Non-denoms ?? oxymoron??


Non-denoms protestants… I’ll like to know how “non-denomination” is not an oxymoron. It appears to me that it is an oxymoron…but maybe I missed something…so I’ll like to read your defense that it is not an oxymoron.

thanks for the feedback

peace be with you


Non-denominational churches are idependently run. They share only the basics of the faith, the Message of salvation, and apart from this allow attendents to interpret Scripture for themselves, so long as they do so within its proper context. There is no governing body or council (as in Baptist, Lutheran, and Catholic churches), but rather, the Head is Christ himself.

It’s not an oxymoron in the same sense that the CATHOLIC (or Universal) Church being a church division (it and the Eastern Orthodox Church are equally aged as far as most are concerned) is not an oxymoron …


agreed, by definition denomination |di?näm??n? sh ?n| noun 1 a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church.

but the “Non” part…non- prefix 1 not doing; not involved with

Therefore, it is not a branch of christianity…hence causing a contradiciton:confused: We know that a “non-denom” is a branch of christianity.

How do they know that if there is no teaching authority?:confused:

Thats debatable…and another thread

Its not my intention to flame…we are all sincere truth seekers…but “non-denom” is just illogical for me. The only way it will make logical sense, i think, if the “non-denom” is indeed the TRUE Christian Church.


so long as they do so within its proper context.

So who decides what is the proper context?


How do they know that if there is no teaching authority?

Scripture, though* perhaps *not always, can be cross-referenced with Scripture to yield Truth … In most instances, interpretation is logic. What’s more, non-denominational churches (ideally) will teach STRAIGHT from the Scriptures, and only when a passage fails to yield a fully satisfactory interpretation for itself, leaving much up to the imagination, will the teacher declare that he is giving his own opinion concerning a passage (1 Cor. 7:12), and proceed teaching. The Word is viewed as the Authority, since the Word is God, God the Word (John 1:1). It is sufficient, therefore, to teach. What’s more, a prayerful pastor who knows his own ignorance will almost always hit closer to the mark than others … This I have noticed. From the few who’ve taught straight from the Word that I’ve seen, those who are totally and completely sold out to the Good News tend to know much better the character of God through his Bible, and those who know his character of course interpret better for they know well the Author.


Well I believe the HOLY SPIRIT is never illogical…statements in scripture are established as either TRUE or FALSE thru FAITH…then we can apply LOGIC…which never contradicts the SPIRIT…since LOGIC comes from GOD…so I disagree with your “most instances”…interpretation always relies on logic…whether or not the statement are TRUE or FALSE always relies on FAITH.

But keeping to this thread topic:rolleyes: …I still don’t understand how you are defending that the term “non-denom” is not an oxymoron…please elaborate…seriously I’m trying to make logical sense of it.


i’m not a big fan of non-denoms, no offense, but there is no accountability. the main non-denom in my area is a huge youth tailored “church.” with no one to stop him, the pastor (also referred to as the “owner” of this church) and his wife both drive cars costing into the hundred thousand range, soley from money from the collection plate, and their daughter will freqeuntly take all her friends out to dinner and charge it to the church, this seems terrible to me.


Not sure what is the source of your definition. Here’s the one I use:

a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices

Notice the plural congregations. A denomination must have more than one congregation, or it’s just a church.

So while a non-denominational denomination may be an oxymoron, a non-denominational church is not.


The way I see it is, a non-denominational church says they’re a “group” that is not part of a “group”. I’m thinking denial? Or oxymoron?


i tend to think it’s self-righteousness.

#11 **self-right·eous **[self-rahy-chuhs, -] Pronunciation Key
confident of one’s own righteousness, esp. when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others.


Romulus states that non-denominational groups are not involved with any branches of any Christian church.
Does that then mean they are amputated from the “tree”

Just my thoughts here- The Catholic Church is the “trunk” with all Protestants as “branches” from that main tree. And if a group states they are not involved with any “branches” of said tree, then they are amputated members. An amputated member can not survive without the body.It dies.


Here is my source which is installed in my Apple computer. Definitions are similar…the only difference I see is the word, “Christian”. In the oxford definition the word Church is singular…but if all churches whether they are thousands or just one…are united in beliefs…they are all considered ONE church…but physically in different places and the congregations / churchgoers attending service at different times. So even if it is physically only one church…they are many congregations / churchgoers for this one church…i.e. the ones who meet in the morning and the ones who meet in the evening. I believe in your MW definition…congregations means churchgoers…only way these definitions can concur…if not, one of these definitions is wrong…and I highly doubt one of these are wrong…its a matter of our interpretations.

