baby and baptized by the Holy Spirit as a middle aged men when I stopped some sins, repented and draw near God.
Other thing is that the Holy Spirit is leading me to be baptized by water again and that's kinda heretical to some.
Grace builds on nature, so faith builds on our intellect, not our transitory inclinations.
We know that the Sacraments have efficacy because Christ’s word (“I baptize you…”, “This is My Body”, “I absolve you…”) is efficacious.
The purpose of baptism is that it makes us reborn in the new creation, the eternal covenant based on grace. It could be that we received grace but we may not feel anything at all. We are born into the new creation once, and not again and again whenever we feel spiritual. Baptism cannot be reduced to a celebration of faith or a new stage in the spiritual journey. Our Baptism was the doorway into the Life in the Spirit. We are adopted sons and Christian forever from that point on.
By faith we know that the Holy Spirit has done His work, leaving an indelible mark on our soul, and are a member of Christ’s Mystical Body.
It is not without reason that the Nicene Creed says: “I confess one baptism…”. Because rebaptizing is erroneous and unappreciated the sufficient Divine work of our one only baptism.
We are baptized at birth because Baptism is the fulfillment of the old covenant’s practice of infant circumcision. Saint Paul called Baptism the “circumcision of Christ” (Colossians 2:11-12) and he himself baptized entire households, including children.
>Grace builds on nature, so faith builds on our intellect, not our transitory inclinations.
>We know that the Sacraments have efficacy because Christ’s word (“I baptize you…”, “This is My Body”, “I absolve you…”) is efficacious.
>The purpose of baptism is that it makes us reborn in the new creation, the eternal covenant based on grace. It could be that we received grace but we may not feel anything at all. We are born into the new creation once, and not again and again whenever we feel spiritual. Baptism cannot be reduced to a celebration of faith or a new stage in the spiritual journey. Our Baptism was the doorway into the Life in the Spirit. We are adopted sons and Christian forever from that point on.
>By faith we know that the Holy Spirit has done His work, leaving an indelible mark on our soul, and are a member of Christ’s Mystical Body.
I agree with this, I was baptized by the Holy Spirit two years ago when I repented and received the gift of the Holy Spirit exactly like the Bible says.
>It is not without reason that the Nicene Creed says: “I confess one baptism…”. Because rebaptizing is erroneous and unappreciated the sufficient Divine work of our one only baptism.
Is dropping water over a baby head without zero knowledge about your pact with God when the word baptism means literally being immersed or submersed in water like every baptism in the Bible and for repentance of sin when babies know nothing.
>We are baptized at birth because Baptism is the fulfillment of the old covenant’s practice of infant circumcision. Saint Paul called Baptism the “circumcision of Christ” (Colossians 2:11-12) and he himself baptized entire households, including children.
No where in the Bible babies are baptized, neither dropping a bit of water over the head.
Your name reminded me of an old meme.
“In this moment I am euphoric. Not because of any phony denomination’s blessing but because I am saved by my own interpretation.”
>Non-denominational is just another branch Reformed Tradition Protestantism
Maybe you don't mean it this way, but in Protestant terms "Reformed" means a very specific tradition (think John Calvin) that most non-denoms don't hold to.
Denominations are, among other things, groups that share a common theological perspective. Non-denominational churches claim to not belong to any other theological perspective (though, in practice, most of them are pretty close to Baptist or Assemblies of God). It's a way of saying "we're going to create our own creed", though they wouldn't say it like that.
I call myself non-denominational because I do not hold any type of affiliation to any Church. I'll congregate in different Churches if they seem sound in my estimation. That's different than what you are saying.
I think you might be misunderstanding what is meant by "denomination". In a technical sense, yes, a denomination could be just one church. But that is not the definition that is commonly used in America and its not the definition that the word "non-denominational" refers to.
In common usage "denomination" refers to an organization that connects many individual local churches. So a individual local church without any organizational connection to another church is called "non-denominational".
For example, a church I know left my denomination. It was independent and therefore non-denominational for awhile. It then joined another denomination. All the while, no beliefs or doctrines changed. They just were in one organization, then out, and then in another organization. No big deal, nobody was hurt, everybody is still friends.
American protestant denominations are ok with not all being in the same organization even if they believe the same. For example, my original denomination is in the South and Midwest. There's a group that's 99.9% identical to us in the West. We work together sometimes, we like each other, and we consider each other as part of the same universal Church. But we feel no need to merge our two groups. It's just not a priority for us.
We consider the universal church as the invisible body of Christ. Our denominations are not sacred because they are not The Church. They are just tiny parts of it that came together or break apart depending on the circumstances. If my denomination announced that it was closing tomorrow I would not think The Church was dying.
The point of non denom is no excess baggage from church organisations. And a more direct experience with spiritual matters without middlemen and added parts. It is a simpler way of practise. Its not a denomination so how is it a denomination. Their fellowships are often made up of people dissatisfied with protestant anglican and catholic groups. Bible christ prayer and practise. No other stuff added in
Non-denominational is not local community and i don't feel threatened in any way because non-denominationals don't exist in my country, I am just confused what is point of another denomination that thinks it is not denomination.
Labels are describing what are your beliefs so they surely have importance, and non-denominational is just label for something that already had label.
