Search Biblical Topics

Christian Science: Denial of Reality and a False Gospel Christian Science is one of the most deceptive religious movements to emerge from 19th-century America. Founded by Mary Baker Eddy, it denies the reality of sin, sickness, and even death, presenting a pseudo-Christian metaphysical system.   Unlike Christian denominations, Christian Science is not Christianity at all. It redefines the gospel, denies the physical resurrection of Christ, and replaces faith in the living God with mind-over-matter mysticism. Paul’s words apply here directly:   “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!” (Galatians 1:8, NASB)   History   Mary Baker Eddy (1821–1910):  After what she believed was a miraculous healing in 1866, Eddy began developing her ideas.   Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures (1875):  This became the defining text of the movement, considered divinely inspired and necessary to interpret the Bible.   The Mother Church (1879):  Officially established in Boston, Massachusetts, as the Church of Christ, Scientist.   The Christian Science Monitor (1908):  A newspaper founded under her movement, respected in journalism but disconnected from its theology.   Eddy’s Claim:  She insisted that her writings provided the true spiritual meaning of Scripture—without them, the Bible could not be properly understood.   Core Beliefs & Distinctives   God: Defined as infinite Mind, Spirit, or Principle—impersonal, abstract, and non-Trinitarian.   Jesus Christ:  Not God incarnate, but a man who perfectly reflected “the Christ-idea.”   Resurrection: Denied as a bodily event. Eddy claimed the resurrection was spiritual, a metaphor for the triumph of “Christ-consciousness,” not the literal rising of Jesus from the dead.   Sin and Evil:  Declared unreal—mere “errors of mortal mind.”   Sickness and Death:  Dismissed as illusions. Healing comes not through medicine but through right understanding of God’s spiritual reality.   Salvation: Achieved not by faith in Christ’s atonement, but by awakening to the realization that sin, sickness, and death are not real.   Strengths   Healing Emphasis:  Attracts people seeking hope beyond medicine.   Practical Discipline:  Encourages optimism, discipline of thought, and community support.   Seriousness of Belief:  Members often live out their convictions with zeal and moral restraint.   But these perceived strengths mask a fatal flaw: they are based on denying reality rather than trusting the Savior.   What They Get Wrong Biblically   Denial of Sin: “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8, NASB) Christian Science claims sin is an illusion—Scripture says it is universal.   Denial of Christ’s Incarnation: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14, NASB) Christ was not just an idea—He came in the flesh.   Denial of Death’s Reality: “It is destined for people to die once, and after this comes judgment.” (Hebrews 9:27, NASB) Death is real, and it is followed by judgment, not denial.   Rejection of the Cross: “That Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day.” (1 Corinthians 15:3–4, NASB) Eddy rejected Christ’s atoning work—yet this is the gospel itself.   Strange & False Teachings   Medical Refusal:  Members are discouraged from seeking doctors or medicine, leading to documented preventable deaths.   Metaphysical Scripture Interpretation:  The Bible cannot be understood apart from Eddy’s Science and Health.   Illusionary Reality:  Everything physical—pain, illness, even death—is treated as a mistaken belief, not an actual condition.   Jesus vs. Christ:  They separate the man Jesus from the “Christ-idea,” reducing Him to a spiritual model instead of the incarnate Son of God.   Myths to Refute   “It’s just another denomination.” False—its teachings deny the core of Christian faith.   “They believe in the Bible.” No—the Bible is subordinated to Eddy’s writings.   “Christian Science is about healing like Jesus did.” Wrong—their “healing” is mind-over-matter illusion, not the miraculous power of God.   Pastoral Path Forward Christian Science appeals to people longing for healing and hope, but it offers neither truth nor salvation. It denies the reality of sin and the cross, leaving people lost in illusions rather than saved by grace.   The true gospel does not deny suffering but redeems it through Christ’s death and resurrection. We are not saved by right thoughts but by the blood of Jesus.   Why Denominations Are Unbiblical Although Christian Science falls more in the category of cult than denomination, the broader point still stands: divisions distort the gospel. Paul rebuked the Corinthians for saying “I am of Paul”  or “I am of Apollos”  (1 Corinthians 1:12–13, NASB). Christian Science goes further by saying, “I am of Mary Baker Eddy.”   This shows the danger of all sectarianism—when loyalty to a teacher replaces loyalty to Christ, truth is lost, and deception flourishes.

Seventh-day Adventism: Sabbath Legalism, Prophecy, and Another Gospel Seventh-day Adventism (SDA) is often misunderstood as simply another Protestant denomination. In reality, its origins and core teachings place it closer to the realm of cults. Rooted in failed prophecies, new revelations, and legalistic additions to the gospel, Adventism undermines the sufficiency of Christ’s work.   While Adventists emphasize health, community, and moral living, their distinctive doctrines—especially Sabbath-keeping as a salvation marker and the “investigative judgment”—set them apart from biblical Christianity.   History   Millerite Movement (1830s–1840s):  William Miller predicted Christ’s return in 1844. When the prophecy failed ( the Great Disappointment ), followers split.   Ellen G. White (1827–1915):  White, regarded as a prophetess, claimed visions that reinterpreted the failure, teaching that Jesus entered a “heavenly sanctuary” in 1844 to begin the investigative judgment.   Formal Organization (1863):  The SDA Church formed, placing Ellen White’s writings alongside Scripture in authority.   Growth: Today the SDA Church is global, with millions of members, hospitals, and schools—yet built upon an unstable foundation of failed prophecy.   Core Beliefs & Distinctives   Sabbath as the Mark of the Faithful:  Saturday worship is central; keeping Sunday is often portrayed as the “mark of the beast.”   Investigative Judgment:  Christ’s atonement was not finished at the cross, but continues as an evaluation of believers’ lives since 1844.   Prophetess Ellen White:  Her writings are treated as inspired and binding, though Adventists may downplay this publicly. Health Laws:  Vegetarianism, abstinence from certain foods and stimulants, tied to holiness.   Remnant Church Claim:  They see themselves as God’s unique, end-time people.   Strengths   Moral earnestness:  Adventists value obedience and discipline.   Health consciousness:  Their focus on diet and lifestyle has produced positive physical results.   Community: Strong global network of schools, hospitals, and mutual support.   But these “strengths” are counterfeits when they distort or replace the gospel itself.   What They Get Wrong Biblically   Sabbath Legalism:  Paul refutes binding Sabbath observance in Colossians 2:16 (NASB): “Therefore, no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon, or a Sabbath day.”   Investigative Judgment:  Hebrews 10:14 (NASB): “For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.”  The cross was final—no heavenly “audit” is needed.   New Revelation:  Jude 1:3 (NASB): “Contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all time handed down to the saints.”  Ellen White’s visions add to Scripture in direct contradiction.   Exclusivity: Their “remnant church” theology is cult-like, denying the universality of Christ’s true body.   Strange & False Teachings   The Great Disappointment (1844):  A failed prophecy rebranded as doctrine.   Sabbath = Mark of the Beast:  Redefines salvation as dependent on a day of worship.   Prophetic Dependence:  Ellen White is effectively their pope, though they deny it.   The 144,000 Remnant:  Seventh-day Adventists teach that only a special group of 144,000 faithful Sabbath-keepers will endure the final crisis and stand sinless before God. This creates a two-class system of believers and contradicts Scripture, which teaches that all who are in Christ are sealed by the Spirit (Ephesians 1:13, NASB).   Health and Holiness:  Food laws (vegetarianism, abstaining from “unclean” meats) become markers of righteousness.   Myths to Refute   “Adventists are just health-conscious Christians.”  No—their theology is far more radical and unbiblical.   “They believe in the same Jesus.”  Not in practice—their Jesus leaves the cross unfinished until 1844.   “They’re simply Sabbath-keepers.”  Their Sabbath is tied to salvation, distorting grace.   Pastoral Path Forward Adventists often display deep sincerity, but sincerity cannot save. Like the Galatians, they have “deserted Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel” (Galatians 1:6 NASB). The call to them must be the true gospel: salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.   Why Denominations Are Unbiblical At the root, the very existence of denominations contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture. Paul rebuked the Corinthians for dividing themselves under labels—“I am of Paul,” “I am of Apollos”—and asked, “Has Christ been divided?”  (1 Corinthians 1:13, NASB).   Denominations are simply the modern version of that same error: elevating human traditions, teachers, or cultural distinctives above the unity of Christ. While God has worked through these groups despite their flaws, the reality remains—denominations fracture the body of Christ, blur the gospel’s simplicity, and create loyalties that compete with loyalty to Jesus Himself. The church was never meant to be “Catholic,” “Orthodox,” “Adventist,” or “Quaker.” It was meant to be one body, with Christ as its only Head.