And yes, being on the same page on definitions is important, else we all just talk past each other:p


I’m going to have to cry foul on your logic here. The two dictionaries need not be in agreement on their definitions. The fact that they disagree doesn’t automatically mean one is wrong, just that they’ve made different editorial decisions in choosing the best way to describe a less-than-clearcut concept.

In this case, I don’t think Merriam-Webster meant to distinguish the morning and evening congregations - this would redundant in most cases of multiple services in the same church building. Rather, I think they meant “an organized body of believers in a particular locality.”

In most cases, if you have congregations in Denver and Detroit, it’s a denomination. If you’ve only got a congregation in Denver, it’s just a church. Thus no oxymoron.


That definition reflects non-catholics more than it does catholics…



3.a name or designation, esp. one for a class of things. 4.a class or kind of persons or things distinguished by a specific name. 5.the act of naming or designating a person or thing.

American Heritage:

  1. A name or designation, especially for a class or group.

non-denominational = denying that one is a name, designation.

non-denominational = denying that one is a class or kind of thing distinguished by a specific name

Oxy-moron? YES indeed.


Non-denominational means all are invited. At our non-denominational church we have Baptists, Pentecostals, and even Catholics and Anglicans attend our services.


Calm down…It’s not my intention to flame here:p

I assumed a true statement that “all dictionaries are in agreement” (MAJOR PREMISE) and then I assumed we found another true statement that “some dictionaries are in disagreement” (MINOR PREMISE). We can then conclude that “some dictionaries are not dictionaries” i.e. “some dictionaries have errors or misinterpretations”

So it is not illogocial to conclude one is wrong or has a misinterpretation if they disagree…again this relies on the truthfulness of the MAJOR and MINOR premises…and it is possible that the MINOR premise is really not in disagreement, but a part of interpretation, hence making seem like they disagree. But yes, if one of the premises is flawed, then the conclusion is also flawed…but not illogical.

So what it appears that it boils down to is…my dictionary says this, but my dictionary says that…so on and so on… So lets list some and I just randomly listed these…i’m not being biased.

  1. religious grouping: a religious grouping within a faith that has its own system of organization
noun 1 a recognized branch of a church or religion.
4 : a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices
a religious group which has slightly different beliefs from other groups which share the same religion:

  1. A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.

  1. a religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect
(n.) A class, or society of individuals, called by the same name; a sect; as, a denomination of Christians.
3. A class, or society of individuals, called by the same name; a sect; as, a denomination of Christians.

I’m sure they are more out there, if any of you find them please list them so we can all see the distribution of the definition…and lets not be baised…find the definition and list it:p

Also another important word worth looking at is “congregations and congregation”…then maybe we can make sense of a non-denom.


Eve was born from the side of Adam. The Catholic Church was born from the side of Jesus on the cross.
**Matthew 16:18 **
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it


Ephesians 5:31
"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.

Christ and his church are one.
If you are not a member(A limb, such as an arm or a leg. ) then you “amputate” yourself from the Body of Christ, His Church.
1 Corinthians 12:27 **

Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

**Romans 12:5 **
so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.

**Ephesians 4:12 **

to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the **body of Christ **may be built up

Denomination, non-denomination it doesn’t matter there is only one body. Not 30,000 + bodies.
If you follow Luther,Calvin,King Henry viii, you follow men.

You have a right to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You’ll find it in the One,Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church.It was founded by Jesus.


[quote=Romulus]Non-denoms protestants… I’ll like to know how “non-denomination” is not an oxymoron. It appears to me that it is an oxymoron…but maybe I missed something…so I’ll like to read your defense that it is not an oxymoron.

Why must we get stuck in speaking about this again and again… *sigh…

Non-Denom (which is what I am… HELLO! :D) doesn’t necessarily mean that it is not a denomination of christianity. It just means that we don’t want to strictly associate ourselves with the groups out there because there are so many of them that give christianity a BAD name. So we are not a denom, per se, because we do not associate with any particular NAMED group such as baptist, penticostal, catholic or otherwise. We are a group made up of many people from those and other backgrounds. We would like to just be called Christian but of course then you get into the whole ‘yeah but what denomination do you follow?’… *sigh… I hate titles and trying to conform everyone into a single group. There are different sects in christianity just as there are different people in a family. Each belong but are different in some way. :shrug:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit