Spend all day speaking against traditions and they go and invent worse ones. I'd rather say the Gloria Patri 100 times than sing one of those repetitious contemporary worship songs once.
To recognize that Christ's catholic (universal) church is not entailed to one historical denomination, but has faithful in a number of denominations, does not preclude a person finding a home in one specific cultural setting, with a local community of believers. "There is one body and one Spirit-just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call- one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Ephesians chapter 4) Where a person should be wary, however, is in those church groups where there is no accountability, where a single local leader acts as a mini-king. The Biblical church as described in the NT was orderly and had systems of accountability both local and over the local congregations.
This really has been the topic of the weekend lol. On your second point, I'd just point out that though you're right in saying that non-denominational is still a 'denomination' or 'subsection' of protestantism, the idea is that it does not force one to subscribe to the tradition of a specific denomination. My argument is that my nondenom church has a strong statement of beliefs that encompasses the core stuff that we all pretty much agree on, but then beyond that I don't have to subscribe to any specific views. My views on eschatology, creation, spiritual gifts, etc. can all be separate from what other people at my Church believe, and that doesn't raise an issue because there is no pressure of tradition. In other words, I think non-denominationals are closer to being the schism-less ideal, in that you don't have to schism from them based on the non-important stuff. I agree that the ideal should be Church unity, but the problem being that so many schisms already exist, all the way up to the 'great' one, and if you choose a denomination at this point in time you are essentially just choosing your favorite schism. TLDR; schisms are bad but there's already been a thousand and I don't know how to remdedy that other than to say we should all just get along.
Non-denominationalism does in practice expect you to subscribe to the tradition of a specific denomination: their own. It's not a neutral space. If they really achieved what they think they are achieving as being some kind of blank-slate, bare-basics, one-size-fits-all Christianity, then I as an Anglican could walk into that church today, have my child baptized, make the sign of the cross during worship, and openly discuss baptismal regeneration and the real presence and wonder aloud whether or not some form of Purgatory exists at Wednesday night Bible study at Dan's house. You and I both know that I just described a unicorn. I would be told no we don't do that here, I would receive strange glances, and the Bible study group would awkwardly try to move on from any weird topics I brought up. I really hope I'm not coming on too strong. You are my brother in Christ, full-stop. But I really believe that non-denominationalism does not solve the problem of denominations in the slightest. It is like an ostrich sticking its head in the sand and seeing no disunity there, and thus thinking it has escaped all of the divisions.
@@MissingTrails You're right that people would be confused if you were doing those practices, though I strongly believe nobody would kick you out or even ask you to stop (at a good one) I'm also sorry you've not had this experience, but it really is not a unicorn. I've had conversations on purgatory and infant baptism, involving multiple perspectives, in my Weds night Bible study. :)
Great video! would like to hear a video from you on submission to your parents when it comes to churches/denominations. I'm personally in a position where I feel drawn to anglicanism again, but my mother is quite adamant i attend her nondenom with her. We could of course speak it over, but I feel like it's also respectful to your parents to at least tolerate a church that isn't ideal, but not heretical. So many people in this sphere talking about the "traditional worldview" and "submit to your bishop", but they aren't submitting to their mother and father (if Christian)!
I assume you are still at home with your parents? If not, then it becomes a question of, can I follow Christ in the best way I know how, and go to my mother's church?
@@MissingTrails I am (entering Uni this soon, but they still expect me to attend their church). I would say though, attending a different denomination to the one your parents ask likely doesn’t qualify as ‘disobedience’ if you have a proper reason to do so. At the end, your family are not God. Usually, they may have good intentions, but it’s their false opinions or caricatures of other denominations which cause them to be so adamant about a certain group (for example, in my case, they worry that non-Pentecostal groups don’t care about allowing God to work in their lives, due to their service / mass being too ‘boring’, or them not doing deliverance, etc.) If you explain your reasons for wanting to attend a different church, and they cannot raise a valid and honest objection, then I believe in the eyes of the Lord, you are not guilty of disobedience.
