# Non-denominational = Baptist right?



## CDM (Mar 8, 2007)

Out of all the non-denominational; churches out there are not they all Baptist? Why don't they call themselves such?

It's funny when I hear non-denominational smugness. I mean your denomination ("Non-Denominational)" is bigger than mine!

Aren't they all Arminian to boot? 

Fellow precisions: please refrain from listing the one church out of the million that is not Arminian. Thank you. I will, however, accept a list of at least 5.  

Who can learn a brother on non-denominational ecclesiology.


----------



## raekwon (Mar 8, 2007)

mangum said:


> Out of all the non-denominational; churches out there are not they all Baptist? Why don't they call themselves such?
> 
> It's funny when I hear non-denominational smugness. I mean your denomination ("Non-Denominational)" is bigger than mine!
> 
> ...



Well, there are exceptions . . . most churches affiliated with the Acts 29 church planting network are non-denominational (I do know of one A29 church that's in the PCA). None of those churches are Arminian.


----------



## Chris (Mar 8, 2007)

Most of them are credobaptist as opposed to paedobaptist, but that _per se _does not make them 'baptist' in the sense that the term is commonly used. 

I've known non-denom church members who were decidedly convinced of the DoG, also. 


(All generalizations are false, including this one.....)


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 8, 2007)

What about all the "Independent" Presbyterian churches? (whatever that means.) There seem to be a lot of them in the West.


----------



## Chris (Mar 8, 2007)

raekwon said:


> Well, there are exceptions . . . most churches affiliated with the Acts 29 church planting network are non-denominational (I do know of one A29 church that's in the PCA). None of those churches are Arminian.



Ed Stetzer is heavily invovled with Acts 29, and he is (supposedly) baptist. From a Calvinist POV, he's pretty Arminian, too.


----------



## raekwon (Mar 8, 2007)

Chris said:


> Ed Stetzer is heavily invovled with Acts 29, and he is (supposedly) baptist. From a Calvinist POV, he's pretty Arminian, too.



Yes, Stetzer himself is a SBC minister. As far as his soteriology goes, I'm not sure. Still, Acts 29's doctrinal statement makes pretty clear that the churches that affiliate with them will be Reformed (soteriologically speaking, anyway).

(And like I said, there's a PCA church involved w/ Acts 29, so they're not all non-denominational . . . just most of them are.)


----------



## Chris (Mar 8, 2007)

> Acts 29's doctrinal statement makes pretty clear that the churches that affiliate with them will be Reformed (soteriologically speaking, anyway).



I stand corrected, and in need of some time spent reading and re-examining the Acts 29 movement.....


----------



## Chris (Mar 8, 2007)

Speaking of the west, are there many SBC churches in your area?


----------



## CDM (Mar 8, 2007)

raekwon said:


> Well, there are exceptions . . . most churches affiliated with the Acts 29 church planting network are non-denominational (I do know of one A29 church that's in the PCA). None of those churches are Arminian.



Thanks, I'll look into them.



Chris said:


> Most of them are credobaptist as opposed to paedobaptist, but that _per se _does not make them 'baptist' in the sense that the term is commonly used.



Then where do they differ? What is the difference between a Baptist and a Credo in a non-denominational church? We'd have to look at the non-denom's government wouldn't we? And what would we find?


----------



## Chris (Mar 8, 2007)

mangum said:


> Then where do they differ? What is the difference between a Baptist and a Credo in a non-denominational church?



Non-denoms often differ with us on a number of doctrines:

-tongues. Most baptist are cessationalists; it is safe to say that to be baptist is to be a cessationalist. Non-denoms are often if not usually charasmatic. There are exceptions that prove the rule for both, of course. 

-eternal security. There are a minority of baptists that reject eternal security (freewill baptists), nondenoms are all over the map on this. 

-modes of baptism. Baptists are invariably credo/full immersion, nondenoms are usually credo but some immerse, some sprinkle, some pour...you get the idea. 

regenerate membership: I'm not sure where most nondenoms stand on this. Truth be known, I'm not sure where *WE* stand on this anymore..... 

two offices: pastor and deacon: Nondenoms don't necessarily have deacons or elders, etc. 



I'm sure there are other differences, but those came to mind now.


----------



## CDM (Mar 8, 2007)

Chris said:


> Non-denoms often differ with us on a number of doctrines:
> 
> -tongues. Most baptist are cessationalists; it is safe to say that to be baptist is to be a cessationalist. Non-denoms are often if not usually charasmatic. There are exceptions that prove the rule for both, of course.
> 
> ...