Presbyterianism: Order, Doctrine, and Endless Assemblies Presbyterianism stands as one of the most influential expressions of the Reformation, rooted in the theology of John Calvin and shaped by John Knox in Scotland. Known for its structured government of elders (“presbyters”), commitment to confessions, and intellect ual rigor, Presbyterianism has left a lasting mark on Protestantism worldwide.   Yet beneath its ordered exterior lies the same problem afflicting all denominations: division, rigidity, and drift. What began as a zealous movement for biblical reform soon fractured into dozens of competing synods, confessions, and assemblies.   History   Reformation Roots:  Emerging in the 16th century, Presbyterianism was birthed in Geneva’s Reformed tradition. John Knox, after studying under Calvin, carried these teachings to Scotland, where the Kirk (Scottish Church) became the national church.   Westminster Assembly (1643–1649):  In England, Puritans crafted the Westminster Confession of Faith, a cornerstone of Presbyterian doctrine that remains influential to this day.   American Expansion:  Presbyterians played a major role in colonial America, contributing to education (founding Princeton University) and revivals (though divided over the First and Second Great Awakenings).   Modern Schisms:  Today, Presbyterianism is splintered. The PCUSA (Presbyterian Church USA) represents the liberal mainline, embracing same-sex marriage and critical theology. The PCA  (Presbyterian Church in America) is conservative and Reformed. Dozens of other branches exist, each claiming fidelity to the “true” Presbyterian heritage.   Core Beliefs & Distinctives   Elder-Led Government:  Authority is shared by elected elders, ruling through sessions, presbyteries, and general assemblies rather than bishops or individual pastors.   Confessional Commitment:  The Westminster Confession and Catechisms remain central doctrinal standards.   Reformed Theology:  Predestination, God’s sovereignty, and covenant theology shape much of Presbyterian teaching.   Covenant Baptism:  Infants are baptized as members of the covenant community, a carryover from Reformed theology.   Emphasis on Education:  Presbyterians historically established schools and seminaries to train both clergy and laity.   Strengths   Doctrinal Rigor:  Presbyterianism takes theology seriously, grounding itself in confessions and catechisms.   Church Order:  The system of shared leadership protects against authoritarian pastors, promoting accountability.   Education & Missions:  Their intellectual heritage fueled missions, universities, and global expansion.   Reverent Worship:  Traditional Presbyterian services, when faithful, are thoughtful, Scripture-saturated, and orderly.   Weaknesses & Errors   Rigid Calvinism:  The heavy emphasis on predestination has often produced coldness and fatalism, reducing the gospel to a system.   Fragmentation: Presbyterians have split repeatedly over theology, worship style, and social issues — ironically betraying their love of “order.”   Doctrinal Drift:  Liberal Presbyterian bodies (esp. PCUSA) now deny the authority of Scripture and promote unbiblical practices.   Intellectualism Over Spirit:  Presbyterian worship often lacks the vibrancy of the Spirit, leaning on the mind at the expense of the heart.   What They Get Wrong Biblically   Predestination Misapplied:  While the Bible teaches God’s sovereignty (Romans 8:29–30), Presbyterians often exalt election in ways that diminish human responsibility. Paul declared: “God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere are to repent”  (Acts 17:30, NASB).   Infant Baptism:  Their covenant baptism practice lacks New Testament precedent. Baptism in Scripture is always tied to personal faith (Acts 2:38, NASB: “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” ).   Exalting Confessions Over Scripture:  The Westminster Confession is valuable but has sometimes been treated nearly as Scripture, contrary to 2 Timothy 3:16.   Fragmentation as a Witness:  Presbyterians claim to uphold church order, yet their endless splits reveal a failure to embody Christ’s prayer for unity (John 17:21).   Myths to Refute   “All Presbyterians are Calvinists.”  Not true. While historically Reformed, many modern Presbyterians (especially in PCUSA) no longer hold to strict Calvinism.   “Presbyterians don’t evangelize.”  False historically. Presbyterian missionaries like John G. Paton (South Pacific) and schools like Princeton were evangelistic powerhouses.   “Presbyterians are the most orderly.”  Ironically, their history of endless schisms belies their claim to order.   Pastoral Path Forward Presbyterians would do well to recover their strengths — serious study of Scripture, order, and reverence — while shedding their denominational pride and theological rigidity. If Presbyterian churches could value the Spirit’s leading as much as their confessions, they would better reflect the living Christ rather than a frozen system.   Why Denominations Are Unbiblical At the root, the very existence of denominations contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture. Paul rebuked the Corinthians for dividing themselves under labels—“I am of Paul,” “I am of Apollos”—and asked, “Has Christ been divided?”  (1 Corinthians 1:13, NASB).   Denominations are simply the modern version of that same error: elevating human traditions, teachers, or cultural distinctives above the unity of Christ. While God has worked through these groups despite their flaws, the reality remains—denominations fracture the body of Christ, blur the gospel’s simplicity, and create loyalties that compete with loyalty to Jesus Himself. The church was never meant to be “Catholic,” “Orthodox,” “Baptist,” or “Presbyterian.” It was meant to be one body, with Christ as its only Head.

Anglicanism: The Middle Way or a Compromise of Truth? Anglicanism presents itself as the “via media” — the middle way between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. With stately liturgy, a worldwide communion, and a heritage stretching back to the English Reformation, it carries both dignity and tension. On the one hand, Anglicans emphasize Scripture, sacraments, and order; on the other, their history reveals compromise, political convenience, and a long drift into liberalism.   While God has worked through Anglicanism — from reformers like Thomas Cranmer to missionaries who spread the gospel across continents — the denomination also demonstrates the peril of trying to please both Rome and Geneva while bowing to cultural pressures.   History Anglicanism was born not primarily from theology, but from politics. In the 1530s, King Henry VIII of England broke with Rome after the Pope refused to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. The Act of Supremacy (1534) declared Henry the Supreme Head of the Church of England.   Reform followed unevenly. Under Edward VI, Protestant theology gained ground, especially through Thomas Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer  (1549/1552). Under Mary I, Catholicism returned with persecution. Under Elizabeth I, the “Elizabethan Settlement” forged Anglicanism’s identity as both Catholic and Protestant — retaining bishops, liturgy, and sacraments, but rejecting papal authority and affirming Scripture’s centrality.   Over time, Anglicanism spread through colonization, becoming a global communion. In America, it evolved into the Episcopal Church after the Revolution. Yet Anglicanism has never escaped its core tension: is it Catholic-lite, Protestant with incense, or something else entirely?   Core Beliefs & Distinctives   The Book of Common Prayer:  Cranmer’s liturgical masterpiece shaped worship in English for centuries. Scripture readings, prayers, and sacraments follow an orderly rhythm, though often at the cost of spontaneity.   Thirty-Nine Articles (1571):  Foundational doctrinal statement. They affirm justification by faith and the authority of Scripture, but retain elements of sacramentalism and episcopal governance.   Episcopal Polity:  Governed by bishops, preserving hierarchical structure similar to Catholicism.   Via Media:  The claim to be the “middle way” — not fully Catholic, not fully Protestant. This “balance,” however, often results in ambiguity.   Global Communion:  Anglicans number nearly 100 million worldwide, though splits abound between conservative Global South provinces and liberal Western ones.   Strengths   Reverence in Worship:  Anglican liturgy retains a sense of dignity and order, often lacking in modern evangelicalism. This can remind believers of the holiness of God.   Scriptural Rhythm:  Daily offices, psalm readings, and lectionaries root worship in the Bible.   Historical Continuity:  Anglicanism preserves many early Protestant insights while connecting to ancient creeds and prayers.   Missionary Legacy:  Anglican missionaries played a massive role in spreading Christianity globally, particularly in Africa.   Weaknesses & Errors   Political Origins:  Born not from conviction but royal convenience. This undermines claims to be “the one true church.”   Compromise Theology:  The via media has often been a middle ground of convenience, avoiding clarity.   Sacramental Confusion:  While rejecting transubstantiation, Anglicanism affirms a “real presence” in vague terms, leaving theology muddled.   Liberal Drift:  Especially in the West, Anglicans/Episcopalians have embraced same-sex marriage, female bishops, and universalist tendencies — abandoning biblical authority.   Division Within Communion:  Deep fractures exist between conservative African Anglicans and progressive Western provinces.   What They Get Wrong Biblically   Authority of Scripture:  While affirming Scripture, Anglicanism undermines it with traditions and evolving cultural compromises. Yet 2 Timothy 3:16–17 (NASB) makes clear: “All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness.”   Marriage of Church and State:  Anglicanism’s origins tied church authority to the crown. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world”  (John 18:36, NASB). Mixing royal power with church leadership distorts the gospel.   Unity Through Compromise:  Anglicanism often claims unity through tolerance of divergent views, but true unity comes only in Christ and truth (Ephesians 4:13).   Myths to Refute   “Anglicans are just Catholic without the Pope.”  False. While similar in worship style, Anglicans reject papal authority and differ on justification.   “Anglicans are just Protestants with candles.”  Also false. They retain episcopal structure and sacramental emphasis closer to Rome than Geneva.   “Anglicanism is unified.”  In reality, the Communion is deeply fractured over doctrine and morality.   Pastoral Path Forward Anglicans who love Christ should recover biblical authority over cultural compromise. Reverent worship can be a strength when rooted in truth rather than tradition for its own sake. Missionary zeal should continue, but clarity about the gospel must outweigh the desire for a broad, ambiguous identity.   Why Denominations Are Unbiblical At the root, the very existence of denominations contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture. Paul rebuked the Corinthians for dividing themselves under labels—“I am of Paul,” “I am of Apollos”—and asked, “Has Christ been divided?”  (1 Corinthians 1:13, NASB).   Denominations are simply the modern version of that same error: elevating human traditions, teachers, or cultural distinctives above the unity of Christ. While God has worked through these groups despite their flaws, the reality remains—denominations fracture the body of Christ, blur the gospel’s simplicity, and create loyalties that compete with loyalty to Jesus Himself. The church was never meant to be “Catholic,” “Orthodox,” “Baptist,” or “Pentecostal.” It was meant to be one body, with Christ as its only Head.