why im not anglican, catholic, presbyterian, lutheran, eastern orthodox: Acts 8:37 why im not southern baptist, independent fundamental baptist: Romans 11:20 why im not reformed calvinist: 1 Timothy 2:4 why im not methodist, free will or general baptist: John 12:32 why im not non-denominational: Amos 3:3 why im not progressive: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 why im not pentecostal: 1 Corinthians 12:30 why im not hebrew roots: Hebrews 7:12 why im not sda, lds, jw, christian science: 1 John 4:1 why i'm not church of christ: Mark 7:8 why i'm a Christian that fellowships with Christians: Genesis 1:1- Revelation 22:21
In many episcopal churches, it went from "via media" between Christian heritage, to "via media" in the middle of every single modern idea against the Lord you can think of... I feel much pain lol
Just so you know, Calvin didn't kill Servetus. He warned Servetus to stay out of Geneva, and he tried to get the people who did kill him to kill him more mercifully. Servetus also was definitely not a Christian, because he was an anti-trinitarian heretic.
I may be in the minority here, but it seems to me that one can be non-Trinitarian and still be a saved, bible-believing Christian, so long as you don't deny the divinity of Christ. After all, many "Trinitarians" are unknowingly Modalists. All one would have to do for this to be true is not understand that the Sacred Scriptures imply Trinitarianism.
@@Real_LiamOBryan I would cautiously agree with you; Christ’s mercies extend beyond all blasphemies (except that of the Holy Spirit). However, we do need to draw the line between a benign ignorance and a malicious denial of who and what God has revealed Himself to be. Of course, a faulty understanding of the Trinity is never benign, but rather, I mean if someone is ignorant of the Trinity and is later corrected, then they whole-heartedly accept the Truth and repent of their former ignorance. Either way, Servetus understood Trinitarian theology and was in the malicious denial category. Calvin tried to reason with him multiple times, including trying to meet with him in Paris (a dangerous thing for Calvin to do since he was wanted by the Roman Catholic authorities there), however Servetus failed to show. Then, Calvin warned him by letter to not come to Geneva, yet again, Servetus ignored him and showed up peddling his false gospel inside the church building of Geneva. I do hold out hope for Servetus. My heart breaks when I think of his needless death-his final words where he cried out to Jesus. I can only hope that his heart changed and that our Lord showed mercy on him.
@@ChristIsTheLifeOfMySoul *"However, we do need to draw the line between a benign ignorance and a malicious denial of who and what God has revealed Himself to be."* Absolutely. *"Of course, a faulty understanding of the Trinity is never benign, but rather, I mean if someone is ignorant of the Trinity and is later corrected, then they whole-heartedly accept the Truth and repent of their former ignorance."* If their life is cut short, and they don't come to truly understand, so that they are still ignorant, then I don't see why God would not have mercy. *"Either way, Servetus understood Trinitarian theology and was in the malicious denial category."* I'm not sure about that, but I think that he denied the divinity of Christ (which I don't see how you can do without rejecting His atonement, since it is in virtue of Christ's being divine that his atonement can cover the sins of all those who will be saved), so I'm not really speaking about Servetus here, but generally. You can have things explained to you from here to eternity and still not understand. Just because someone corrected him, and he had chances to recant, that doesn't mean that he actually did understand. And, if they also just cannot bring themselves to believe in something that they sincerely don't think is true, and they die in that state, then I don't see why God wouldn't show mercy. *"My heart breaks when I think of his needless death-his final words where he cried out to Jesus. I can only hope that his heart changed and that our Lord showed mercy on him."* Same, my brother (except I'm not sure that he would have to have a change of heart in order to have mercy from our perfectly just, but perfectly loving, God).
Nicea II is historically incorrect and wrong about it being apostolic and that if you don’t do it you’ll go to Hell, but it is a fine and nice development that enhances my spiritual life! It doesn’t contradict scripture
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty I agree we shouldn’t worship images of God or of creation! That’s what the Second Commandment is referring to of course because when God is telling the Israelites how to build the temple He tells them to make sculptures and images of heavenly things like Cherubim. So it’s not just a blatant ban on any image of anytbing
@@Loganva except the reason they worshipped at the Ark was due to the fact that it literally was indwelled with God… Note that it does not depict God either. Icons and images are really just not a great thing. Check out a great stream by the other Paul called “refuting Nicea II from Holy Writ”
I like Anglican church, but i don't like high Anglican church ( because looks like Catholic and some statues ) and liberal Anglican churches ( because women priest and pro LGBTQ )
Anglicans replaced the Pope with the Bishop of Canterbury. - if the church doesn’t look Catholic, it’s a fake knock-off. The poster stated ‘schism is sin.’