Excellent. 

Still


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 8, 2007)

The name "non-denominational" is a word to describe an independent church (lone-ranger, really), that is distinguishable from churches which are essentially independent, but which belong to "fellowships," "conventions," and other affiliations that exercise at least some say-so over a church, perhaps as little as their right to identify themselves with that group. Once a group has the right to kick people out, it is a denomination.

Denomination describes a group or a class of things. Charles Hodge (I believe) once gave this description of a denomination:

Reach in your pocket and pull out some money. Each of those pieces represent a "denomination." 25c, 50c, 10c, $1, $5, etc. The general worth of those denominations differ (like the worth of different ecclesiastical denominations). But 1s are all 1s, 5s all 5s, 100s all 100s. Some are holey. Some are hardly worth the paper they're printed on. Some are counterfeit. But they have a value stamped on them or into them. That's "denomination."

So what is a non-denominated church? A church of uncertain value. A church of which you (individually) are supposed to judge the worth. Of course, one typically judges the worth against a known quantity, so non-denominational churches are only as good as their competition compares. Once in a while, one becomes so well known, that it serves as its own "denominational" benchmark--high or low. Non-denominated churches will always have this issue: they are subject more than a denominated church to "market forces." The worth of the commodity they offer can change overnight. It is wholly at the mercy of subjective valuation.

Churches like Falwell's TRBC (which incidentally isn't located anywhere remotely close to Thomas Road anymore), once famously non-denominational (independentfunamentalbaptist, all one sylable) is now an SBC. But does that make them "denominational"? Not unless the SBC is a "denomination." But they call themselves a "convention," not a denomination. But the term "denomination" is nevertheless applied to it, and rightly so.


----------



## Gryphonette (Mar 8, 2007)

mangum said:


> Out of all the non-denominational; churches out there are not they all Baptist? Why don't they call themselves such?
> 
> Aren't they all Arminian to boot?



That's amusing, as it was at the non-denominational Christ Chapel Bible Church that I first heard - to my horror! - the doctrine of predestination preached.

This past Sunday total depravity was spelled out yet again (not for the first time).

It's four-point Calvinist, unfortunately, instead of full-orbed five-point, but it's not Arminian.

Besides which, the ecclesiastical structure is different from a Baptist church. It's very strongly elder-run. The congregation generally only votes for elders and deacons, and that's all. The elder board makes all other decisions. From what I've understood, this is not at all the way most Baptist churches work.

Point being, there's probably more to being "Baptist" than holding to believer's baptism.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 8, 2007)

mangum said:


> Out of all the non-denominational; churches out there are not they all Baptist? Why don't they call themselves such?
> 
> It's funny when I hear non-denominational smugness. I mean your denomination ("Non-Denominational)" is bigger than mine!
> 
> ...



I'm just curious, are you equating non-denoms to baptists then saying they are Arminian?


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 8, 2007)

Non-denominational is a term that comes from seeker-sensitive guys.

Not all are arminian, I was part of one that was Calvinistic.

My old church was Pre-Mill, and Credo-baptist

They had elders (no deacons).


----------



## JonathanHunt (Mar 8, 2007)

Another valid point:

Being a 'Baptist' Church does not make you denominational. Many Baptist churches are part of denominations - SBC or Baptist Union of Great Britain, for example, but many are not. Hence all of all thethree churches I have belonged to, two were distinctively baptist, my current church is credobaptist in practice- but all three are non-denominational.

JH


----------



## etexas (Mar 8, 2007)

Chris said:


> Ed Stetzer is heavily invovled with Acts 29, and he is (supposedly) baptist. From a Calvinist POV, he's pretty Arminian, too.


OK. Time for everyones favorite game Ladies and Gentlemen: HELP THE ANGLICAN! Here we go.......for all the marbles......What is this Acts 29 thingy? I mean really people....I cannot find it in my BCP. It is not something that we of the Church of the Proper Fork know about.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 8, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> OK. Time for everyones favorite game Ladies and Gentlemen: HELP THE ANGLICAN! Here we go.......for all the marbles......What is this Acts 29 thingy? I mean really people....I cannot find it in my BCP. It is not something that we of the Church of the Proper Fork know about.



http://www.acts29network.org/


----------