Denominations: Are They Biblical? If you look around the Christian landscape today, you’ll quickly notice something peculiar: tens of thousands of different church groups called denominations, each with their own label, heritage, and often their own way of doing almost everything. To some, this diversity is proof of Christianity’s vibrancy. To others, it’s an indictment of how far we’ve drifted from Jesus’ command to be one. How did we get here? Were denominations part of the plan? And what does the Bible really say about how believers should handle disagreements? To answer these questions, we have to go all the way back to the earliest days of the church and trace how unity was first established, then fractured, then institutionalized in ways that would have shocked the first apostles. The Early Church: United in the Essentials For a significant period, the church remained largely united. After Jesus’ ascension, the believers gathered in Jerusalem under the leadership of the apostles. This was not a divided movement but a single, Spirit-led community marked by common teaching, fellowship, prayer, and the breaking of bread (Acts 2:42). Even as the gospel spread beyond Jerusalem, the church maintained a remarkable oneness. Local congregations were established—house churches in Ephesus, Corinth, Philippi, Antioch—and overseen by elders. In Crete, Titus was appointed to organize leadership (Titus 1:5). In Ephesus, Timothy was tasked with maintaining doctrinal purity (1 Timothy 1:3). These leaders functioned not as separate denominations but as shepherds of one church that spanned the Roman world. When disputes arose—like the question of whether Gentile believers needed to keep the Mosaic Law—the apostles didn’t fragment into competing camps. They gathered in Jerusalem to seek God’s will together (Acts 15). Notably, even here, it was James, the brother of Jesus, who presided and issued the final judgment, underscoring that early church leadership was never vested in a single supreme figure. The First Signs of Division: Factions and Personality Cults Even in this early era of unity, the seeds of division were sprouting. In Corinth, believers were already aligning themselves with charismatic leaders. Some claimed, “I follow Paul,” others, “I follow Apollos,” and still others, “I follow Peter.” Paul’s rebuke was unequivocal: “Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Corinthians 1:13) He went further in 1 Corinthians 3, asking: “Who is Apollos? Who is Paul? Servants through whom you believed...” The earliest threat to unity was not heresy—it was prideful identification with human teachers. This same problem echoes today whenever Christians are more eager to declare, “I am a Calvinist,” or “I am a Lutheran,” than “I am in Christ.” From Heresies to Councils Over the first three centuries, the church faced serious doctrinal threats—Gnosticism, Arianism, and other heresies. In response, Christians held councils to define orthodoxy. The Nicene Creed (325) and the Council of Chalcedon (451) clarified the essentials: the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and the incarnation. While these clarifications were necessary, the growing entanglement with the Roman Empire planted seeds of institutionalism. As bishops gained influence, the simplicity of the Acts church gradually gave way to a system where hierarchy could overshadow the gospel itself. The Great Schism: From One Church to Two For centuries, the church remained outwardly united, despite rising tension between East and West. That unity finally shattered in 1054. The split centered on two issues: The filioque clause—whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (Orthodox) or from the Father and the Son (Catholic). The authority of the pope. The churches in the East held to the tradition of decentralized leadership, seeing the apostles as examples of shared authority. While Peter was a key figure, it was James who presided in Jerusalem and issued rulings (Acts 15). The Orthodox argued that no single man was meant to stand as the head of the universal church. Meanwhile, Rome advanced the idea that the Bishop of Rome was the successor of Peter, holding supreme authority. This claim does not match the pattern of Acts, where the church operated through councils of elders and apostolic consensus. The split was more than theological—it was cultural, political, and linguistic. From then on, the Catholic and Orthodox churches went their separate ways. Orthodoxy: Strengths and Weaknesses One strength of the Orthodox Church is its preservation of the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint), the version most often quoted by the apostles. Its canon and the order of its books reflect what the early church recognized as Scripture. But Orthodoxy is not a perfect window into the apostolic church. Many of its practices emerged during the Byzantine era—like highly ritualized liturgies and certain forms of icon veneration. Appeals to “Holy Tradition” can be difficult to ground in the New Testament itself. Catholicism: Strengths and Weaknesses The Catholic tradition helped preserve doctrinal clarity in the West and played a role in stabilizing European civilization after Rome fell. But as the church’s influence merged with state power, corruption grew. The claim of an unbroken papal lineage to Peter cannot be fully reconciled with the shared leadership model seen in the book of Acts. By the late Middle Ages, abuses were rampant. Indulgences were sold. Spiritual authority was wielded for political ends. The Reformation became inevitable. The Protestant Reformation: Reform and Fragmentation In the 1500s, reformers like Luther and Calvin rose to challenge the Catholic Church’s corruption and doctrinal drift. Luther never intended to found a new denomination. He remained a Catholic priest to his dying day. His hope was to reform Catholicism from within. Yet instead of returning to the early church, Protestantism retained much of Catholic heritage—liturgical patterns, Augustinian theology, hierarchical structures—and simply removed the pope. That’s why Lutheranism often feels like a “lighter” version of Catholicism. Many modern Protestants don’t realize they are reformed Catholics, not a restored version of the Acts church. And rather than recovering unity, the Reformation set in motion an explosion of new sects. The Explosion of Denominations Instead of returning to the simplicity of the Acts church, Protestantism fractured into thousands of denominations. Today, it is estimated there are over 40,000 Christian denominations , most Protestant. Many of these divisions are over secondary doctrines—modes of baptism, views of church government, styles of worship. Naming churches after human teachers—Lutheran, Calvinist—is exactly the error Paul condemned: “I appeal to you...that there be no divisions among you.” (1 Corinthians 1:10)“Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you?” (1 Corinthians 1:13)“Who is Apollos? Who is Paul? Servants through whom you believed.” (1 Corinthians 3:5) If Paul were here today, he would ask, “Were you baptized in the name of Luther or in the name of Christ?” Why Denominations Are Not Biblical Paul’s letters could not be clearer. In 1 Corinthians 1:10 he writes: “I appeal to you, dear brothers and sisters...to live in harmony with each other. Let there be no divisions in the church. Rather, be of one mind, united in thought and purpose.” He calls factionalism a work of the flesh (Galatians 5:19–21), listing division  alongside envy and drunkenness. In Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8–10, he teaches that secondary issues—food, special days, ceremonial practices—must not be grounds for separation. And yet, today, denominations often define themselves by secondary doctrines. Many are even named after individuals—Luther, Calvin, Wesley—ironically repeating the very pastor-worship Paul condemned. Secondary Doctrine In Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8–10, Paul addressed disagreements over food, special days, and other secondary issues. He never called believers to divide over these matters: “Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters.” (Romans 14:1) He consistently taught that while convictions matter, they must not break fellowship. Even after the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 gave instructions, Paul still urged believers to avoid quarreling over such rules. Denominations as Sinful Division Galatians 5:19–21 warns that division is a work of the flesh: “When you follow the desires of your sinful nature...the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity...hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division...anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the kingdom of God.” This is not a casual issue. Division is listed alongside sorcery and drunkenness. Paul repeatedly taught that unity is essential: “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.” (Ephesians 4:3)   Modern Non-Denominational Churches: A Better Way? Some believers have responded by dropping denominational labels altogether. At their best, non-denominational churches aim to return to the simplicity of the New Testament: Jesus as the head, Scripture as the guide, and elders as shepherds. But there are dangers. Many churches claim to be non-denominational while retaining old denominational beliefs and politics. This bait-and-switch breeds distrust and cynicism. Some churches have dropped denominational labels to focus solely on the gospel. When done honestly, this is a return to a biblical pattern: Christ is the head of the church—not any pope, patriarch, or reformer. Yet many so-called non-denominational churches are only non-denominational in name.  They retain the same theology and polity as their parent denomination. This bait and switch  has caused many to lose trust in church altogether. The Modern Church: Divided and Distracted Today, the church often seems more focused on entertainment, politics, and celebrity pastors than on Christ. This is not new—Paul faced it in Corinth, too: “You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly?” (1 Corinthians 3:3) The same spirit is alive whenever believers identify primarily with a label rather than with Jesus. How to Think About Denominations Today If you’re looking for a church, don’t stop at the sign out front. Ask: Are they truly independent, or just rebranded? Do they allow open dialogue on secondary doctrines? Are they centered on the gospel above all else? Remember, the church should be: “...eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” (Ephesians 4:3) Conclusion: The Main Thing For all our divisions, there is only one Head of the church. Not a pope, not a patriarch, not a reformer. When Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus, he warned them: “Don’t get involved in foolish arguments...These things are useless and a waste of time. If people are causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with them.” (Titus 3:9–10) True Christianity needs no reformation because it is founded on the Word of God and the Spirit of God. Our call is to keep the main thing the main thing: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” (Ephesians 4:5) When the church divides over disputable matters, we grieve the Spirit who unites us. When we center on Jesus, we find the unity He prayed for in John 17.