You make some interesting points in this video, brother. I trained at a Presbyterian Seminary, was ordained in a Baptist church, and currently serve overseas in a denomination that translates as "Evangelical Church" but is heavily influenced by Pentecostalism and Methodism. I love low-church non-denominationalism, but I see how it loses a connection to the historical church. I still have two issues with traditional churches, though. One is substantive, and the other is subjective. 1. They all adopt unhealthy, even heretical, traditions (papal doctrines, icon veneration, current issues in the Anglican church, etc.) 2. Traditional worship is frankly boring. Of course, you can also make similar arguments about non-denominational churches, but this is my impression. Thank you for the video. God Bless
@@Bradford.C.Wallsbury Before God called me to new life, I was playing music in bars, literally trying to entertain people. Now I lead worship in a low church setting, and entertaining people is the farthest thing from my mind. We use music styles familiar to the contemporary culture. On a superficial level, this may look like entertainment. The songs we sing, however, are aimed at glorifying God. They are extended to the congregation to encourage them to worship God as well.
@@andyontheinternet5777what you were doing before was entertainment, and now what you’re doing is…entertainment. Meant only to make people feel a certain way so they can finally “worship”. Worship isn’t based on feeling. Or how entertaining a service is. It’s based on communion with and deeper unity to Christ. How does 4 pop songs and a Ted talk anyway resemble what the early church was doing and trying to do? And you do realize that non denominational churches by and large teach more Hersey than any of the apostolic churches? And none of you are even united remotely in what you believe to begin with so there’s that. Don’t come at my church when yours has also been affected by modern gender theory and lgbtq thought too. Lmao. So hypocritical.
@@andyontheinternet5777 hi Andy i wasn't trying to be disparaging, I was just pointing out that judging by "boring" is perhaps not the right way to judge worship, though I appreciate you did clarify it was your subjective opinion
Wha... a lot of this logic doesn't make sense. If authority is wrong, Scripture itself commands us to protest and leave, and never condemns starting a new church for a good reason.
@@MissingTrails And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars; (Rev. 2:2 NKJ) Notice they are praised for testing and rejecting a claim to leadership.
@@Dizerner if they said they were apostles but were not apostles, then they are not an authority that was wrong and then protested against and left; they were never an authority to begin with, because they were not of the apostles.
I think the advantage of non-denominational is I don’t have to rely on bishops and the church organisation. I can just move on if the church becomes corrupt. You can’t really do that with denominational churches.
“The liturgy/worship service, teach as much as the sermon does” amen!
That's like saying, "Why im not non-ethnic". Everyone has an ethnicity.
"Why I Am Not Non-Denominational" = "Why I Am Denominational"
Double negatives gang
The man, the myth, the legend...
Paradoxically, non-denom is a denomination 😂
“MuH tRaDiTiOnS oF mAn”
Bro your tradition of being hostile to tradition is a tradition MAN
Spend all day speaking against traditions and they go and invent worse ones. I'd rather say the Gloria Patri 100 times than sing one of those repetitious contemporary worship songs once.
To recognize that Christ's catholic (universal) church is not entailed to one historical denomination, but has faithful in a number of denominations, does not preclude a person finding a home in one specific cultural setting, with a local community of believers. "There is one body and one Spirit-just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call- one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Ephesians chapter 4)
Where a person should be wary, however, is in those church groups where there is no accountability, where a single local leader acts as a mini-king. The Biblical church as described in the NT was orderly and had systems of accountability both local and over the local congregations.
No based incense? I’m out! lol
Great video Joe.
Well said, brother. God bless!
This really has been the topic of the weekend lol.
On your second point, I'd just point out that though you're right in saying that non-denominational is still a 'denomination' or 'subsection' of protestantism, the idea is that it does not force one to subscribe to the tradition of a specific denomination. My argument is that my nondenom church has a strong statement of beliefs that encompasses the core stuff that we all pretty much agree on, but then beyond that I don't have to subscribe to any specific views. My views on eschatology, creation, spiritual gifts, etc. can all be separate from what other people at my Church believe, and that doesn't raise an issue because there is no pressure of tradition.
In other words, I think non-denominationals are closer to being the schism-less ideal, in that you don't have to schism from them based on the non-important stuff. I agree that the ideal should be Church unity, but the problem being that so many schisms already exist, all the way up to the 'great' one, and if you choose a denomination at this point in time you are essentially just choosing your favorite schism. TLDR; schisms are bad but there's already been a thousand and I don't know how to remdedy that other than to say we should all just get along.
Non-denominationalism does in practice expect you to subscribe to the tradition of a specific denomination: their own. It's not a neutral space. If they really achieved what they think they are achieving as being some kind of blank-slate, bare-basics, one-size-fits-all Christianity, then I as an Anglican could walk into that church today, have my child baptized, make the sign of the cross during worship, and openly discuss baptismal regeneration and the real presence and wonder aloud whether or not some form of Purgatory exists at Wednesday night Bible study at Dan's house. You and I both know that I just described a unicorn. I would be told no we don't do that here, I would receive strange glances, and the Bible study group would awkwardly try to move on from any weird topics I brought up.
I really hope I'm not coming on too strong. You are my brother in Christ, full-stop. But I really believe that non-denominationalism does not solve the problem of denominations in the slightest. It is like an ostrich sticking its head in the sand and seeing no disunity there, and thus thinking it has escaped all of the divisions.
@@MissingTrails You're right that people would be confused if you were doing those practices, though I strongly believe nobody would kick you out or even ask you to stop (at a good one)
I'm also sorry you've not had this experience, but it really is not a unicorn. I've had conversations on purgatory and infant baptism, involving multiple perspectives, in my Weds night Bible study. :)
Great video! I'm a non-denominational Protestant✝️
Why aren't you Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism?
Woah thats my denomination
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty Springfield Synod or Shelbyville Synod?
@@Liethen Springfield Synod obviously. That's where Bishop Flanders lives.
Hidely-ho, big-eva-reenos!
@@Thatoneguy-pu8tythat sounds cool, I’m from Springfield maybe I should join
Great video! would like to hear a video from you on submission to your parents when it comes to churches/denominations. I'm personally in a position where I feel drawn to anglicanism again, but my mother is quite adamant i attend her nondenom with her. We could of course speak it over, but I feel like it's also respectful to your parents to at least tolerate a church that isn't ideal, but not heretical.
So many people in this sphere talking about the "traditional worldview" and "submit to your bishop", but they aren't submitting to their mother and father (if Christian)!
*when young, not married, etc.
In a similar position bro, want to be Anglican, but my mum and sister make me Pentecostal
@@LightningIsLit stay of it if they are oneness, otherwise grudgingly assent but become a classical prot
I assume you are still at home with your parents? If not, then it becomes a question of, can I follow Christ in the best way I know how, and go to my mother's church?
@@MissingTrails I am (entering Uni this soon, but they still expect me to attend their church). I would say though, attending a different denomination to the one your parents ask likely doesn’t qualify as ‘disobedience’ if you have a proper reason to do so. At the end, your family are not God. Usually, they may have good intentions, but it’s their false opinions or caricatures of other denominations which cause them to be so adamant about a certain group (for example, in my case, they worry that non-Pentecostal groups don’t care about allowing God to work in their lives, due to their service / mass being too ‘boring’, or them not doing deliverance, etc.)
If you explain your reasons for wanting to attend a different church, and they cannot raise a valid and honest objection, then I believe in the eyes of the Lord, you are not guilty of disobedience.
