To be or not to be, that is the question.

[Scott Bushey]

Question posed:
Can one be considered [i:a351852374]reformed[/i:a351852374] and also be against denominating (numbering) or denominationalism?

Is [i:a351852374]denominationalism[/i:a351852374] scriptural?


[u:a351852374]Denominate[/u:a351852374]:

To issue or express in terms of a given monetary unit: securities that are denominated in dollars or yen.
To give a name to; designate.

adj. (--nt)
Of or relating to a quantity as a multiple of a unit: 12 in 12 pounds is denominate.

[u:a351852374]denominational[/u:a351852374]

A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.
One of a series of kinds, values, or sizes, as in a system of currency or weights: Cash registers have compartments for bills of different denominations. The stamps come in 25¢ and 45¢ denominations.
A name or designation, especially for a class or group

[u:a351852374]denominating[/u:a351852374]

To issue or express in terms of a given monetary unit: securities that are denominated in dollars or yen.
To give a name to; designate.

adj. (--nt)
Of or relating to a quantity as a multiple of a unit: 12 in 12 pounds is denominate.


~Adding to the body implies, "counting" those added.

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were [color=Red:a351852374]added[/color:a351852374] unto them about three thousand souls.
Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord [color=Yellow:a351852374]added[/color:a351852374] to the church daily such as should be saved.


Acts 5:14 And believers were the more [color=Red:a351852374]added[/color:a351852374] to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)


Acts 11:24 For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was [color=Yellow:a351852374]added[/color:a351852374] unto the Lord.

~Membership denominates:

Rom 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.


Rom 12:4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
Rom 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.


1 Cor 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.


1 Cor 12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
1 Cor 12:19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
1 Cor 12:20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
1 Cor 12:21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
1 Cor 12:22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
1 Cor 12:23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
1 Cor 12:24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:
1 Cor 12:25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
1 Cor 12:26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
1 Cor 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
1 Cor 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.


Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.


James 3:6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.

Mat 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.
Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.


The next concern in regards to non-denominating is, how is church discipline issued if there are no communicant members or membership. How is one excommunicated? The term implies "communicant". How is one expelled if there is nothing to be expelled from???



[Edited on 4-30-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Dan....]

Scott,

I think the better question is whether someone can be reformed and not be confessional.

If by denominational you mean, "[i:98ca71ddc4]A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and [b:98ca71ddc4]organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy[/b:98ca71ddc4][/i:98ca71ddc4], then you by definition have excluded all congregationalists (including John Owen).

I am currently reading Keith Mathison's book, "The Shape of Sola Scriptura". Excellent book!!

Modern evangelicalism has left the confessions behind, and have developed a radical definition of sola scriptura which is not the sola scriptura of the reformation. In leaving behind the doctrinal standards of the historic faith, modern evangelicalism is being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine and in the end is left with subjective truth. To be reformed, these churches must return to the doctrinal standards of the historic faith.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I think it is very rare to actually have a true non-denominational church. Every one that I have been too is still part of some association, though perhaps there is no legal or authoritative structure to that association. It seems natural that believers will congregate or denominate with those of like mind. Even the Congregationalists in New England had associations formed to consider advice and address doctrinal concerns. So I think that the very nature of Christian fellowship tending toward this denominating is evidence anough that we should do it in some way. The objections to denominations are usually related to the abuses of authority which take place, especially when the denomination starts to backslide and attack the faithful members within (i.e. PCUSA vs. Machen).

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

To be "non-denominational" is to dissent from the church. The Reformed church was very careful to lay those guidelines down. Check the Presbyterian form of Government in the WCF:

Of the Church.

THERE is [b:17d94a7b56]one[/b:17d94a7b56] general church visible, held forth in the New Testament.

The ministry, oracles, and ordinances of the New Testament, are given by Jesus Christ to the general church visible, for the gathering and perfecting of it in this life, until his second coming.

Particular visible churches, [b:17d94a7b56]members of the general church[/b:17d94a7b56], are also held forth in the New Testament. Particular churches in the primitive times were made up of visible saints, viz. of such as, being of age, professed faith in Christ, and obedience unto Christ, according to the rules of faith and life taught by Christ and his apostles; and of their children.

