what makes someone nondenominational?

Mrstickball · 02-15-2003, 10:45 PM

Yes, the tithe of tithes (typically 10%) goes to the denomination headquarters, and is spent on various things (varies from denomination to denomination)...

Some of the larger super churches have to back out of denominational commitments due to the price of being affilliated with any certain denomination....Thus why so many mega-churches aren't affiliated with a denomination, as well as smaller churches that barely make ends meet.

Luke · 02-16-2003, 04:29 PM

(Becky)
churches have to pay tiths to use the lable of that denomination?

(Luke)
It depends on the denomination. It obviously costs something to run the thing, and that has to come from the denomination body, but how much is required and from what churches really depends.

Andrew · 02-16-2003, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Travis
This is true in my experience.

Mine too. [/QUOTE] i am not even close to Pentacostal. I don't speak in tounges, and i am not a holy-roller.

Mike Graham · 02-16-2003, 09:26 PM

I didn't say all, I said most. In my experience, as well as many people commenting in this thread, that is a reasonable statement.

FreakShiny · 02-17-2003, 09:41 AM

My non-denom. church is a Bible church which I have found to basically be a Baptist church without the screaming reverend making you feel guilty when you leave. This seems to be true of most Bible churches that I have found...

Anyone else agree?

GRibbit · 02-17-2003, 01:51 PM

heh well I don't know if I necessarily agree with that but then again there are quite a few similarities btwn the Southern Baptist church I go to and the Bible church my family goes to. 1st off, Pastor Jeff isn't one of those 'screaming reverands that makes you feel guilty when you leave"

neither is Pastor Bruce...although Bruce does tend to "scream" more than my pastor (Pastor Jeff) does. Both churches are quite contemporary and quite more charasmatic than other Baptist, and I guess churches in general, that I've gone to have been.
lol now that I've gone off on my own little random and off-topic tangant I'm going to hush my mouth and leave.

ak-man · 02-18-2003, 07:12 PM

weird. my church is a Bible church, and i think we're pretty well mixed. you can definitely see some baptist backgrounds, but you will find a lot of pentacostal things too.

and i know another non-denom church that's mostly pentacostal and not baptist

weird...

and strangely, cool

surferguitarist · 02-19-2003, 11:34 AM

unfortunately, non-denominational churches have a bad name. denomination in the greek means "division" which in 1 corinthians paul tells us that christ does not want us to be divided. thats what non-denom churches wanted to do. they figured if you started just reading what the bible said and didnt listen to what calvin, luther, smythe, etc said, maybe we could unite. but as time went by they ended up being corrupt and started following mans preaching again. so now there are just a few non-denominational churches that are just bible-based.

**Sean** · 02-19-2003, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by surferguitarist
unfortunately, non-denominational churches have a bad name. denomination in the greek means "division" which in 1 corinthians paul tells us that christ does not want us to be divided. thats what non-denom churches wanted to do. they figured if you started just reading what the bible said and didnt listen to what calvin, luther, smythe, etc said, maybe we could unite. but as time went by they ended up being corrupt and started following mans preaching again. so now there are just a few non-denominational churches that are just bible-based.

It sounds an awful lot like you're just trying to cause division by posting something like that as one of your first 3 posts. Maybe a friendly hello would be a better way to start a conversation with your brothers and sisters in Christ. I would refute what you said, but I don't like to argue with people who are just causing trouble. I'm also not quit sure what you were saying with your post. It seemed an awful lot like you were putting the teachings of Calvin and Luther on the same level as the Bible. Not that their teachings were wrong, but what they taught came from the Bible.

Xkcer Man · 02-19-2003, 01:09 PM

No, he was saying that we shouldn't have any standardization of beliefs and that we should all "believe the Bible," which usually means that we don't question our own interpretation. If you don't think we should listen to any great/well-known teachers, why should we listen to what our pastors teach? We should just read the Bible for ourselves! Luther, Calvin, et al didn't set out to be famous teachers - they set out to teach what they believed was truth (which is what nearly every teacher today does). Just because somebody becomes famous and has a large following doesn't mean they're wrong. But we also shouldn't allign ourselves with those teachings and say "I am of Paul," "I am of Apollos," "I am of Calvin," or "I am Methodist." We Christians! We are of Christ.

I think if people would recognize the difference between an essential belief and a non-essential belief, the church would be a lot closer to unity. We'd also have to let go of a good deal of pride.

surferguitarist · 02-19-2003, 02:18 PM

aright, i think what i said was taken the wrong way. im not trying to cause trouble. i just wanted to give the history of how non-denom churches got started and their motives. i never put luther and calvin on the same level as the bible. the bible is perfect so i could not put man on the same level as the word of god. sorry for the misunderstandings

ak-man · 02-19-2003, 04:34 PM

no problem :kgrin: mistakes seem to happen a lot more when you type things out instead of actually SAYING it.

hmmm, downside of internet (wahahahaha!)

*ahem* anyways...

but you do have a point. i DO get a little annoyed with people who say they're in a certain denomination and present it as better than any other. that's probably why non-denom churches sprung up. but i think quite a few of those churches now think of themselves as "better" than any denomination.

...sad

we got to keep in mind that we're ALL an the same level (sinners), but we're all different people w/ different ideas. the ONLY thing we can depend on is the Bible and what God SAYS is true, not what man THINKS is true. that includes man's interpretation of the Bible (which is why God sent the Holy Spirit and why he gave us a conscience and the concept of logic

)

yup, my word quota for the day is about...

surferguitarist · 02-19-2003, 04:41 PM

i agree a lot with you. the way i see it is that if youre following the bible completely and not throwing an interpretation in there then hey good job, brother/sister.

**Sean** · 02-19-2003, 05:04 PM

Quote:

aright, i think what i said was taken the wrong way. im not trying to cause trouble. i just wanted to give the history of how non-denom churches got started and their motives.

You're speaking about non-denominational churches as if they are a denomination. You can't speak about the history of a group of churches that aren't grouped. Its illogical. You have to look at each church seperately. THATS THE POINT!

Quote:

i never put luther and calvin on the same level as the bible. the bible is perfect so i could not put man on the same level as the word of god. sorry for the misunderstandings

Okay

Quote:

Originally posted by Xkcer Man
No, he was saying that we shouldn't have any standardization of beliefs and that we should all "believe the Bible," which usually means that we don't question our own interpretation.

I really don't know what you are trying to say. You said we shouldn't standardize, but we should all believe the Bible. Isn't that a contradiction?

Quote:

If you don't think we should listen to any great/well-known teachers, why should we listen to what our pastors teach? We should just read the Bible for ourselves! Luther, Calvin, et al didn't set out to be famous teachers - they set out to teach what they believed was truth (which is what nearly every teacher today does).

I never said anything to the contrary. I clearly said their teachings were from the Bible.

Quote:

Just because somebody becomes famous and has a large following doesn't mean they're wrong.

Please read all of my post next time. The last line said "Not that their teachings were wrong." Not wrong = RIGHT!!!

Quote:

But we also shouldn't allign ourselves with those teachings and say "I am of Paul," "I am of Apollos," "I am of Calvin," or "I am Methodist." We Christians! We are of Christ.

The person was talking against non-denominational churches not denominations. You're making much bigger leaps in logic than me. He never said what you said above.

Quote:

I think if people would recognize the difference between an essential belief and a non-essential belief, the church would be a lot closer to unity. We'd also have to let go of a good deal of pride.

I completely agree.

Xkcer Man · 02-19-2003, 05:26 PM

I'm saying that interpretations as a whole are not bad. That's what I'm sorta getting surferguitarist. I'm sorry if I jumped the gun a bit.