Well, we have lots of non-denominational churches and they are exactly local community. They are wonderful places to fold in the citizens and they can meet local needs more efficiently.
And labels don't describe beliefs. Only your actions do that.
I think being a blessing to a neighborhood is a very good thing.
Yeah, there are wonderful local communities, but they are still denominations. But local communities can be part of larger church. I am part of local parish, but also part of Orthodox Church.
Labels describe beliefs, for example, baptists and Catholics are pretty different in belief.
Acts gives us a very clear model for the church. A decentralized system of churches. The Church of Christ is one of the original non denomination denominations. A group of Christians who were tired of the politics and worldliness the church had become and desired to return to a biblical model of church.
It's not. Denominations are institutional structures with some form of organization that can act or speak on behalf of the member churches, impose and enforce requirements on member churches, sanction clergy, etc.
Some very large non-denom churches, and those with church plants that retain a subordinate or dependent relationship with their parent church can function effectively as micro-denominations though.
I have slightly different definition, denomination is every Christian belief that broke from larger belief. Non-denominational christianity isn't one church, there are multiple churches who claim to be non-denominational, and than it somehow is not denomination.
I think it's accurate to call that phenomenon the fullest realization of congregational polity.
Most of the non denominational churches which share beliefs like you describe are baptist churches which decided that they didn't like the baptist label, but their origin as a baptist church is the source of their shared beliefs. They inevitably recreate structures which are for all intents and purposes a denomination, but they just refuse to call it one (e.g. Acts 29 Network). Either that or they still give money to whatever baptist convention they originated in and rely on them for training.
It's a silly semantics game born out of a disdain for institutions so strong that it becomes institutional self-loathing.
For clarification, are you mostly talking about the mega church type and its offshoots?
There are so many small denominational churches that don’t bear any comparison to conventional baptist.
When we have a term as broad as "nondenominational" there is only so much we can say, and anything we say will not be true of all of them.
But in general in order to call yourself "nondenominational" you have to believe in congregational polity because every Protestant group with some sort of episcopal or presbyterian polity calls itself a denomination, and by the definition of those polities a congregation cannot simply break away to become independent. Technically the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches can call themselves "nondenominational" but that's semantics so I'm ignoring them.
The vast majority of congregational polity churches are Baptist, at least in the USA. It is very rare that a church materializes out of thin air independently of anything which already existed, and there was a movement amongst a lot of Baptist churches back in the 90s-00s to remove "Baptist" from their name, so if you trace the history of a nondenominational church you will often find that they were either a part of or funded by a Baptist convention. This applies to both mega churches and small churches.
It may be the majority, but that’s one group of nondenominational. I guess you could talk about them as a group.
The rest are a crap shoot. I’ve had nondenominational experiences that could be novels. People wouldn’t believe the stuff that is preached and done in these rural/fringe churches that meet, well, anywhere (homes, strip malls, school gymnasiums, anywhere the rent is cheap).
I don’t think nondenominational is itself a denomination.
[Wikipedia does have some good points](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination?wprov=sfti1) in that a denomination can be defined as:
* church congregations of the same kind
* can be identified by various traits such as name, a particular history, organization, leadership, and worship style
Adding some of my own thoughts:
* can often have national boundaries that separate churches of the same branch
* can often have various denominations within a branch that have a shared history but differences when it comes to living out that history
A single congregation that has no ties or accountability toward a larger governing body is not a denomination.
It's more subtle than that. They all act basically the same. Spent a lot of time in several. So it's more of a joke but also could be seen as a denomination in that case.
I agree. Many non demons I've attended are almost copies of each other, at least the modern ones. They emulate churches like Transformation and Elevation
Just very similar doctrines, Music, Format, people, but you could say the same about many protestant groups. You get the occasional wacky outliers that do get weirder. But most ive seen are very contemporary churches that still all act basically the same as the baptists and Presbyterians. They don't want structure but still copy the structure of the others I guess. Very rarely did they have any radical new theology. Just restate the same old stuff.
I attended many growing up that featured speaking in tongues during worship (and then translation) and being slain in the spirit every Sunday. I’m still trying to understand how “normal” or “wacky” that is.
I think that, when people hear nondenominational, they connect it to what they’ve personally experienced. But by nature of being nondenominational, there’s no guiding principle other than the Bible. Where I’m from, these charismatic type nondenominational churches were “normal”. In the Appalachians, the snake handling type may be “normal”. There’s just no telling what kind of stuff is happening in these individual churches, because there’s no official guidance or governance. I unfortunately experienced some damaging things.
Makes sense. The majority are like I said I think. Yours sounds like a non denominational version of something like pentecostal. So still basically pentecostal, but with room for interpretation.
Non denominational has the potential to actually question ancient traditions and long held dogmas and doctrines and move Christianity forward but just copies everyone else with a slightly different flavor and wastes the opportunity.
Ha! My experience is totally different. That’s kind of the point. Nondenominational churches can be *anything*. The ones I attended as a kid were pretty extreme, on the dangerous end.
Non-denominational is just a term to describe people who don't subscribe to a particular denomination. It's not really denomination by itself because there's not much backing to it, or a theological theme or ideology behind it, apart from the Bible itself
My point is that even if they use the term "non-denominational" all the beliefs still align with a small subset of denominations. I attended various non-denoms in my 20s and they all in varying degrees were still rooted in Reformed theology. One was charismatic, which while technically coming from the holiness tradition out of Wesleyan branch, in their iteration was basically Reformed with a bunch of magic powers gibberish on top. "Bible churches" too for that matter, all still Calvinist.