What Does It Mean to Be Non-Denominational? The term “non-denominational” gets thrown around a lot these days. You’ll find it on church signs, websites, and social media bios—often paired with phrases like “Bible-based,” “Spirit-filled,” or “come as you are.” But what does “non-denominational” actually mean? At its best, being non-denominational means a church isn’t tied to a specific Christian tradition (like Baptist, Methodist, or Lutheran). It often implies an intent to return to the basics—Scripture as the highest authority, Jesus as the only Head of the Church, and unity in essential doctrines rather than division over the non-essentials. That’s a noble goal. But in practice, “non-denominational” can also be a mask. And far too often, it becomes a bait-and-switch  tactic: churches slap the term on their signs to draw people in, only to impose the same rigid rules, denominational teachings, or secondary doctrines once you’re emotionally invested. A Warning: The Bait-and-Switch Tactic There’s a growing trend of denominational churches hiding behind non-denominational labels.  Pentecostal, Baptist, and charismatic churches will often drop their denominational name—not their theology—and rebrand themselves as something neutral-sounding like “Lifepoint” or “The River.” The danger comes when someone visits, builds friendships, and becomes involved—only to later find out that the church teaches that speaking in tongues is required for salvation , or that women can’t speak in church , or that tithing is mandatory or you’re robbing God . These doctrines were never mentioned up front. That’s not just poor communication. It’s dishonest . The world calls this kind of tactic what it is: false advertising . In the business world, it would violate truth-in-marketing laws. In the church, it violates the call to speak truth in love and deal honestly with one another (Ephesians 4:15, Romans 12:17). Paul on Divisions and Denominations The Apostle Paul confronted this exact kind of division in the early church. In 1 Corinthians 1:12–13 , he rebuked the factions already forming: “Some of you are saying, ‘I am a follower of Paul.’ Others are saying, ‘I follow Apollos,’ or ‘I follow Peter,’ or ‘I follow only Christ.’ Has Christ been divided?” Paul saw this as a serious threat  to the unity of the Church. Identifying with a teacher, tradition, or theological label more than with Christ Himself fractures the body. In 1 Corinthians 3:3–4 , he wrote: “You are still controlled by your sinful nature. You are jealous of one another and quarrel with each other. Doesn’t that prove you are controlled by your sinful nature? Aren’t you living like people of the world? When one of you says, ‘I am a follower of Paul,’ and another says, ‘I follow Apollos,’ aren’t you acting just like people of the world?” Paul was clear: Factionalism is carnality. Protestantism Isn’t Non-Denominational Let’s clear something up: Protestantism is not the same thing as being non-denominational . Protestantism began in protest—against the Catholic Church—and fractured over time into thousands of groups, each with their own interpretations, traditions, and doctrinal statements. Many believers use the term "non-denominational" to distance themselves from labels, but this often amounts to wordplay rather than true separation from denominational identity. Let's be clear: Protestantism is an umbrella denomination —not in the sense of a single sect, but as a broad, umbrella category. Just as someone may identify as Catholic without specifying Roman or Irish, or Orthodox without clarifying Greek or Eastern, so too can someone be Protestant without identifying as Baptist, Methodist, or Reformed. But to claim Protestant beliefs while denying any denominational affiliation is to misunderstand the definition itself. A denomination is a recognized branch of the Christian Church marked by shared doctrines, history, and practices. Protestantism began as a protest against the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century and has since splintered into thousands of subgroups. Even if a church refuses to name its specific Protestant lineage, it often still holds to core Protestant doctrines like sola scriptura, sola fide, or penal substitutionary atonement. This means that the church, while calling itself non-denominational, still exists squarely within the Protestant tradition. Changing the sign doesn’t change the roots. Simply put, not naming your subgroup doesn't make you non-denominational—it just makes your denomination unacknowledged. Calling yourself “non-denominational” doesn’t mean you’re not Protestant. In fact, many “non-denominational” churches are functionally Protestant in theology—they’re just allergic to the label. That’s not always a bad thing, but it must be acknowledged. Many “non-denominational” churches still adhere closely to Baptist, Pentecostal, or Reformed doctrine. The difference is whether those beliefs are presented transparently —or concealed under the guise of neutrality. Secondary Doctrines and Hidden Agendas Non-denominational churches often say, “We major in the majors and minor in the minors.”  But too many still end up imposing secondary beliefs  on their members. Here are some examples of how it plays out: Tongues as a sign of salvation  – A hallmark of some charismatic groups, but nowhere taught as a requirement in Scripture. Legalistic tithing  – Malachi 3 is misused to coerce giving under the Old Covenant, even when grace is preached elsewhere. Women silenced or restricted  – While Scripture does call for order in the church, blanket bans on female participation misread context and culture. Hyper-Calvinism or Arminianism  – Doctrines about election, free will, and sovereignty are treated as litmus tests, even when Scripture allows room for mystery. When these beliefs are introduced slowly, after someone’s relationally invested in the church, it becomes difficult to leave—even if conscience demands it. That’s spiritual manipulation. It’s not just about theology—it’s about integrity . What Should True Non-Denominational Mean? A truly non-denominational church: Teaches Scripture without denominational bias Welcomes honest questions Makes all beliefs and positions clear from the start Focuses on the essentials: the gospel, sound doctrine, and Christian living Avoids turning secondary doctrines into tests of fellowship Non-denominational shouldn’t mean “secretly Baptist” or “covertly Pentecostal.”  It should mean rooted in Scripture , accountable to Christ alone, and respectful of the wider Body of Christ. Choosing a Church: Warning Signs and Questions to Ask For sincere believers trying to find a faithful church home, the search can be spiritually exhilarating—or quietly disastrous. Many Christians walk into a church that claims to be “non-denominational” only to later discover they’ve been slowly ushered into a denominational system without the label . This kind of bait-and-switch —where churches change names, signage, and language to appear neutral—is not just misleading, it’s worldly marketing disguised as ministry . Jesus never used trickery to build His Church. Neither should we. Before joining any congregation, ask direct, respectful questions. A church that walks in the light will not shy away from clarity. Key Questions to Ask: What are your core doctrinal beliefs? Do they provide a statement of faith? Are they clearly rooted in Scripture, or are they vague and evasive? What is your stance on secondary doctrines? Do they teach that speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation? Are women allowed to serve in leadership or not? Is there pressure to tithe under Malachi 3 or are they grace-based? Ask how they handle gray areas —and if disagreement is allowed. Where did your pastor receive training or ordination? If the pastor previously belonged to a known denomination (e.g., Pentecostal, Baptist, Reformed), and now claims to be “non-denominational,” ask if they’ve attended a non-denominational seminary  or simply changed the label. This matters. Theological training leaves deep roots , and if nothing else has changed, only the branding has. Has the church changed names or affiliations in recent years? If so, why?  Were they hiding previous denominational ties, or seeking to broaden appeal? How does the church handle disagreement? Are members allowed to disagree on secondary issues like spiritual gifts, end times, or women in ministry without being labeled “rebellious” or “unsubmitted”? Red Flags: Excessive secrecy  around leadership or theology. Vague or ever-shifting mission statements. Pressure to conform  without discussion. Lack of church history  or unwillingness to be transparent about changes. Remember, the early church had no denominations —but they also didn’t pretend to be something they weren’t. Paul rebuked factions fiercely (1 Corinthians 1:12–13). Don’t ignore factionalism just because it’s hidden behind a catchy website or cool worship band. Theology matters. Transparency matters. Where the shepherd has been trained matters. You wouldn’t trust a surgeon who didn’t want to tell you where they went to medical school. Don’t treat your soul with less care than your body.   Summary: Honesty, Unity, and Truth in Love Paul’s words still speak today: “Has Christ been divided?” Denominations may be unavoidable in a fractured world, but disguising one as something it’s not is dishonest. Churches must be clear about their beliefs, up front about their theology, and gentle in how they handle disagreement. And as believers, we should pursue unity in Christ—not just labels that make us feel free. True freedom is found in Christ, not in hiding our affiliations or manipulating others into agreement.

Calvinism: Predestination, Sovereignty & Rigid Tribalism.   Of all the Protestant denominations, none has shaped Western theology more than Calvinism. Emerging from John Calvin’s reforms in Geneva, it developed into a systematic theology emphasizing God’s sovereignty, predestination, and covenant. Its legacy is immense — from Puritanism to Presbyterianism to Reformed Baptists — yet it has also bred elitism, rigid doctrinal camps, and bitter divisions.   Calvinism is often praised for its intellectual depth, but Scripture calls believers to unity in Christ, not loyalty to theological systems (1 Corinthians 1:12–13, NASB).   History   John Calvin (1509–1564):  French lawyer turned reformer, fled persecution, settled in Geneva. His Institutes of the Christian Religion  (1536, expanded later) became the defining Reformed text. Geneva: Calvin turned the city into a “holy commonwealth” governed by strict moral codes and church oversight. Spread to Europe:  Took root in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Scotland (via John Knox), and parts of France (Huguenots). Confessions: Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Canons of Dort. The Synod of Dort (1618–1619):  Rejected Arminianism, solidified the “Five Points of Calvinism.” Expansion: Through Puritanism, Presbyterianism, and later Reformed Baptists. Today: Calvinism influences seminaries, churches, and movements worldwide, from conservative Presbyterian denominations to the “New Calvinists” of the 21st century.   Core Beliefs & Distinctives   TULIP (Five Points of Calvinism): T otal Depravity: Humans are completely unable to save themselves. U nconditional Election: God predestines some to salvation, apart from merit. L imited Atonement: Christ died only for the elect. I rresistible Grace: God’s call to the elect cannot be resisted. P erseverance of the Saints: The elect will persevere in faith until the end. God’s Sovereignty:  All events fall under God’s sovereign will. Covenant Theology:  Sees Scripture as one covenantal unfolding, replacing Israel with the church. Confessionalism: Strong emphasis on catechisms, creeds, and church order.   Strengths   High View of God:  Magnifies God’s sovereignty and majesty (Romans 11:36). Serious Theology:  Provides rigorous systems of doctrine and catechesis. Missions & Education:  Fueled missionary movements, schools, and seminaries. Perseverance: Offers believers assurance of God’s sustaining grace.   Weaknesses & Errors   Limited Atonement Problem:  Contradicts passages such as John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2, which speak of Christ dying for the whole world. Determinism Drift:  Often turns into fatalism, minimizing human responsibility. Pastor-Theologian Worship:  Elevates Calvin, Edwards, Spurgeon, Piper, etc., into cult-like figures (1 Corinthians 3:4–7). Division: “Reformed” identity becomes tribal, fracturing the church. Hyper-Calvinism: Denies evangelistic urgency since “the elect will be saved anyway.”   What They Get Wrong Biblically   Election: Scripture affirms both divine sovereignty and human responsibility (Romans 10:9–13; 2 Peter 3:9). Calvinism often reduces the mystery to rigid determinism. Atonement: Christ died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2, NASB). Tradition Over Text:  Many Calvinists read the Bible through confessional grids, not letting the Word stand on its own. Unity: Paul warns against dividing under names of leaders (1 Corinthians 1:12). Calvinism perpetuates this error.   Myths to Refute   “Calvin invented predestination.”  Augustine taught it earlier; Calvin systematized it. “Calvinists don’t believe in free will.”  They redefine free will as “acting according to one’s nature” — though this raises questions. “Calvinism = Reformed = Presbyterian.”  Not all Presbyterians are Calvinist, and not all Calvinists are Presbyterian. “Calvinism is purely biblical.”  It is a system imposed on the Bible, not drawn purely from it.   Pastoral Path Forward   Recover balance.  God is sovereign, but man is responsible. Both are true. Refocus on Christ, not Calvin.  Systems should serve Christ, not overshadow Him. Reject pride.  Calvinist elitism alienates believers. Pursue unity.  Doctrinal camps fracture the church Christ prayed would be one (John 17:21).   Why Denominations Are Unbiblical   At the root, the very existence of denominations contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture. Paul rebuked the Corinthians for dividing themselves under labels—“I am of Paul,” “I am of Apollos”—and asked, “Has Christ been divided?”  (1 Corinthians 1:13, NASB).   Denominations are simply the modern version of that same error: elevating human traditions, teachers, or cultural distinctives above the unity of Christ. While God has worked through these groups despite their flaws, the reality remains—denominations fracture the body of Christ, blur the gospel’s simplicity, and create loyalties that compete with loyalty to Jesus Himself. The church was never meant to be “Catholic,” “Orthodox,” “Baptist,” or “Pentecostal.” It was meant to be one body, with Christ as its only Head.

Quakers: The Inner Light, Silence, and Doctrinal Drift The Religious Society of Friends—better known as Quakers—emerged in 17th-century England as a radical challenge to established churches. Rejecting clergy, sacraments, and outward rituals, they emphasized the “Inner Light,” a direct experience of God available to every believer. Their legacy includes social activism, pacifism, and simplicity of life.   Yet while their sincerity is notable, their theology often drifts far from Scripture. The Quaker elevation of subjective experience over the authority of God’s Word has led to confusion, liberalism, and, in many cases, outright denial of biblical truth.   History   Founding (1640s):  George Fox, an English dissenter, grew disillusioned with the Church of England and sought a faith rooted in direct spiritual encounter. He taught that the “Inner Light of Christ” dwelt within each believer.   Expansion: Early Quakers were persecuted for refusing oaths, rejecting state churches, and declining military service. Many migrated to America, where William Penn founded Pennsylvania as a Quaker colony.   Influence: Quakers became known for their peace testimony, abolitionist efforts, prison reform, and humanitarian work.   Modern Diversity:  Today, Quakers range from conservative, Christ-centered groups (Evangelical Friends) to liberal branches that deny Christ’s deity and embrace universalism.   Core Beliefs & Distinctives   The Inner Light:  Early Quakers taught that the presence of Christ, by the Spirit, illuminates the heart of believers. However, many modern Quakers reinterpret this as a universal divine spark in all humanity, leading to confusion and doctrinal drift.   Silent Worship:  Meetings often consist of sitting in silence until someone feels “led” to speak.   Rejection of Sacraments:  Historically, Quakers rejected outward ordinances, though some Evangelical Friends practice baptism and communion today.   Pacifism: Quakers refuse military service, rooted in their interpretation of Christ’s command to love enemies.   Simplicity & Equality:  Emphasis on plain speech, plain dress, and equality (Quakers were early advocates for women in ministry).   Strengths   Moral Witness:  Quakers often stood for justice when others remained silent (e.g., abolition of slavery).   Simplicity of Life:  Their rejection of excess challenges the materialism of modern culture.   Community Accountability:  Early Quakers practiced a strong sense of brotherhood and care.   Serious About Peace:  Their commitment to nonviolence is admirable, though sometimes absolutist.   Weaknesses & Errors   Experience Over Scripture:  The “Inner Light” easily replaces the authority of God’s Word. Some modern Quakers have rejected biblical teaching entirely.   Universalism: Liberal Quaker meetings often embrace a pluralistic theology, claiming all paths lead to God. This is not representative of conservative or evangelical Friends.   Silence as Worship:  While quiet reflection is biblical, elevating it as the central act of worship distorts the pattern of the New Testament church.   What They Get Wrong Biblically   Inner Light vs. Holy Spirit:  Scripture teaches the Spirit indwells believers (Romans 8:9), not that all people possess an innate divine spark.   Neglect of Baptism & Communion:  Acts 2:38 (NASB) commands baptism, and Paul affirmed the Lord’s Supper as an ongoing ordinance (1 Corinthians 11:23-26).   Pacifism Misapplied:  Romans 13:4 (NASB) affirms that governing authorities “do not bear the sword for nothing.” Absolute pacifism disregards God’s ordaining of government.   Subjectivism: Jeremiah 17:9 (NASB) warns: “The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick.”  Trusting one’s “inner light” apart from Scripture is spiritually dangerous.   Myths to Refute   “All Quakers are Amish-like.”  False. Many modern Quakers look indistinguishable from the culture around them.   “Quakers are all Christians.”  Not true—many Quaker meetings today are universalist and deny the gospel.   “Quakers reject all Scripture.”  Not historically—early Quakers revered the Bible, though subordinated it to the Inner Light.   Pastoral Path Forward The Quaker pursuit of authenticity and simplicity should remind Christians to avoid hollow ritualism. Yet experience must never replace revelation. True worship flows from Spirit and truth (John 4:24, NASB), not silence or personal impressions. Believers must test every “leading” against Scripture (1 John 4:1).   Why Denominations Are Unbiblical At the root, the very existence of denominations contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture. Paul rebuked the Corinthians for dividing themselves under labels—“I am of Paul,” “I am of Apollos”—and asked, “Has Christ been divided?”  (1 Corinthians 1:13, NASB).   Denominations are simply the modern version of that same error: elevating human traditions, teachers, or cultural distinctives above the unity of Christ. While God has worked through these groups despite their flaws, the reality remains—denominations fracture the body of Christ, blur the gospel’s simplicity, and create loyalties that compete with loyalty to Jesus Himself. The church was never meant to be “Catholic,” “Orthodox,” “Baptist,” or “Quaker.” It was meant to be one body, with Christ as its only Head.

Anabaptists: Separation, Simplicity, and Sectarianism The Anabaptist movement, born in the turbulent years of the 16th-century Reformation, sought to return to a “pure” New Testament faith. Rejecting infant baptism, state churches, and coercion, they became the “radicals” of the Reformation, insisting on believer’s baptism, separation from the world, and a life of visible discipleship.   Though persecuted by both Catholics and Protestants, Anabaptists survived in communities such as the Mennonites, Hutterites, and later the Amish. Their legacy remains a mix of admirable devotion and problematic sectarianism.   History   Radical Reformation (1525):  The movement began in Zurich when students of Ulrich Zwingli broke from him, baptizing one another as adult believers. This act gave them their name — Anabaptists  (“rebaptizers”).   Persecution: Both Protestants and Catholics executed Anabaptists for rejecting infant baptism, which was tied to civil order and citizenship. Thousands were drowned, burned, or exiled.   Migration & Survival:  Despite persecution, Anabaptists spread across Europe. Many emigrated to North America, where groups like the Amish, Mennonites, and Brethren flourished.   Modern Branches:  Today, Anabaptists range from conservative Amish and Old Order Mennonites to more assimilated groups engaged in missions and relief work.   Core Beliefs & Distinctives   Believer’s Baptism:  Only those who confess faith are baptized (Acts 2:38, NASB: “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” ).   Separation from the World:  Strong emphasis on nonconformity (Romans 12:2), leading to simple dress, plain living, and avoidance of worldly politics.   Pacifism & Nonviolence:  Refusal to bear arms or participate in war.   Community & Discipline:  Church discipline and accountability are central; some groups practice shunning (Meidung).   Suspicion of Institutions:  Rejecting state churches and hierarchical authority, Anabaptists favored local congregations led by elders.   Strengths   Radical Discipleship:  A sincere desire to live out the Sermon on the Mount.   Courageous Witness:  Their willingness to suffer persecution is a testimony of faith.   Community Life:  Strong emphasis on mutual aid and accountability.   Ethic of Peace:  Their commitment to nonviolence stands in obedience to the Gospel and in contrast to worldly power struggles.   Weaknesses & Errors   Sectarianism: Withdrawal from society often results in cultural isolation and legalism.   Pacifism Misapplied:  While admirable, absolute pacifism neglects the reality of government’s God-ordained role (Romans 13:1–4).   Overemphasis on External Marks:  Plain dress, technology avoidance, and cultural rules often overshadow the gospel itself.   Division Among Themselves:  Amish, Mennonites, Hutterites, and Brethren have fractured into countless subgroups.   What They Get Wrong Biblically   Separatism Beyond Scripture:  Jesus prayed for His disciples, “I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world”  (John 17:15–16, NASB). The Anabaptist withdrawal often denies the missional call of Matthew 28:19–20.   Judging by Outward Appearance:  Colossians 2:20–23 (NASB) warns against rules “such as, ‘Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!’” — yet many Anabaptist groups bind consciences with man-made rules.   Misuse of Church Discipline:  Shunning can become harsh, punishing those who need restoration (Galatians 6:1).   Myths to Refute   “Anabaptists were anarchists.”  Not true — while rejecting state churches, they did not reject all order.   “All Anabaptists are Amish.”  False. The movement is diverse — from Hutterites in colonies to Mennonite mission workers in cities.   “Anabaptists reject Scripture.”  No — they often have a very high regard for Scripture, but sometimes interpret it in hyper-literal, legalistic ways.   Pastoral Path Forward The Anabaptist desire for a visibly different, holy life should challenge modern Christians to live distinctly in a sinful world. Yet when holiness becomes external legalism or separation becomes sectarianism, the gospel is distorted. True discipleship is not retreat but faithful presence, shining Christ’s light where the world most needs it.   Why Denominations Are Unbiblical At the root, the very existence of denominations contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture. Paul rebuked the Corinthians for dividing themselves under labels—“I am of Paul,” “I am of Apollos”—and asked, “Has Christ been divided?”  (1 Corinthians 1:13, NASB).   Denominations are simply the modern version of that same error: elevating human traditions, teachers, or cultural distinctives above the unity of Christ. While God has worked through these groups despite their flaws, the reality remains—denominations fracture the body of Christ, blur the gospel’s simplicity, and create loyalties that compete with loyalty to Jesus Himself. The church was never meant to be “Catholic,” “Orthodox,” “Baptist,” or “Anabaptist.” It was meant to be one body, with Christ as its only Head.

