Why NON-DENOMINATIONAL churches are UNBIBLICAL

Non-denominationalism is a very new form of Christianity, but it's quickly becoming one of the biggest. Is this a good thing? Non-denominational's often say, "We don't care about denominations, we just follow the Bible.

" But what if non-denominationalism goes against the Bible? They often say denominations divide the church, and Jesus and the apostles weren't part of any denomination. But what if non-denominationalism is actually infinitely denominational?

The definition of a non-denominational church is an individual congregation that's organizationally independent of any higher church institution, or at least came from one of such churches. Because these days many non-denominational mega churches have a bunch of campuses, and in some cases become corporate brands. But either way, all non-denominational churches were founded the same way.

Either by somebody starting a new church independently of and without authorization from any existing church bodies in their country, or by an individual congregation making a schism from an existing church body. Are either these things biblical? This video will explain why non-denominationalism is unbiblical, and therefore people should leave non-denominational churches and return to mainline Protestant churches.

But before we do that, let's talk about what's good about non-denominational churches. They tend to be great at community outreach and getting people to care about the Bible. But all these good things used to exist in mainline churches on a much larger scale before non-denominational churches sucked the most passionate members out of the mainline churches.

So individually, non-denominational's are often some of the most passionate Christians, but their gifts would be put to much better use if they would return to the mainline churches where they could draw on the resources, heritage, and tradition of those institutions. So let's see what the Bible says about this. But first, only a small percentage of people who watch my videos are actually subscribed.

So if you want to see more, consider subscribing. It's free, and you can always change your mind. If you like the video, make sure to click the like button.

And if you didn't, make sure to click the dislike button twice. There are many problems that are common in non-denominational churches, like irreverent worship, lack of tradition, shallow theology, emotionalism, and disdain for church history, but this video isn't going to focus on those because not all non-denominational churches have those problems. This video is going to focus on the concept of non-denominationalism itself.

There are four major biblical principles about the church that are violated whenever a church is non-denominational, even if other things about that church are good, like the theology, worship, and community. The first is unity. All churches are supposed to be visibly united to as many other churches as possible.

The second is authority. The church is supposed to have the authority to bind the conscience and be accountable to higher courts. The third is institutionality.

The church is supposed to be an institution that shares resources collectively. And the fourth is jurisdiction. It's sinful to start new churches in a place that already has churches because then you're dividing the Christians in the area.

The first big thing is unity in the church. In John 20, Jesus prays for all believers to be one. And in 1 Corinthians 12, Paul says there should be no division in the body of Christ, which encompasses all believers.

Now, does this necessarily mean organizational unity, or could it just refer to spiritual or social unity, as in believers getting along with each other? Well, it can't just refer to a spiritual unity because all believers are already spiritually united no matter what since they all have the same spirit. If any believers are not spiritually united to the rest, then they're not believers at all.

And it can't just refer to a social unity because not all believers can have social relations with each other all over the world, but Jesus prays for all believers to be one. So, it must be the case that unity encompasses organizational unity, not just social or spiritual unity. How else is it possible for all believers all over the world to be united?

So, the ideal is for all churches on earth to be visibly and organizationally connected to each other. Now, just because this is an ideal doesn't mean it will always happen. The fact that Jesus prayed for this implied that it's at least possible for it not to happen, but all churches should still at least in principle strive for this.

Some non-denominational will say denominations divide the church, and Jesus and the apostles weren't in any denomination, but this is just word play. The reason they weren't in any denomination is because all the churches were one denomination or institution, so there is no need to use denominational labels. The early church was all one united organization.

There wasn't one super church in charge of all the others, but still the churches recognized each other's authority and jurisdiction and frequently shared leaders. The first major schism happened in the 400s between the Chalcedonians and the Miaphysites. Neither side thought this was good, and many church leaders did what they could to try and mend the schism, but the solution was never to have individual churches separate from both sides and just become independent or non-denominational.