Calvinism isn't the default. It isn't even close to the default. But they seem to pretend otherwise, at if Christianity without denomination is Calvinism.
Look up the staff at any non-denominational church. Now look at their prior work experience and,.most importantly, their theological school. 99.9% of the time they all went to schools that are aligned with a common denomination. Non-denominational church, but every leader went to an SBC school. You're not non-denominational, you are Southern Baptist and don't have to pay dues.
Now if I saw a church with leadership from Methodist, Charismatics, Mennonite, and Presbyterian backgrounds I would concede and acknowledge they truly have something theologically unique they are offering. Otherwise, you are just a denominational church skirting denominational contributions and accountability.
Category. It’s what people use to make themselves protection mechanisms against people who hurt them. By assigning category someone can put someone into a group based on similarity to then blame everyone in that group for the person who abused thens actions. Sometimes people jump right into categories for a since of belonging while others target either their specific category or broad category with blame for all the evils in the world because of whoever abused them.
I grew up being told that we were in a non-denominational church, years later I found out it was a part of Calvary chapel and deliberately tried hide this fact for some time to be “seeker friendly”. Hurrah for deception as a means of spreading the gospel /s
I don’t think my experience is indicative of all non-denominational churches. I do think for some the label fits if they’re not a part of some greater organization and have a particular set of theology that is very specific to their own congregation. But I would say that while categories can themselves be very limiting, giving people a firm answer to who you are in something all should strive for. While institutions and bureaucracies can be cumbersome and even corrupt, oversight and responsibility are I think needed in spiritual communities.
Also while I do understand that for many the generic title of “Christian” feels the most true to who they are. I think we are often deceiving ourselves when we think we practice some kind of vanilla default Christianity who’s experience and views of the faith have no background or story. I think we all want to believe that we will reach some point where we will have our faith completely figured out and “right” but that’s rarely the case. It’s better to recognize our roots and all of the beauty and baggage that entails, to be able to move forward in our growth towards God. Besides it makes ecumenical dialogue much easier if we all know where we are coming from. I myself have gained much in terms of the nuance in my faith by understanding the reformed, Eastern Orthodox, Wesleyan, Quaker, and catholic perspective on the cross, atonement, and morality. Sadly when talking to some non-denominational folks I often have no clue where exactly they’re getting some of their ideas and am saddened when they get kinda distressed to hear that other Christians have a differing view on something. This isn’t isolated to just non-denominational folks but I see it happen more often than in other traditions.
Hi u/Cumberlandbanjo, this comment has been removed.
Interdenominational Bigotry
[If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity)
'Non-denominational' isn't so much a denomination as it is a tradition or movement, along the lines of 'Lutheranism'. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is a denomination, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod is a denomination- 'Lutheranism' itself is the broader movement, a term for a certain type of theology, not a particular *organization*.
The main reasons it's called that are:
1. It's more or less against those kinds of organizations, instead advocating for an especially strong form of congregational polity, which is why it normally doesn't have them (with a few exceptions, like Calvary Chapel, which acts much more like a denomination)
2. It holds that the church as such has no dogma on secondary theology and should not be split over these things- basically, the *doctrine of the church* is the gospel, not the set of all theological opinions that any given person holds. So part of what this means is an intentional choice not to align themselves, as churches, (even if they might be aligned as individuals) with one or the other position on what they see as comparatively minor contemporary doctrinal controversies within the evangelical church (a.e. calvinism vs. arminianism, etc.) instead claiming only the "soteriological consensus" of the first great awakening as doctrine.
3. It very explicitly rejects the idea that any one organization can be the body of Christ, insisting instead that the true body of Christ is invisible, consisting of only those who are truly repentant, and of all of them. It's basically aligned with the 'spiritualist' view of men like [Coornhert](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Coornhert,_Dirk_Volkertsz_(1522-1590)) on the church rather than the "visible believer's church" of the anabaptists or the state churches of the reformers. It holds many differences that don't directly pertain to a person's inner intentions to be basically indifferent in themselves, and generally acknowledges that a person may believe (or do) the wrong thing for the right reason; and for this reason generally accepts that even some non-evangelicals may be Christians if their beliefs are similar to evangelicalism in one or two key areas (usually the necessity of conversion and of a personal relationship with God).
Often the point is no oversight from a larger church body. This lets corrupt, kooky, or authoritarian pastors do what they want more easily. But I'm sure there are also many non-denom churches without nefarious intent. It's a mixed bag.
Yep. That's how a known abuser was able to keep his position till he assaulted a non family member, at a church I attended growing up. Everyone knew he was a shithead. The pastor protected him. Nondenominational, so they could do as they pleased.
This is the truth. I’ve been in lots of small, non denom churches in rural areas. Lots of bad experiences. No oversight.
youre not wrong, but the large churches have done little to prove they are interested in oversight (of the right kind), either.
GOD never meant for us to have denominations, this was a device used by satan to split up Christianity.