Methodism & Wesleyanism: Discipline, Holiness, and Division Methodism, birthed in the 18th century under John and Charles Wesley, was originally a renewal movement within the Church of England. Known for its methodical devotion, fiery preaching, and emphasis on holiness, it grew rapidly into one of the most influential Protestant traditions in the world.   Yet like other denominational movements, Methodism has fractured into countless branches — United Methodists, Free Methodists, Wesleyans, Nazarenes, and others. Its legacy includes hymns, revivals, and social reform, but also compromise, liberal drift, and denominational pride.   History   Origins in Oxford (1729):  John and Charles Wesley, with George Whitefield, formed the “Holy Club,” committed to Bible study, prayer, fasting, and works of mercy. Their “methodical” habits gave the movement its name.   Aldersgate Experience (1738):  John Wesley’s heart was “strangely warmed,” and he preached salvation by grace through faith, not works. Revival spread across Britain and the American colonies.   American Growth:  Methodism flourished during the First and Second Great Awakenings, becoming one of the largest denominations in the United States by the 19th century.   Global Impact:  Methodist missions spread worldwide, bringing both evangelism and education.   Modern Fragmentation:  The United Methodist Church (UMC) has faced deep division over biblical authority and sexual ethics, leading to splits and the recent formation of the Global Methodist Church  (2022).   Core Beliefs & Distinctives   Emphasis on Holiness:  Personal sanctification and holy living are central — “Christian perfection” was Wesley’s lifelong pursuit (not sinlessness, but maturity in love).   Methodical Devotion:  Structured disciplines of prayer, fasting, accountability groups, and works of mercy.   Free Will Theology (Arminianism):  Rejects Calvinist predestination, emphasizing prevenient grace and human response.   Social Reform:  Methodists have historically fought slavery, promoted education, and advanced healthcare.   Connectionalism: Strong organizational structure linking churches in conferences under bishops.   Strengths   Holiness Tradition:  A healthy reminder that salvation produces transformed lives. (Ephesians 2:10, NASB: “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.” )   Evangelistic Zeal:  Methodist circuit riders carried the gospel to the American frontier.   Practical Christianity:  The Wesleys emphasized faith lived out in works of mercy, charity, and social justice.   Hymnody: Charles Wesley wrote over 6,000 hymns, shaping evangelical worship to this day.   Weaknesses & Errors   Perfectionism Misunderstood:  Wesley’s teaching on “Christian perfection” sometimes devolved into legalism or unrealistic spirituality.   Fragmentation: Methodism has split into dozens of sub-denominations, contradicting Christ’s call for unity.   Doctrinal Drift:  The UMC has embraced liberal theology — including same-sex marriage and universalist tendencies — leading to massive schisms.   Overemphasis on Social Causes:  At times, social activism eclipsed the gospel of salvation.   What They Get Wrong Biblically   Authority of Scripture:  As with Episcopalianism, Methodism’s largest branch has undermined biblical authority. 2 Timothy 3:16–17 (NASB) reminds us: “All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness.”   Unity by Institution:  Methodism has tried to maintain unity through bureaucracy rather than shared truth. But true unity is in Christ (Ephesians 4:13).   Misplaced Identity:  Rooted in the name of Wesley and “methods,” rather than simply in Christ. Paul warns in 1 Corinthians 1:12–13 (NASB): “Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, ‘I am of Paul,’ and ‘I am of Apollos,’ and ‘I am of Cephas,’ and ‘I am of Christ.’ Has Christ been divided?”   Myths to Refute “Methodists believe in salvation by works.”  False. The Wesleys preached justification by faith, though sanctification was strongly emphasized.   “All Methodists are liberal.”  Not true. While the UMC has embraced progressivism, many Wesleyan denominations remain evangelical and orthodox.   “Wesley taught sinless perfection.”  Incorrect. He taught maturity in love, not absolute sinlessness.   Pastoral Path Forward Methodism’s legacy of holiness and zeal is commendable, but its modern drift reveals the danger of prioritizing institutions over Scripture. Faithful Methodists should return to the gospel of grace, keeping holiness rooted in the Spirit’s work rather than human striving.   Why Denominations Are Unbiblical At the root, the very existence of denominations contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture. Paul rebuked the Corinthians for dividing themselves under labels—“I am of Paul,” “I am of Apollos”—and asked, “Has Christ been divided?”  (1 Corinthians 1:13, NASB).   Denominations are simply the modern version of that same error: elevating human traditions, teachers, or cultural distinctives above the unity of Christ. While God has worked through these groups despite their flaws, the reality remains—denominations fracture the body of Christ, blur the gospel’s simplicity, and create loyalties that compete with loyalty to Jesus Himself. The church was never meant to be “Catholic,” “Orthodox,” “Baptist,” or “Methodist.” It was meant to be one body, with Christ as its only Head.

Baptists: Literalism, Exclusivity, and Endless Splits Baptists are one of the most recognizable Protestant groups in the world, often defined by their insistence on believer’s baptism and independent church governance. With over 40 million adherents worldwide — and countless splinter groups — Baptists claim to uphold “biblical Christianity” with a fierce loyalty to Scripture. Yet their history is one of fragmentation, hyper-literalism, and a reputation for being some of the most divisive and aggressive voices in Christendom.   While God has used Baptists to emphasize conversion, missions, and personal faith, their approach often undermines Christian unity and damages the witness of the gospel.   History   Baptists trace their roots to the early 1600s in England. They emerged out of the Separatist movement, rejecting both the Church of England and the lingering Catholic influence within Protestantism. Early Baptists championed freedom of conscience, believer’s baptism by immersion, and local church autonomy.   In the 17th and 18th centuries, Baptists spread rapidly through England and then into the American colonies. By the 19th century, Baptists were a dominant force in the United States, with the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) eventually becoming the largest Protestant denomination in America.   But with this growth came endless division. Baptists fractured over slavery, missions, theological disputes, cultural issues, and personality-driven leadership. Today, there are hundreds of Baptist bodies worldwide, ranging from rigid fundamentalists to liberal progressives — all claiming the Baptist label while often refusing fellowship with one another.   Core Beliefs & Distinctives   Believer’s Baptism:  Baptists reject infant baptism and insist that baptism must follow a personal profession of faith. This emphasis preserves the biblical order (Acts 8:36–38) but has sometimes turned baptism into a denominational badge of exclusivity.   Local Church Autonomy:  Each Baptist church is self-governing, free from external authority. While this has protected independence, it has also fueled schisms and accountability problems.   Congregationalism: Church members vote on leadership and decisions, making the congregation the final authority. This democratization often leads to power struggles and divisions.   Biblicism and Literalism:  Baptists pride themselves on being “people of the Book.” Yet a hyper-literal reading of Scripture often neglects context, culture, and literary nuance — producing rigid and sometimes distorted theology.   Separation from the World:  Baptists emphasize holiness and moral standards, but this has frequently turned into harsh judgment of outsiders. Strengths Evangelistic Zeal:  Baptists have historically been at the forefront of missions, revivals, and gospel preaching. Their emphasis on personal conversion has led many to faith in Christ. Defense of Religious Liberty:  Baptists were early champions of freedom of conscience and the separation of church and state. Their advocacy helped shape religious freedom in America. Biblical Authority:  At their best, Baptists remind the church that Scripture — not councils or popes — is the final authority. Community Life:  Many Baptist churches foster close-knit fellowship, accountability, and discipleship. Weaknesses & Errors   Aggressive Exclusivism:  Baptists are notorious for declaring other Christians “unsaved” — especially Catholics, Orthodox, and even other Protestants. This runs directly against the gospel’s unity and humility (Ephesians 4:3–6).   Judging Outsiders:  Baptists often rail against cultural sins, especially homosexuality, without heeding 1 Corinthians 5:12–13 — which makes clear that the church is not to judge outsiders but those inside.   Hypocrisy & Reputation:  Their harsh rhetoric has branded Christians as judgmental hypocrites. The public face of Christianity is too often shaped by angry Baptist preachers yelling about sin while failing to display Christ’s grace.   Endless Schisms:  Their commitment to independence has fractured them more than any other group. From Southern Baptists to Independent Baptists to countless tiny fellowships, the Baptist world is a maze of splits.   Chauvinism: Many Baptist traditions insist on male-only leadership and restrict women’s roles, often misusing Scripture (cf. Galatians 3:28, NASB).   Non-Denominational Bait-and-Switch:  Baptists are the guiltiest of using the label “non-denominational” to disguise Baptist theology. Many “non-denom” churches are simply Baptist churches with different branding — creating confusion and undermining trust.   What They Get Wrong Biblically   Unity in the Church:  Paul rebuked division in Corinth, asking, “Has Christ been divided?”  (1 Corinthians 1:13, NASB). Baptist tribalism repeats this same error.   Judging Outsiders:  Scripture is explicit: “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? … God judges those outside.”  (1 Corinthians 5:12–13, NASB). Baptists often invert this, condemning the world while tolerating sin inside.   Legalism and Tradition:  Ironically, though they pride themselves on rejecting “tradition,” many Baptists elevate their own denominational practices — altar calls, “once saved always saved,” and dress codes — as if they were Scripture.   Hyper-Literalism: Reading the Bible without context or genre awareness leads to errors, such as treating apocalyptic visions or proverbs as rigid formulas.   Myths to Refute   “Baptists aren’t a denomination — they’re just biblical.”  False. Baptists are an umbrella denomination with endless subgroups. Their claim to be “non-denominational” is semantics.   “All Baptists believe the same thing.”  Not true. There are conservative, liberal, fundamentalist, progressive, and everything in between.   “Baptists invented missions.”  While strong in missions, they were not the first. Evangelism predates the Reformation.   “Baptists don’t follow tradition.”  They do — they’ve just created their own, from hymnody to church polity.   Pastoral Path Forward   Baptists can recover what is good if they: Return to grace-centered gospel preaching instead of angry cultural battles. Stop disguising themselves as “non-denominational” and embrace honesty. Pursue humility, listening to the broader body of Christ rather than condemning it. Anchor unity in Christ rather than Baptist identity.   Why Denominations Are Unbiblical At the root, the very existence of denominations contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture. Paul rebuked the Corinthians for dividing themselves under labels—“I am of Paul,” “I am of Apollos”—and asked, “Has Christ been divided?”  (1 Corinthians 1:13, NASB).   Denominations are simply the modern version of that same error: elevating human traditions, teachers, or cultural distinctives above the unity of Christ. While God has worked through these groups despite their flaws, the reality remains—denominations fracture the body of Christ, blur the gospel’s simplicity, and create loyalties that compete with loyalty to Jesus Himself. The church was never meant to be “Catholic,” “Orthodox,” “Baptist,” or “Pentecostal.” It was meant to be one body, with Christ as its only Head.