That would have made everything much, much worse. If all the churches just became independent, they wouldn't become one denomination, they would each become their own denomination. So, non-denominationalism is infinite denominationalism.

If the church is like a window, the various splits throughout church history are like the window breaking into different pieces, but non-denominationalism doesn't put the window back together. Instead, it just further divides the window into individual grains of sand. It's important to recognize just how new non-denominationalism is historically.

It may seem common today, but we live in a historical anomaly. Throughout the entire Old Testament church, Israel was always organizationally connected, not just politically, but also religiously. There were times when the kingdom split, but these were the greatest periods of weakness, and even then it's not like every individual congregation just went its own way.

And in church history, there are no examples of mainstream Christian churches being organizationally independent until the 1500s when you get the radical reformation and Anabaptists and separatists, but they were still condemned by Protestants and Catholics alike. Non-denominationalism did not become mainstream until less than 50 years ago. Now, some might argue from silence and say the New Testament churches were independent, but we're about to show that that's not even true.

Because the next main biblical principle is authority. Most people agree are supposed to submit to the pastors and elders of your church because the Bible very clearly says so. Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to the apostles with the ability to bind and loose, and the apostles gave the keys to the elders of the churches they started.

But the question is whether any exists above the local church that all the local churches have to submit to. Some people say it's a bishop, some people say it's a council of elders from the churches, but either way, if this is true, then non-denominationalism is unbiblical. But that's exactly what we see at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

Several churches have a dispute about whether circumcision is still necessary. So, to solve this dispute, they send representatives to a council of elders, and the council makes the decision. When they make the decision, they send a letter back to those churches clearly exercising authority over several different churches saying, "It seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit.

" In the next chapter, they deliver the message to those churches for the churches to obey. Also, Jesus says if two or more believers have a dispute they can't resolve, they need to take it to the church. But what happens if they are part of different local churches or if different local churches have a dispute with each other?

There needs to be a higher authority above the local church and in some cases an authority above even that. If you have national denomination organizations that are all in communion with each other, this can actually work. But in non-denominationalism, where every congregation can go its own way, Jesus' command can only apply if both believers are in the same local congregation.

Now, as we know, all non-denominational churches started by either sprouting up out of nowhere or separating from an established denomination. Both of these are sinful, but we'll focus on the second one first. Schism is clearly a sin in the Bible based on Korah's rebellion.

In the book of Numbers, people reject the authority established by God because they think everyone is holy, so God tells the true believers to separate from those separatists, and then the ground swallows them up. We might dispute which groups count as schismatic, but it's very clear in scripture that if a group is schismatic, they are sinful and all true believers must leave them. Some people might say, "What about the Reformation?

Wasn't that a rebellion against church authority? " Well, in scripture, there is one specific exception to this rule. The only time you can disobey church authority is if the church directly tells you to sin.

That's what happened in the Jewish temple when they were forcing the apostles to deny Christ and the apostles wouldn't do that. They said, "We must obey God rather than men. " Because of that, the apostles got excommunicated from the Jewish church and had to start parallel Christian churches.

They did not leave the temple even after the temple leaders rejected Christ. They only left the temple after they were excommunicated. That is the biblical principle for when a separation is warranted.

Likewise, the proto-Protestants did not leave the Roman Catholic Church just because the Catholic Church became corrupt. They only left after they started being excommunicated, starting with Jan Hus being burned at the stake for teaching, {quote} "heresies" such as the idea that lay people should receive the blood of Christ. However, this is not why modern non-denominational churches separated from their denominations.

Most non-denominational churches that disaffiliated from the United Methodist Church, for example, just wanted to be more independent and didn't like the direction the denomination was going. This does not meet the biblical qualifications for separation, meaning is a sinful schism akin to Korah's rebellion in Numbers. In fact, Ignatius of Antioch said, "Whoever follows a maker of schism will not inherit the kingdom of God.