_________________

So if you are following the confession, that limits the "reality" or "trueness" of what constitutes a church.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Patrick & Dan,
I may not have been as clear as I intended. One of the major problems w/ non denominationalism is this modern day evangelical idea that denominationalism is some sort of sin. The masses whom have now gotten on this illicit bandwagon reject membership and -[u:51486a050b]counting[/u:51486a050b]- their participants. So, I guess, to be lucid, what I am centrally concerned w/ is the fact that most non denominational assemblies, do not count. This is probably closely attached to the principles of membership.

Generally, many of these types of assembly's are large churches. The participants are lost in a sea of faces. Accountability is fragmented at best and the mechanics of church discipline, damaged.

If I am not mistaken Dan, even congregationalist churches are in fellowship to some extent w/ a larger body of congregational churches. My concern comes in when we see all these little 'groups' of people, i.e. home church movement, many ranks of the charasmatic strore-front churches, etc. whom are not attached to anyone.

[Edited on 4-30-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

[quote:96a5eed17e][i:96a5eed17e]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:96a5eed17e]
Patrick & Dan,
I may not have been as clear as I intended. One of the major problems w/ non denominationalism is this modern day evangelical idea that denominationalism is some sort of sin. The masses whom have now gotten on this illicit bandwagon reject membership and -[u:96a5eed17e]counting[/u:96a5eed17e]- their participants. So, I guess, to be lucid, what I am centrally concerned w/ is the fact that most non denominational assemblies, do not count. This is probably closely attached to the principles of membership.

Generally, many of these types of assembly's are large churches. The participants are lost in a sea of faces. Accountability is fragmented at best and the mechanics of church discipline, damaged.

If I am not mistaken Dan, even congregationalist churches are in fellowship to some extent w/ a larger body of congregational churches. My concern comes in when we see all these little 'groups' of people, i.e. home church movement, many ranks of the charasmatic strore-front churches, etc. whom are not attached to anyone.

[Edited on 4-30-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:96a5eed17e]
Well, Scott, all the non-denominational churches I've visited or attended had the option of membership and did practice excommunication to some degree. Granted, they weren't as strict as the reformed churches. For instance, one church in which I was a member, they never fenced the Lord's Table, and didn't require those baptised to become members. But all members were required to be involved in one of the ministries. This church was about 1200-1500 people (don't know how many were members though). And they did defintely count heads (every service). That was their braggin' rights. But even if you're a member, you still get lost in the see of faces as you described. I only knew a couple of the pastors and elders, because I was a leader in the youth and single adult ministries. Otherwise, I probably never would have met them.

 

[Scott Bushey]

[quote:0091e45c86][i:0091e45c86]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:0091e45c86]
[quote:0091e45c86][i:0091e45c86]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:0091e45c86]
Patrick & Dan,
I may not have been as clear as I intended. One of the major problems w/ non denominationalism is this modern day evangelical idea that denominationalism is some sort of sin. The masses whom have now gotten on this illicit bandwagon reject membership and -[u:0091e45c86]counting[/u:0091e45c86]- their participants. So, I guess, to be lucid, what I am centrally concerned w/ is the fact that most non denominational assemblies, do not count. This is probably closely attached to the principles of membership.

Generally, many of these types of assembly's are large churches. The participants are lost in a sea of faces. Accountability is fragmented at best and the mechanics of church discipline, damaged.

If I am not mistaken Dan, even congregationalist churches are in fellowship to some extent w/ a larger body of congregational churches. My concern comes in when we see all these little 'groups' of people, i.e. home church movement, many ranks of the charasmatic strore-front churches, etc. whom are not attached to anyone.

[Edited on 4-30-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:0091e45c86]
Well, Scott, all the non-denominational churches I've visited or attended had the option of membership and did practice excommunication to some degree. Granted, they weren't as strict as the reformed churches. For instance, one church in which I was a member, they never fenced the Lord's Table, and didn't require those baptised to become members. But all members were required to be involved in one of the ministries. This church was about 1200-1500 people (don't know how many were members though). And they did defintely count heads (every service). That was their braggin' rights. But even if you're a member, you still get lost in the see of faces as you described. I only knew a couple of the pastors and elders, because I was a leader in the youth and single adult ministries. Otherwise, I probably never would have met them. [/quote:0091e45c86]

Pat,
I am not talking about that portion of the body that is orthodox, i.e. formal membership. I am addressing, for the sake of this discussion, those like Calvary Chapels. There is no membership. In fact they mention it along the same lines as sin or blatant error.