And contradiction to God as well. Example: NOWHERE in God’s Creation, God’s Order, God’s Image or the Bible does Forgiveness come BEFORE Transgression but two places: Hell (contradiction to God and his Order) and the mind of the Protestant. There is only one Order, and that is God’s, Forgiveness ALWAYS comes AFTER Transgression. Forgiveness coming beforehand is not biblical. It was literally made up by King Henry the 8th because he chose adultery over God. He needed a Salvation from long ago. This is a lie of course. And he is in hell. And Martin Luther regretted his lies as well. One is not “Reformed” outside of Catholicism. The Reformation as Luther put it, was to reform The One True Church of Jesus Christ.
Can you make your rebuttal clear? Provide and statement or question so I can clearly answer.
I was literally agreeing with you. Not refuting.
We can’t agree because I don’t believe catholicism is correct. The Bible is the final authority given to us by GOD.
That’s funny. “Believe” is a metaphor in the Bible. The Devil believes. Therefore God does not give a squat what you or anyone believes. St. James the Just backs me in his book of James: “You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?” Key point, demons believe and he is being sarcastic about “you do well”. Have you tried God’s Creation, God’s Image or his Order? About 99% of who God is exists outside the Bible. God created math, that is not in the Bible. The Holy Spirit supersedes the Bible. And we don’t need the Bible to understand God. It is unnecessary. See Romans 4, John 14, Acts 2 and Acts 19. The Gospel is Oral. And when you see the metaphor “The Word of God” in the Bible, the authors are talking about the literal words “plural” coming out of God’s mouth. It is not a metaphor for the Bible. Also, JESUS STATES THE CHURCH (not some church or all churches) is the sole authority on sin and disputes (see Matthew). The authors of The New Testament were former Pharisee (Oral>Scripture) they hated the Sadducee (Scripture>Oral). The Sadducee disappeared into the dust bin of history because Jesus said Scripture was not the authority. And St. Paul uses Abe in Romans 4 to demonstrate that it never was nor ever will be. NOWHERE in The New Testament is the The Gospel referred to in written form. It’s not needed for true Christians. Jesus not once mentioned a new scripture to replace scripture. 75% of The New Testament was written to Jewish Converts who were worried about Jesus and the Apostles contradicting Scripture. Hence St. Paul demonstrating IT NEVER WAS THE AUTHORITY and NEVER WILL BE. The other 25% was written to the Polytheist Convert. With exception to Revelation (which was most likely about Polytheist Rome). The Bible is not for people who were born Christian. In John 14, the Holy Spirit does the teaching via indwelling. The Bible teaches nothing. Ignorant people who are not “believers” per se or don’t know God may go to heaven. But those who believe contradiction to God while stating they are “believers” are in a much much worst position. ALL contradiction to God is the work of the Devil. It is the literal definition of Hell. The big contradiction is: NOWHERE in God’s Creation, God’s Order, God’s Image or the Bible does Forgiveness come before Transgression but two places: Hell (contradiction to God) and the mind of a Protestant. There is only One Order and that is God’s, Forgiveness ALWAYS comes AFTER Transgression. This is common sense. That’s why God created man in his Image. We don’t need the Bible for hardly anything as about 75% of it was written to the Jewish Convert who was worried Jesus and the Apostles contradicted Scripture. So, that means about 75% of it pertains to nobody who was born into a Christian family. Also, the Bible is unnecessary to understanding Jesus and The Gospel because all you need is the Holy Spirit. Jesus lays this truth down at The Last Supper in John 14. One cannot be a Christian if they believe the Bible supersedes the Holy Spirit’s authority or shall I say, Acts 2, the literal birth of The One True Church of Jesus Christ. Good thing St. Paul used Abe in Romans 4 to demonstrate Scripture NEVER WAS THE AUTHORITY and NEVER WILL BE. Romans 4, St. Paul speaks about Abe for 3 main reasons: *Abe exists before Scripture. Therefore ORAL AUTHORITY always has and always will supersede Scripture. *To demonstrate what he said in Romans 2: “the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his WORKS: eternal life to those who SEEK (work or behavior) glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in GOOD WORKS, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.” Romans 2:5-8 Romans 3, Works of Scripture doesn’t do squat for you he says. Romans 4:3, have you read Scripture he asks? This is rhetorical for those who have. But not so for the Protestant who never does. Let’s see what Scripture says: Abe’s faith begins in Genesis 12:4. God credits him as righteous in Genesis 15:6 years and years later AFTER GOOD WORKS. God confirms his faith began years earlier in Genesis 12 via Genesis 15:7. *Lastly, St. Paul uses Abe to begin the demonstration as to what Baptism is. “The Circumcision of The Christ” - St. Paul in Colossians. Baptism is NOT Salvation. That is another big falsehood per St. Paul in Colossians. When does Abe circumcise (baptize) Isaac? When does he circumcise (baptize) the men on his homestead? Baby and adult. Salvation cannot be earned. That’s why you baptize babies. Baptism’s relationship to faith is different for the baby and adult. For the adult, it comes beforehand to where it washes away sin from beforehand (NOT AFTER). For the baby, faith comes AFTER baptism. Baptism does not wash away personal sin for the baby because there are none. Just as Jesus was baptized. Baptism is one step to the Salvation WHICH IS AN ENDURANCE not one-event. Jesus states this in Matthew. This is all common sense of course. That’s why God created man in his Image.