" Now, this statement is not in the Bible, but it was written by someone who was taught by John who wrote much of the Bible, particularly the parts about church unity. So, it's still something we need to take seriously. But, what about the case where a non-denominational church just sprouts up out of nowhere without separating from an existing denomination?

Well, that is still sinful and schismatic because it violates the jurisdiction of the existing denominations in that place. The concept of jurisdiction comes from Romans 15:20 where Paul says, "It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on another man's foundation. " This can sound crazy to a lot of non-denominational.

Why would it ever be wrong to preach the gospel in a certain place? Now, the one exception to jurisdiction is if you are starting a new non-denominational church in a nation that does not have any churches, then it is okay to start a new church cuz you're not building on someone else's foundation. But, it is sinful to plant a new non-denominational church in a Christian nation that already has established churches.

If there is a need for more churches there, it will be handled by the existing denominations in that country. The reason this matters is because it's ideal for everyone in the same town to go to the same church. That's how the parish system used to work where the church you went to just depended on where you lived.

Mainline Protestant churches with names like First Presbyterian Church and First United Methodist Church used to be the cultural centers of their communities and had massive influence on them because that's where everyone went to church together. It wasn't like today where you have a capitalistic fast food like choice between 50 different churches in your area. In Europe, historically, the Catholics and Protestants agreed that you had to submit to whatever the national church of your country was.

If you were in England, you had to be Church of England or you were in sin. If you were in Scotland, you had to be Church of Scotland or you were in sin. Same for the Church of Norway, Church of Sweden, Church of Denmark, etc.

Now, some countries have overlapping jurisdictions like America where a bunch of countries colonized it at once, so the different American colonies had different established churches, and then it all got mixed when America became one country. So, at the center of most American towns, you'll have four or five historic downtown mainline churches, but five is better than infinity, which is what you have when nondenominationalism is rampant. And what happens when nondenominational's build on other people's foundation is it hurts the established churches that have already been there for centuries.

The mainline denominations are seeing a rapid decline, and it's mostly because they're being replaced by nondenom inational churches. Part of the decline is due to mainline liberalism, but the same decline is seen in historic churches that are not liberal, such as the Southern Baptist Church and the LCMS. Beautiful historic mainline churches that faithful Christian families have donated to over many generations are closing rapidly all over America and the UK because nondenominational churches keep starting in the same area and sucking out their members like parasites.

Now, you might say, "Why do the historic churches matter if nondenominational churches are preaching the gospel? What's wrong with them replacing the mainline churches? " And that leads to the final concept, which is institutionality.

Institutionality means the church owns resources collectively, so it can have a tangible material impact on the world in order to spread God's kingdom. In the Old Testament, the believers always own resources collectively, and they use it to build great things like Solomon's Temple, which attracted all the kings of the earth due to its splendor. Obviously, we don't have a temple today, but the book of Acts shows us that the principle of collective ownership of resources carries over because the believers owned everything together in Acts.

Some people interpret this as a command for communism amongst Christians, but all it means is the church is supposed to share its resources. And that's what the New Testament church has always done, building great things for God's kingdom and glorifying God in the process, just like in the Old Testament. What's great about denominations is that, unlike with nondenominational churches, you have thousands of churches all over the country sharing their resources, and because of that, they're able to do amazing things for God's kingdom.

And by the way, resources doesn't just mean money. It also means property, historic buildings, universities, summer camps, media publications, libraries. This is what can happen when the church shares its resources.

The church uses these resources to have an impact on the world for God's kingdom. Nobody can deny that some of the most impactful institutions on America have been the Ivy League universities, six of which were founded by Bible-believing mainline Calvinists. They were not started by nondenominational.

Nondenominational have almost never started a highly rated university. But what about my Bible college? I said a highly rated university.

Evangelicals don't understand that having an impact on the world doesn't just mean converting individuals, but also building institutions. And the way Christians have historically followed Jesus' command to heal the sick is by building hospitals. Some of the best hospitals in America are founded by Presbyterians, Methodists, and Catholics.