It is also my opinion that to make mebership voluntary, is almost as grave an error.

Prov 29:18 Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.

Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

[quote:0a0f319f4d][i:0a0f319f4d]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:0a0f319f4d]
Pat,
I am not talking about that portion of the body that is orthodox, i.e. formal membership. I am addressing, for the sake of this discussion, those like Calvary Chapels. There is no membership. In fact they mention it along the same lines as sin or blatant error.
[/quote:0a0f319f4d]
The particular church I was in wasn't orthodox (at least in regard to reformed orthodoxy), they were independent arminian baptists in essence, though they refused labels. Sorry, I wasn't aware the Calvary Chapel movement taught that sort of thing. I'll have to investigate now as one of my family members attends one of those churches.

 

[Scott Bushey]

[quote:a1d742d648][i:a1d742d648]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:a1d742d648]
[quote:a1d742d648][i:a1d742d648]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:a1d742d648]
Pat,
I am not talking about that portion of the body that is orthodox, i.e. formal membership. I am addressing, for the sake of this discussion, those like Calvary Chapels. There is no membership. In fact they mention it along the same lines as sin or blatant error.
[/quote:a1d742d648]
The particular church I was in wasn't orthodox (at least in regard to reformed orthodoxy), they were independent arminian baptists in essence, though they refused labels. Sorry, I wasn't aware the Calvary Chapel movement taught that sort of thing. I'll have to investigate now as one of my family members attends one of those churches. [/quote:a1d742d648]

Paul,
The question remains, is the original moniker "non denominational" directed towards the idea that there is no membership or is it's main goal in expousing a body of believers whom have no affiliation w/ any mainline group. in my opinion, it was originally intended to identify with bodies that do _not count_ their people.

Anyone have any idea where the non denominational two headed cow originated?

 

[alwaysreforming]

Scott:
I belonged to (a real member!) a non-denom church for a few years before becoming Reformed. In fact, my pastor had very close ties with RTS (Orlando) and served as an adjunct professor, I believe.

Our church was "non-denom" not due to any issues with membership or counting, but because it wanted to focus on unity around the essentials and wanted to give those believers who may have differed on baptism, tongues, eschatology, etc. an opportunity to worship in the same congregation and have community together.

The church was quite good, except there was never any Law preached, the "worship band" sometimes played really cheesy contemp. songs, and there was virtually NO accountability since it was 10,000 members BIG!

They DID however, recite the confessions, etc. during the service, which I was very pleased about.

 

[JonathonHunt]

Someone asked for an example of a church with absolutely no ties to any organisations...

My church here in the UK is truly independent. As was my previous church, The Metropolitan Tabernacle (Spurgeon's) London.

We do have a formal membership, however. I'm interested in the non-denominational/non membership situation which has been mentioned here.

All this said, both churches I have belonged to have ties with many other independent Baptist and other churches, in terms of attending each others special events, rallies and services, and pulpit-exchange, etc.

I strongly believe in independency - but I strongly believe in fellowship with other churches also.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Jonathan writes:
"I strongly believe in independency - but I strongly believe in fellowship with other churches also."

Technically, you are denying fellowship by your independance.........

 

[pastorway]

[b:ec2324256b]LBCF - chapter 26[/b:ec2324256b]
5. In the exercise of the authority which has been entrusted to Him, the Lord Jesus calls to Himself from out of the world, through the ministry of His Word, by His Spirit, those who are given to Him by His Father, so that they may walk before Him in all the ways of obedience which He prescribes to them in His Word. Those who are thus called, He commands to walk together in [u:ec2324256b]particular societies or churches[/u:ec2324256b], for their mutual edification, and for the due performance of that public worship, which He requires of them in the world.

6. The members of these churches are saints because they have been called by Christ, and because they visibly manifest and give evidence of their obedience to that call by their profession and walk. Such saints willingly consent to walk together according to the appointment of Christ, giving themselves up to the Lord and to one another, according to God's will, in avowed subjection to the ordinances of the Gospel.