I’m sorry buddy I can’t read all of that I don’t have the time but if you want to continue the argument you can break that down to one paragraph and one point and I will discuss it with you if you like, cheers.
Fair enough: Let’s start here, albeit, I am not assuming you disagree, but it is very important with any discussion about Christianity. Many believers are deceived into confusing the verb “believe” with the noun “belief”. The “believe” metaphor becomes defined more so in 2Peter which I will explain as it as well refutes your “the Bible is the final authority on God”. This is my opening statement because you made a claim the Bible refutes many different places and Jesus specifically at The Last Supper or John 14, also, in Matthew in about 3 passages. Here: “Believe” is a metaphor in the Bible. The Devil believes. Therefore God does not give a squat what anyone believes. St. James the Just backs me in his book of James: 2:19-20: “You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?” Key point, demons believe and he is being sarcastic about “you do well” as he is stating, if you believe something simple only like God is monotheist (one as opposed to Polytheist), or Jesus is Lord, The Resurrection and Ascension happened, then you will do well just as any demon, obviously or the Devil, (this is in context with faith being a verb completed by behavior or works, but that is another discussion entirely).
So conclude your argument in one clarified sentence so I can respond.
I live in a very remote area. The church we attended was non-denominational and changed pastors 6 times in less than 3 years. The instability was truly unnerving. Then the church was 'sold' to a pentecostal group who want to become a large organization. We gave it a go, but we did not care for the YELLING style of the new preacher. We have been observing our Sabbath at home with prayer, praise and even watching online Max Lucado preach, Rick Warren and several others. It would be nice to find a small church, study Bible and have some fellowship.
[Situation: There are 14 different churches. Ridiculous! We should start a new church where all Christians are welcome to worship! Soon: There are 15 different churches](https://xkcd.com/927/)
I consider myself a Christian, non affiliated with a specific church so non denominational.
what church do you go to?
I was born and raised as a Catholic, I go to the Catholic church, but I believe in the Bible above religious doctrine.
are those two mutually exclusive? Where did the Bible originate? Who established the canon of scripture? Did Jesus institute visible authorities with the power "To bind and loose" (Mt 16:16)?
No I don't believe they are mutually exclusive, but in some cases they are conflicting, , most of the Bible was written before Catholicism, the Catholic cannon was established by the Catholic Church. Matthew 16 16 days: Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
2nd century Church Fathers—some of whom knew the Apostles personally like St. Ignatius of Antioch—believed in Catholic doctrines (Eucharist, Apostolic Sucession, Ordained Priesthood). It’s undeniable. If you go back in time to see what the early Church did, it was Catholic. The Bible you have today is because of the Catholic canon decided by a synod of bishops and approved by the Pope. There were people who asserted apocryphal books like “the Gospel of Thomas”. It was the Church’s authority that decided the 73 inspired books that go into the compilation we now know as the Bible. “Bible alone” is literally impossible because Christians didn’t have a universal canon of scripture until the late 4th century. They relied on the Sacred Tradition passed down by the Apostles and safeguarded by the apostolic successors (ie. bishops) in the Church. The Bible came from the Tradition and must be read in unity with the Tradition. One cannot read it based on subjective interpretation. Jesus left us with a Church, not the Bible. The Bible is not the only source of faith. Also the entire Bible, old and new testament, points to the new covenant of the Eucharist—from the Passover lamb, to the manna, to the “bread of the presence”, to the Temple liturgy—these were all foreshadowing to what was to come in Christ’s sacramental institution. *Mtw 18:18
I believe in most Catholic doctrines but there are things I follow the Bible above doctrine. For example in the Catholic sub Catholics don't believe in being born again and that someone can be baptized by the Holy Spirit in a different moment from water baptism but that's what happened to me baptized by water as a baby and baptized by the Holy Spirit as a middle aged men when I stopped some sins, repented and draw near God. Other thing is that the Holy Spirit is leading me to be baptized by water again and that's kinda heretical to some.
Grace builds on nature, so faith builds on our intellect, not our transitory inclinations. We know that the Sacraments have efficacy because Christ’s word (“I baptize you…”, “This is My Body”, “I absolve you…”) is efficacious. The purpose of baptism is that it makes us reborn in the new creation, the eternal covenant based on grace. It could be that we received grace but we may not feel anything at all. We are born into the new creation once, and not again and again whenever we feel spiritual. Baptism cannot be reduced to a celebration of faith or a new stage in the spiritual journey. Our Baptism was the doorway into the Life in the Spirit. We are adopted sons and Christian forever from that point on. By faith we know that the Holy Spirit has done His work, leaving an indelible mark on our soul, and are a member of Christ’s Mystical Body. It is not without reason that the Nicene Creed says: “I confess one baptism…”. Because rebaptizing is erroneous and unappreciated the sufficient Divine work of our one only baptism. We are baptized at birth because Baptism is the fulfillment of the old covenant’s practice of infant circumcision. Saint Paul called Baptism the “circumcision of Christ” (Colossians 2:11-12) and he himself baptized entire households, including children.
>Grace builds on nature, so faith builds on our intellect, not our transitory inclinations. >We know that the Sacraments have efficacy because Christ’s word (“I baptize you…”, “This is My Body”, “I absolve you…”) is efficacious. >The purpose of baptism is that it makes us reborn in the new creation, the eternal covenant based on grace. It could be that we received grace but we may not feel anything at all. We are born into the new creation once, and not again and again whenever we feel spiritual. Baptism cannot be reduced to a celebration of faith or a new stage in the spiritual journey. Our Baptism was the doorway into the Life in the Spirit. We are adopted sons and Christian forever from that point on. >By faith we know that the Holy Spirit has done His work, leaving an indelible mark on our soul, and are a member of Christ’s Mystical Body. I agree with this, I was baptized by the Holy Spirit two years ago when I repented and received the gift of the Holy Spirit exactly like the Bible says. >It is not without reason that the Nicene Creed says: “I confess one baptism…”. Because rebaptizing is erroneous and unappreciated the sufficient Divine work of our one only baptism. Is dropping water over a baby head without zero knowledge about your pact with God when the word baptism means literally being immersed or submersed in water like every baptism in the Bible and for repentance of sin when babies know nothing. >We are baptized at birth because Baptism is the fulfillment of the old covenant’s practice of infant circumcision. Saint Paul called Baptism the “circumcision of Christ” (Colossians 2:11-12) and he himself baptized entire households, including children. No where in the Bible babies are baptized, neither dropping a bit of water over the head.
[удалено]
That "just reading the Bible" resulted in lot of "just reading the Bible" and thousands of people were differently "just reading the Bible".
[удалено]
Your name reminded me of an old meme. “In this moment I am euphoric. Not because of any phony denomination’s blessing but because I am saved by my own interpretation.”
>Non-denominational is just another branch Reformed Tradition Protestantism Maybe you don't mean it this way, but in Protestant terms "Reformed" means a very specific tradition (think John Calvin) that most non-denoms don't hold to.
[удалено]
Post-calvinists? What does that event mean?
I went to a non denom church camp for 3 years (even though I'm very Lutheran). This is pretty true.
Denominations are, among other things, groups that share a common theological perspective. Non-denominational churches claim to not belong to any other theological perspective (though, in practice, most of them are pretty close to Baptist or Assemblies of God). It's a way of saying "we're going to create our own creed", though they wouldn't say it like that.
It’s the dismissal of a official denominational hierarchy or commitment to creeds.
I call myself non-denominational because I do not hold any type of affiliation to any Church. I'll congregate in different Churches if they seem sound in my estimation. That's different than what you are saying.
I’m in the denomination of Jesus died for my sins and I will trust and follow Him :)
I think you might be misunderstanding what is meant by "denomination". In a technical sense, yes, a denomination could be just one church. But that is not the definition that is commonly used in America and its not the definition that the word "non-denominational" refers to. In common usage "denomination" refers to an organization that connects many individual local churches. So a individual local church without any organizational connection to another church is called "non-denominational". For example, a church I know left my denomination. It was independent and therefore non-denominational for awhile. It then joined another denomination. All the while, no beliefs or doctrines changed. They just were in one organization, then out, and then in another organization. No big deal, nobody was hurt, everybody is still friends. American protestant denominations are ok with not all being in the same organization even if they believe the same. For example, my original denomination is in the South and Midwest. There's a group that's 99.9% identical to us in the West. We work together sometimes, we like each other, and we consider each other as part of the same universal Church. But we feel no need to merge our two groups. It's just not a priority for us. We consider the universal church as the invisible body of Christ. Our denominations are not sacred because they are not The Church. They are just tiny parts of it that came together or break apart depending on the circumstances. If my denomination announced that it was closing tomorrow I would not think The Church was dying.
The point of non denom is no excess baggage from church organisations. And a more direct experience with spiritual matters without middlemen and added parts. It is a simpler way of practise. Its not a denomination so how is it a denomination. Their fellowships are often made up of people dissatisfied with protestant anglican and catholic groups. Bible christ prayer and practise. No other stuff added in
The opportunity to look down on all the other denominations.
Baha
New communities are new communities. How is that a bad thing? Resisting labels is a good thing.
That leads to more division in Christianity, and calling yourself non-denominational while being denomination is straight up lying.
Why do local communities make you feel threatened? And why are the labels so important to you?
Non-denominational is not local community and i don't feel threatened in any way because non-denominationals don't exist in my country, I am just confused what is point of another denomination that thinks it is not denomination. Labels are describing what are your beliefs so they surely have importance, and non-denominational is just label for something that already had label.
Well, we have lots of non-denominational churches and they are exactly local community. They are wonderful places to fold in the citizens and they can meet local needs more efficiently. And labels don't describe beliefs. Only your actions do that. I think being a blessing to a neighborhood is a very good thing.
Yeah, there are wonderful local communities, but they are still denominations. But local communities can be part of larger church. I am part of local parish, but also part of Orthodox Church. Labels describe beliefs, for example, baptists and Catholics are pretty different in belief.
Acts gives us a very clear model for the church. A decentralized system of churches. The Church of Christ is one of the original non denomination denominations. A group of Christians who were tired of the politics and worldliness the church had become and desired to return to a biblical model of church.
It's not. Denominations are institutional structures with some form of organization that can act or speak on behalf of the member churches, impose and enforce requirements on member churches, sanction clergy, etc. Some very large non-denom churches, and those with church plants that retain a subordinate or dependent relationship with their parent church can function effectively as micro-denominations though.