Based! (LCMS)
why im not anglican, catholic, presbyterian, lutheran, eastern orthodox: Acts 8:37
why im not southern baptist, independent fundamental baptist: Romans 11:20
why im not reformed calvinist: 1 Timothy 2:4
why im not methodist, free will or general baptist: John 12:32
why im not non-denominational: Amos 3:3
why im not progressive: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
why im not pentecostal: 1 Corinthians 12:30
why im not hebrew roots: Hebrews 7:12
why im not sda, lds, jw, christian science: 1 John 4:1
why i'm not church of christ: Mark 7:8
why i'm a Christian that fellowships with Christians: Genesis 1:1- Revelation 22:21
In many episcopal churches, it went from "via media" between Christian heritage, to "via media" in the middle of every single modern idea against the Lord you can think of... I feel much pain lol
Just so you know, Calvin didn't kill Servetus. He warned Servetus to stay out of Geneva, and he tried to get the people who did kill him to kill him more mercifully. Servetus also was definitely not a Christian, because he was an anti-trinitarian heretic.
I may be in the minority here, but it seems to me that one can be non-Trinitarian and still be a saved, bible-believing Christian, so long as you don't deny the divinity of Christ. After all, many "Trinitarians" are unknowingly Modalists. All one would have to do for this to be true is not understand that the Sacred Scriptures imply Trinitarianism.
@@Real_LiamOBryan I would cautiously agree with you; Christ’s mercies extend beyond all blasphemies (except that of the Holy Spirit). However, we do need to draw the line between a benign ignorance and a malicious denial of who and what God has revealed Himself to be. Of course, a faulty understanding of the Trinity is never benign, but rather, I mean if someone is ignorant of the Trinity and is later corrected, then they whole-heartedly accept the Truth and repent of their former ignorance.
Either way, Servetus understood Trinitarian theology and was in the malicious denial category. Calvin tried to reason with him multiple times, including trying to meet with him in Paris (a dangerous thing for Calvin to do since he was wanted by the Roman Catholic authorities there), however Servetus failed to show. Then, Calvin warned him by letter to not come to Geneva, yet again, Servetus ignored him and showed up peddling his false gospel inside the church building of Geneva. I do hold out hope for Servetus. My heart breaks when I think of his needless death-his final words where he cried out to Jesus. I can only hope that his heart changed and that our Lord showed mercy on him.
@@ChristIsTheLifeOfMySoul *"However, we do need to draw the line between a benign ignorance and a malicious denial of who and what God has revealed Himself to be."*
Absolutely.
*"Of course, a faulty understanding of the Trinity is never benign, but rather, I mean if someone is ignorant of the Trinity and is later corrected, then they whole-heartedly accept the Truth and repent of their former ignorance."*
If their life is cut short, and they don't come to truly understand, so that they are still ignorant, then I don't see why God would not have mercy.
*"Either way, Servetus understood Trinitarian theology and was in the malicious denial category."*
I'm not sure about that, but I think that he denied the divinity of Christ (which I don't see how you can do without rejecting His atonement, since it is in virtue of Christ's being divine that his atonement can cover the sins of all those who will be saved), so I'm not really speaking about Servetus here, but generally. You can have things explained to you from here to eternity and still not understand. Just because someone corrected him, and he had chances to recant, that doesn't mean that he actually did understand. And, if they also just cannot bring themselves to believe in something that they sincerely don't think is true, and they die in that state, then I don't see why God wouldn't show mercy.
*"My heart breaks when I think of his needless death-his final words where he cried out to Jesus. I can only hope that his heart changed and that our Lord showed mercy on him."*
Same, my brother (except I'm not sure that he would have to have a change of heart in order to have mercy from our perfectly just, but perfectly loving, God).
Please start your own Episcopalian/Anglican denomination spread the word please!
what is your opinion on Icon veneration or icon/images in general?
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY???????????????????