7. To [u:ec2324256b]each of these churches thus gathered[/u:ec2324256b], according to the Lord's mind as declared in His Word, He has given all the power and authority which is in any way required for them to carry on the order of worship and discipline which He has instituted for them to observe. He has also given all the commands and rules for the due and right exercise of this power.

8. A particular church gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members. The officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church are bishops or elders and deacons. These are to be appointed for the peculiar administration of ordinances and the execution of power or duty with which the Lord has entrusted them and to which He has called them. This pattern of church order is to be continued to the end of the world.

12. All believers are bound to join themselves to [u:ec2324256b]particular churches[/u:ec2324256b] when and where they have opportunity so to do, and all who are admitted into the privileges of a church, are also under the censures and government of that church, in accordance with the rule of Christ.

14. [u:ec2324256b]Each church and all its members are obligated to pray constantly for the good and prosperity of all Christ's churches everywhere[/u:ec2324256b], and to help forward everyone who comes into their district or calling, by the exercise of their gifts and graces. [u:ec2324256b]It clearly follows that when churches are planted by the goodness of God they ought also to hold fellowship among themselves to promote peace, increasing love and mutual edification as and when they enjoy an opportunity to do so to their advantage[/u:ec2324256b].

15. In cases of difficulties or differences, either in matters of doctrine or administration, which concern the churches in general or any single church, and which affects their peace, union, and edification, or when any members of a church are injured because of any disciplinary proceedings not consistent with the Word and correct order, it is according to the mind of Christ, that [u:ec2324256b]many churches holding communion together[/u:ec2324256b] do, through their appointed messengers meet to consider, and give their advice about the matter in dispute, and to report to all the churches concerned. However, when these messengers are assembled, they are not entrusted with any real church power, or with any jurisdiction over the churches involved in the problem. They cannot exercise any censure over any churches or persons, or impose their determination on the churches or their officers.

Independent and Fellowshipping - this is the Baptist understanding of the local church and its relation to other local churches. No contradiction here. In fact, FIRE is a good example. It is a Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelical churches!

Phillip

 

[Puritan Sailor]

[quote:75096e3787][i:75096e3787]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:75096e3787]
The question remains, is the original moniker "non denominational" directed towards the idea that there is no membership or is it's main goal in expousing a body of believers whom have no affiliation w/ any mainline group. in my opinion, it was originally intended to identify with bodies that do _not count_ their people.

Anyone have any idea where the non denominational two headed cow originated? [/quote:75096e3787]
The non-denom, calvary chapel model, you have mentioned is I think a newer idea. There have been seperatist and dissenting independent congregations for quite some time, yet they still held to church membership and a "reformed" view of the sacraments and church discipline. Even most non- denom mega-churches I know of still have membership requirements of some sort. I imagine the calvary chapel model is just another modern reaction by easy believism advocates against any sort of law/rules or discrimination between church attenders because that's "not fair." When did the calvary chapel movement start?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Perhaps the Plymouth Brethen are a group we could look at too. Do they have membership requirements?

 

[Scott Bushey]

[quote:648cbc2967][i:648cbc2967]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:648cbc2967]
[quote:648cbc2967][i:648cbc2967]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:648cbc2967]
The question remains, is the original moniker "non denominational" directed towards the idea that there is no membership or is it's main goal in expousing a body of believers whom have no affiliation w/ any mainline group. in my opinion, it was originally intended to identify with bodies that do _not count_ their people.

Anyone have any idea where the non denominational two headed cow originated? [/quote:648cbc2967]
The non-denom, calvary chapel model, you have mentioned is I think a newer idea. There have been seperatist and dissenting independent congregations for quite some time, yet they still held to church membership and a "reformed" view of the sacraments and church discipline. Even most non- denom mega-churches I know of still have membership requirements of some sort. I imagine the calvary chapel model is just another modern reaction by easy believism advocates against any sort of law/rules or discrimination between church attenders because that's "not fair." When did the calvary chapel movement start? [/quote:648cbc2967]

The Jesus movement originated in the late 60's to early 70's out in California under the leadership of Chuck Smith. Chuck Smith is the mainstay of the Calvary Chapel movement out in Costa mesa, Ca.

You will be suprised to see how many of these churches exist here in Ameuica alone.

http://calvarychapel.com/affiliates/

[Edited on 5-1-2004 by Scott Bushey]