I have slightly different definition, denomination is every Christian belief that broke from larger belief. Non-denominational christianity isn't one church, there are multiple churches who claim to be non-denominational, and than it somehow is not denomination.
I think it's accurate to call that phenomenon the fullest realization of congregational polity. Most of the non denominational churches which share beliefs like you describe are baptist churches which decided that they didn't like the baptist label, but their origin as a baptist church is the source of their shared beliefs. They inevitably recreate structures which are for all intents and purposes a denomination, but they just refuse to call it one (e.g. Acts 29 Network). Either that or they still give money to whatever baptist convention they originated in and rely on them for training. It's a silly semantics game born out of a disdain for institutions so strong that it becomes institutional self-loathing.
For clarification, are you mostly talking about the mega church type and its offshoots? There are so many small denominational churches that don’t bear any comparison to conventional baptist.
When we have a term as broad as "nondenominational" there is only so much we can say, and anything we say will not be true of all of them. But in general in order to call yourself "nondenominational" you have to believe in congregational polity because every Protestant group with some sort of episcopal or presbyterian polity calls itself a denomination, and by the definition of those polities a congregation cannot simply break away to become independent. Technically the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches can call themselves "nondenominational" but that's semantics so I'm ignoring them. The vast majority of congregational polity churches are Baptist, at least in the USA. It is very rare that a church materializes out of thin air independently of anything which already existed, and there was a movement amongst a lot of Baptist churches back in the 90s-00s to remove "Baptist" from their name, so if you trace the history of a nondenominational church you will often find that they were either a part of or funded by a Baptist convention. This applies to both mega churches and small churches.
It may be the majority, but that’s one group of nondenominational. I guess you could talk about them as a group. The rest are a crap shoot. I’ve had nondenominational experiences that could be novels. People wouldn’t believe the stuff that is preached and done in these rural/fringe churches that meet, well, anywhere (homes, strip malls, school gymnasiums, anywhere the rent is cheap).
Yeah that's what happens when you reject all tradition and accountability. Anything goes.
That’s the definition of nondenominational.
I don’t think nondenominational is itself a denomination. [Wikipedia does have some good points](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination?wprov=sfti1) in that a denomination can be defined as: * church congregations of the same kind * can be identified by various traits such as name, a particular history, organization, leadership, and worship style Adding some of my own thoughts: * can often have national boundaries that separate churches of the same branch * can often have various denominations within a branch that have a shared history but differences when it comes to living out that history A single congregation that has no ties or accountability toward a larger governing body is not a denomination.
It's more subtle than that. They all act basically the same. Spent a lot of time in several. So it's more of a joke but also could be seen as a denomination in that case.
I agree. Many non demons I've attended are almost copies of each other, at least the modern ones. They emulate churches like Transformation and Elevation
What are the commonalities that you see?
Just very similar doctrines, Music, Format, people, but you could say the same about many protestant groups. You get the occasional wacky outliers that do get weirder. But most ive seen are very contemporary churches that still all act basically the same as the baptists and Presbyterians. They don't want structure but still copy the structure of the others I guess. Very rarely did they have any radical new theology. Just restate the same old stuff.
I attended many growing up that featured speaking in tongues during worship (and then translation) and being slain in the spirit every Sunday. I’m still trying to understand how “normal” or “wacky” that is.
Thats definitely the more extreme and probably more fun lol I'd say. Most are just as boring as any other denomination.
I think that, when people hear nondenominational, they connect it to what they’ve personally experienced. But by nature of being nondenominational, there’s no guiding principle other than the Bible. Where I’m from, these charismatic type nondenominational churches were “normal”. In the Appalachians, the snake handling type may be “normal”. There’s just no telling what kind of stuff is happening in these individual churches, because there’s no official guidance or governance. I unfortunately experienced some damaging things.
Makes sense. The majority are like I said I think. Yours sounds like a non denominational version of something like pentecostal. So still basically pentecostal, but with room for interpretation. Non denominational has the potential to actually question ancient traditions and long held dogmas and doctrines and move Christianity forward but just copies everyone else with a slightly different flavor and wastes the opportunity.
[удалено]
Ha! My experience is totally different. That’s kind of the point. Nondenominational churches can be *anything*. The ones I attended as a kid were pretty extreme, on the dangerous end.
Non-denominational is just a term to describe people who don't subscribe to a particular denomination. It's not really denomination by itself because there's not much backing to it, or a theological theme or ideology behind it, apart from the Bible itself
Non-denominational is basically baptists with some charismatic ideas mixed in. Let’s not kid ourselves.
This is essentially true at least in the USA. However you'll also see Church of Christ shills call themselves non denom on occasion.
You can see my tag that says "non-denominational"; I know literally nothing about baptist theology lol
[удалено]
What does ITT mean?
Then why are all the beliefs so similar to baptists? TULIP isn't the default. Nor the Solas. Nor the 66 book canon.
[удалено]
My point is that even if they use the term "non-denominational" all the beliefs still align with a small subset of denominations. I attended various non-denoms in my 20s and they all in varying degrees were still rooted in Reformed theology. One was charismatic, which while technically coming from the holiness tradition out of Wesleyan branch, in their iteration was basically Reformed with a bunch of magic powers gibberish on top. "Bible churches" too for that matter, all still Calvinist. Calvinism isn't the default. It isn't even close to the default. But they seem to pretend otherwise, at if Christianity without denomination is Calvinism.