Nicea II is historically incorrect and wrong about it being apostolic and that if you don’t do it you’ll go to Hell, but it is a fine and nice development that enhances my spiritual life! It doesn’t contradict scripture
@@Loganva nah bro check out Exodus 20
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty I agree we shouldn’t worship images of God or of creation! That’s what the Second Commandment is referring to of course because when God is telling the Israelites how to build the temple He tells them to make sculptures and images of heavenly things like Cherubim. So it’s not just a blatant ban on any image of anytbing
@@Loganva except the reason they worshipped at the Ark was due to the fact that it literally was indwelled with God… Note that it does not depict God either. Icons and images are really just not a great thing. Check out a great stream by the other Paul called “refuting Nicea II from Holy Writ”
I like Anglican church, but i don't like high Anglican church ( because looks like Catholic and some statues ) and liberal Anglican churches ( because women priest and pro LGBTQ )
@@max-pb7or ACNA parishes ?
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty ACNA not bad
Anglicans replaced the Pope with the Bishop of Canterbury. - if the church doesn’t look Catholic, it’s a fake knock-off. The poster stated ‘schism is sin.’
@@SolaPastora I don’t think most Anglicans answer to Canterbury anymore lol
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty Double Schism. Sola Pastora. The 1 Sola.
Should I take communion in my parents church that uses grape juice?
@@ashleysbored6710 are you a confirmed Anglican?
@@Young_Anglican no
@@ashleysbored6710 then I would say reach out to the spiritual director you are under
Why wouldn't you take communion there?
@@andyontheinternet5777 I'm not sure if it's ok to use grape juice in communion, but I think it's probably not
You make some interesting points in this video, brother. I trained at a Presbyterian Seminary, was ordained in a Baptist church, and currently serve overseas in a denomination that translates as "Evangelical Church" but is heavily influenced by Pentecostalism and Methodism. I love low-church non-denominationalism, but I see how it loses a connection to the historical church. I still have two issues with traditional churches, though. One is substantive, and the other is subjective.
1. They all adopt unhealthy, even heretical, traditions (papal doctrines, icon veneration, current issues in the Anglican church, etc.)
2. Traditional worship is frankly boring.
Of course, you can also make similar arguments about non-denominational churches, but this is my impression.
Thank you for the video.
God Bless
What's the alternative to boring - entertaining?
@@Bradford.C.Wallsbury Before God called me to new life, I was playing music in bars, literally trying to entertain people. Now I lead worship in a low church setting, and entertaining people is the farthest thing from my mind. We use music styles familiar to the contemporary culture. On a superficial level, this may look like entertainment. The songs we sing, however, are aimed at glorifying God. They are extended to the congregation to encourage them to worship God as well.
@@andyontheinternet5777what you were doing before was entertainment, and now what you’re doing is…entertainment. Meant only to make people feel a certain way so they can finally “worship”. Worship isn’t based on feeling. Or how entertaining a service is. It’s based on communion with and deeper unity to Christ. How does 4 pop songs and a Ted talk anyway resemble what the early church was doing and trying to do? And you do realize that non denominational churches by and large teach more Hersey than any of the apostolic churches? And none of you are even united remotely in what you believe to begin with so there’s that. Don’t come at my church when yours has also been affected by modern gender theory and lgbtq thought too. Lmao. So hypocritical.
@@andyontheinternet5777 hi Andy i wasn't trying to be disparaging, I was just pointing out that judging by "boring" is perhaps not the right way to judge worship, though I appreciate you did clarify it was your subjective opinion
@@Gwoog55 If by "apostolic churches" you mean Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, I'll happily remain a heretic in your eyes, thank you.
American Anglicanism is a splinter from True Anglicanism. Protesting the Protesters of Catholicism.
Wha... a lot of this logic doesn't make sense.
If authority is wrong, Scripture itself commands us to protest and leave, and never condemns starting a new church for a good reason.
We don’t want to leave unless we have to.
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty Well that's fair. The thing is, sometimes we have to...
Where in Scripture do we see an example of this?
@@MissingTrails And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars; (Rev. 2:2 NKJ)
Notice they are praised for testing and rejecting a claim to leadership.
@@Dizerner if they said they were apostles but were not apostles, then they are not an authority that was wrong and then protested against and left; they were never an authority to begin with, because they were not of the apostles.
I think the advantage of non-denominational is I don’t have to rely on bishops and the church organisation. I can just move on if the church becomes corrupt. You can’t really do that with denominational churches.
Really don't like contemporary music.