But how many hospitals do nondenominational megachurches start? Now, let's answer some objections. And I'm certain by this point in the video, many of you have already commented these objections without watching the whole video.

The first objection is with this logic, why not just be Catholic? Now, that's intellectually lazy. You could just as easily say, why not just be Eastern Orthodox?

Or why not just be Oriental Orthodox? The question of whether you should be in a historic denomination is separate from the question of which historic denomination you could be in. But to put it simply, the reason Protestants can't just be Catholic is because they were all forcibly excommunicated for their beliefs.

Whereas nondenominational were never forcibly excommunicated from mainline Protestantism, they just voluntarily separated from it because they didn't think it was good enough for them. But you can't just be Roman Catholic unless you agree with all the distinctive Roman Catholic dogmas, such as the bodily assumption of Mary, transubstantiation, and communion in one kind, and the infallible papacy. Whereas nondenominational could keep most of their same theological beliefs and just be united to the mainline Protestant churches.

Another reason people don't want to be mainline is because mainline churches are too liberal. It is true that liberal corruption is a major problem in many, not all, mainline churches. But, the main reason it got this bad is because conservatives kept leaving to either be non-denominational or join a schismatic denomination.

But, either way, liberal corruption in the church does not warrant separation from it because the Old Testament church was much more corrupt. They were sacrificing babies to pagan demons, and the prophets called out that behavior and reformed it. But, none of the prophets ever separated from the church in their day.

So, whatever did not warrant separation from the churches in the Old Testament does not warrant separation from the churches in the New Testament. People will say, "I just can't bring myself to a liberal church. I can't bring my family there.

" But, that's emotionalism and pragmatism. If we have already established that schism is sin, then God doesn't care about your feelings if your feelings drive you to sin. But, luckily, this shouldn't even be a problem for you because in most parts of the country, you can find churches that are part of established mainline denominations that are not theologically liberal.

And, we're going to leave a link to a map in the description of this video where you can find one of these churches. So, you can go to a mainline church that's in a denomination that might have some liberalism, but you can go to a particular congregation that is not liberal. Now, some will say they see a lot of good fruit at their non-denominational church, so how could it be bad?

Now, nobody denies a lot of good things happen in non-denominational churches and that the Holy Spirit works through them. But, the Bible says the Holy Spirit can work through an illicit ministry. The example is in Philippians 1, Paul says the Holy Spirit works through selfish ministers, but it's still good that the gospel is preached.

What this means is the Holy Spirit can work through a ministry that still technically shouldn't exist. Yes, the Holy Spirit can work through a selfish and corrupt minister, but that person should still not be a minister. Likewise, the Holy Spirit can and does work through non-denominational churches, but that doesn't mean those churches should exist as independent churches.

Some people will say their non-denominational church is part of some church network, but networks are not a substitute for denominations because they're completely voluntary. There's no authority structure and they don't share resources the way denominations do, even if they might be a good way to achieve unity. Some people bring up Mark 9 where the apostles complain about someone driving out demons in Jesus' name without being one of their group and Jesus says not to hinder them.

Now, it is true that this text can be used to show that all Christians of all different denominations can do valid work for God's kingdom, but it doesn't change the fact that independent churches or Christians that are not part of any denomination should be part of a denomination. It's possible for Christians to be doing something good in one sense, but something bad in another sense. And like we said, non-denominational are often great Christians, but they would serve God's kingdom much better if they were in mainline denominations and could draw on the resources.

So, once again, linked in the description of this video will be a map of good mainline churches for you to join. If you are in one of these mainline denominations, you're invited to join the Operation Reformation Discord server where we try to revive the American mainline Protestant denominations that our country was founded upon. So, if you're in a non-denominational church, ask yourself, is this really biblical?

Is this brand new form of Christianity really where God wants me to be or should you go somewhere more historic? >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Mhm.