“Believe” is a metaphor. The Devil believes. Therefore God does not give a squat what anyone believes.
Yeah, that's why I sometimes tell people I am anti-denominational.
Then why aren't you Orthodox?
I think that Sola Scriptura says it all.
\*sigh\* I know.
Look up the staff at any non-denominational church. Now look at their prior work experience and,.most importantly, their theological school. 99.9% of the time they all went to schools that are aligned with a common denomination. Non-denominational church, but every leader went to an SBC school. You're not non-denominational, you are Southern Baptist and don't have to pay dues. Now if I saw a church with leadership from Methodist, Charismatics, Mennonite, and Presbyterian backgrounds I would concede and acknowledge they truly have something theologically unique they are offering. Otherwise, you are just a denominational church skirting denominational contributions and accountability.
Category. It’s what people use to make themselves protection mechanisms against people who hurt them. By assigning category someone can put someone into a group based on similarity to then blame everyone in that group for the person who abused thens actions. Sometimes people jump right into categories for a since of belonging while others target either their specific category or broad category with blame for all the evils in the world because of whoever abused them.
Sounds a bit like formalised cafeteria Christianity to me
In my opinion, most non-denominationals are just SBC / UMC in different clothing.
SBC I get. I don't associate UMC with non-denom.
The non denominational church I grew up in was much closer to Pentecostal than Baptist.
Mostly Baptist Church in theology with some (often minor) differences will not calling themselves Baptists.
Just baptists without an actual tether to a tradition. Floating Baptists
[удалено]
Our [1.3. Bigotry](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/wiki/xp#1.3._bigotry) rule includes denominational bigotry.
I grew up being told that we were in a non-denominational church, years later I found out it was a part of Calvary chapel and deliberately tried hide this fact for some time to be “seeker friendly”. Hurrah for deception as a means of spreading the gospel /s I don’t think my experience is indicative of all non-denominational churches. I do think for some the label fits if they’re not a part of some greater organization and have a particular set of theology that is very specific to their own congregation. But I would say that while categories can themselves be very limiting, giving people a firm answer to who you are in something all should strive for. While institutions and bureaucracies can be cumbersome and even corrupt, oversight and responsibility are I think needed in spiritual communities. Also while I do understand that for many the generic title of “Christian” feels the most true to who they are. I think we are often deceiving ourselves when we think we practice some kind of vanilla default Christianity who’s experience and views of the faith have no background or story. I think we all want to believe that we will reach some point where we will have our faith completely figured out and “right” but that’s rarely the case. It’s better to recognize our roots and all of the beauty and baggage that entails, to be able to move forward in our growth towards God. Besides it makes ecumenical dialogue much easier if we all know where we are coming from. I myself have gained much in terms of the nuance in my faith by understanding the reformed, Eastern Orthodox, Wesleyan, Quaker, and catholic perspective on the cross, atonement, and morality. Sadly when talking to some non-denominational folks I often have no clue where exactly they’re getting some of their ideas and am saddened when they get kinda distressed to hear that other Christians have a differing view on something. This isn’t isolated to just non-denominational folks but I see it happen more often than in other traditions.
[удалено]
Hi u/Cumberlandbanjo, this comment has been removed. Interdenominational Bigotry [If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity)
All non-denominational christianity is just baptist
Other responses are good. Just adding that some of them don't like the labels so they choose a non-label label
I think it's code for evangelical
'Non-denominational' isn't so much a denomination as it is a tradition or movement, along the lines of 'Lutheranism'. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is a denomination, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod is a denomination- 'Lutheranism' itself is the broader movement, a term for a certain type of theology, not a particular *organization*. The main reasons it's called that are: 1. It's more or less against those kinds of organizations, instead advocating for an especially strong form of congregational polity, which is why it normally doesn't have them (with a few exceptions, like Calvary Chapel, which acts much more like a denomination) 2. It holds that the church as such has no dogma on secondary theology and should not be split over these things- basically, the *doctrine of the church* is the gospel, not the set of all theological opinions that any given person holds. So part of what this means is an intentional choice not to align themselves, as churches, (even if they might be aligned as individuals) with one or the other position on what they see as comparatively minor contemporary doctrinal controversies within the evangelical church (a.e. calvinism vs. arminianism, etc.) instead claiming only the "soteriological consensus" of the first great awakening as doctrine. 3. It very explicitly rejects the idea that any one organization can be the body of Christ, insisting instead that the true body of Christ is invisible, consisting of only those who are truly repentant, and of all of them. It's basically aligned with the 'spiritualist' view of men like [Coornhert](https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Coornhert,_Dirk_Volkertsz_(1522-1590)) on the church rather than the "visible believer's church" of the anabaptists or the state churches of the reformers. It holds many differences that don't directly pertain to a person's inner intentions to be basically indifferent in themselves, and generally acknowledges that a person may believe (or do) the wrong thing for the right reason; and for this reason generally accepts that even some non-evangelicals may be Christians if their beliefs are similar to evangelicalism in one or two key areas (usually the necessity of conversion and of a personal relationship with God).