Mormonism: Another Gospel and Its Errors Mormonism—officially The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) —is not Christianity. It is a counterfeit faith offering a different gospel, another Jesus, and another path of salvation.   “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!” (Galatians 1:8, NASB)   The danger is not just in Mormonism’s growth worldwide, but in its recent cultural acceptance  through partnerships with projects like The Chosen . What once was rejected outright as a false religion is now slipping quietly into Christian spaces.   1. History & Founding Joseph Smith’s Visions (1820–1823):  Smith claimed to see God the Father and Jesus Christ, who allegedly told him that all existing churches were corrupt. Later, he claimed an angel named Moroni revealed golden plates to him, which he translated into the Book of Mormon  (1830). New Scriptures:  Smith quickly expanded his revelations to include Doctrine and Covenants  and The Pearl of Great Price . Islamic Parallel:  Like Muhammad’s solitary visions in Islam, Mormonism is based on one man’s private, unverifiable experiences.  Christianity is not built this way—it is grounded in events witnessed by hundreds (1 Corinthians 15:3–8; Luke 1:1–4).   Christianity is public, historical, and verifiable. Mormonism is private, hidden, and contradictory.   2. Core Beliefs & Distinctives God Once a Man LDS doctrine teaches that God was once a mortal man who became exalted. Men may become gods as He did.   Isaiah 43:10 (NASB): “Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.”   Plurality of Gods The LDS system rejects monotheism, teaching an eternal progression of gods. This directly denies:   Deuteronomy 6:4 (NASB): “Hear, Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!”   Jesus Christ Presented as the first “spirit-child” of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. Said to be the spirit-brother of Lucifer. A created being—not the eternal, uncreated Word. John 1:1 (NASB):   “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The Greek kai theos ēn ho logos  = “and the Word was God.” LDS distortions make Jesus “a god,” echoing other heresies.   Women Saved Through Husbands LDS doctrine teaches that women cannot attain exaltation on their own—they are saved through their husband’s priesthood and temple authority.   Galatians 3:28 (NASB): “There is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”   Salvation by Works and Temple Ordinances LDS “salvation” requires baptism for the dead, temple marriage, tithing, and obedience.   Ephesians 2:8–9 (NASB): “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”   Exaltation and “Your Own Planet” Faithful LDS men are promised that one day they will become gods, ruling over their own planets with their wives as eternal goddesses. This teaching is affirmed in LDS prophets’ writings (Joseph Fielding Smith, Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow). Modern PR downplays it, but it remains embedded in LDS doctrine.   Extra Scriptures In addition to the Bible, LDS elevates: The Book of Mormon Doctrine and Covenants The Pearl of Great Price These works often contradict both Scripture and each other.   Polygamy Joseph Smith introduced polygamy (plural marriage) as a divine command, claiming it was revealed to him by God. Early Mormon leaders like Brigham Young practiced and defended it.   This teaching directly contradicts the New Testament, where church leaders are instructed to be “the husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2, NASB). Paul’s instruction makes clear that monogamy is the biblical standard for marriage and leadership, while polygamy represents corruption and disorder.   Although the LDS Church officially renounced polygamy in 1890 under legal and cultural pressure, splinter groups still practice it, and the doctrine remains embedded in Doctrine and Covenants 132 , which continues to be part of LDS scripture.     3. Why It Appeals (But Deceives) Strong family values and morality. Tight-knit community and order. Missionary zeal and passion.   But these are veneer strengths.  They provide the illusion of righteousness while hiding a system that denies the true Christ.   2 Corinthians 11:14 (NASB): “Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.”   4. What Mormonism Gets Wrong Biblically The Word of God LDS claim: the Bible is only trustworthy “as far as it is translated correctly.” This undermines the authority of Scripture itself.   2 Timothy 3:16 (NASB): “All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness.”   Adding new revelations ( Book of Mormon, etc. ) directly contradicts God’s warning: Revelation 22:18–19 (NASB): “…if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away…God will take away his part from the tree of life.”   The Deity of Christ Mormonism’s teaching that Jesus is a created being strips Him of His divine glory.   John 8:24 (NASB): “…for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.” Salvation The LDS system enslaves its members with endless works, ordinances, and rituals. The Bible sets us free:   Titus 3:5 (NASB): “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we did in righteousness, but in accordance with His mercy.”   New Revelation vs. Once-for-All Faith Jude 1:3 (NASB): “…contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all time handed down to the saints.”   God delivered the gospel once for all. Mormonism undermines this by claiming continual, contradictory revelation.   5. Attempts to Gain Acceptance Historically, Christians across traditions have rejected Mormonism’s claims. For years, LDS leaders sought to brand Mormonism as simply another denomination. Their efforts failed doctrinally but gained cultural acceptance . The Chosen Factor : Distributed by Angel Studios, founded by LDS members. Filmed at an LDS-built Jerusalem set in Utah. Promoted as “Christian” media while blurring doctrinal lines.   This is the most dangerous development yet: Mormonism creeping into the Christian imagination not through theology but through entertainment.   Conclusion / Pastoral Reflection Mormonism is not Christianity. It is another gospel  built on one man’s visions, false scriptures, and a counterfeit Jesus. It promises godhood and planets but denies the eternal God who alone saves.   Christians must remain vigilant: Expose Mormonism’s errors. Refuse to compromise for cultural acceptance. Speak the truth in love to LDS members.   John 14:6 (NASB): “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me.’”   Mormonism offers exaltation to men as gods. The Gospel offers reconciliation with the one true God through Jesus Christ, His eternal Son.   Notes “As man is, God once was”  – The famous Lorenzo Snow couplet: “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.”  Quoted in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow  (Salt Lake City: LDS Church, 2012).   Plurality of Gods  – Doctrine and Covenants 132:20 : “Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue.”   Jesus as the spirit-brother of Lucifer  – Gospel Principles  (Salt Lake City: LDS Church, 1978, 1997, 2009 editions) states: “Every person who was ever born on earth was our spirit brother or sister in heaven. The firstborn spirit child of our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ… Lucifer, who also was a spirit son of God, rebelled.”   Women exalted through husbands  – Doctrine and Covenants 132:19–20 ties exaltation to eternal marriage covenants. Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation , Vol. 2, teaches: “No woman can reach exaltation without celestial marriage to a worthy priesthood holder.”   Works-based salvation  – LDS Articles of Faith  3: “We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.”   Exaltation and “own planet”  – Brigham Young taught: “The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like Himself… We are created to become Gods like unto our Father in heaven.”  ( Journal of Discourses , Vol. 3, p. 93). Joseph Fielding Smith added: “We will have worlds to rule over, and the power to propagate spirit children.”  ( Doctrines of Salvation , Vol. 2). Bible “as far as it is translated correctly”  – Articles of Faith  8: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.” This disclaimer is used to reject clear passages affirming Christ’s deity.   Addition of new scripture  – Doctrine and Covenants 1:30  declares the LDS Church as “the only true and living church,” with continuing revelation. This contradicts Jude 1:3, which teaches the faith was “once for all time handed down.”   Contrast with Christianity  – In Pearl of Great Price: Moses 1:6 , God declares to Moses: “And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son… and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior.”  While affirming Christ’s role, the context is wrapped in an LDS cosmology of multiple gods, worlds, and divine procreation.   Rejection by historic Christianity  – Evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox statements for centuries have unanimously rejected Mormonism as outside Christian orthodoxy. Attempts to rebrand Mormonism as a Christian denomination gained little traction—until cultural avenues like The Chosen  created broader acceptance.   Polygamy in LDS teaching  – Doctrine and Covenants 132:61–62  permits a man to take multiple wives under certain conditions, presented as revelation to Joseph Smith. Brigham Young declared: “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” ( Journal of Discourses , Vol. 11, p. 269). This stands in direct contradiction to Paul’s requirement that leaders be “the husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2, NASB).