Which denomination do I belong to?

[TonyChanYT]

I don't have a denomination and I don't belong to the category of non-denomination either.

Denominations disagree with one another on doctrinal issues. Each denomination has its strengths and weaknesses. I had set myself a program to visit all religious places accessible by Toronto's TTC. For this reason, I routinely visit denominational and non-denominational churches. I attended Catholic mass, Jewish synagogue, Muslim mosque, Mormon temple, Jehovah's Witness kingdom hall, Buddhist temple, and even some New Age meetings. I don't recommend this practice to everyone. It's good to have a home church and stay put

One reason I started this subreddit is to attempt to sort out some of these issues based on a denomination-free, disciplined logical approach to Biblical interpretation. Instead of forming an association by a fixed set of doctrines as denominational and non-denominational churches do, I attempt to form an informal association by a methodology by which any doctrine can be checked against. It is a dynamic way of forming an association.

I'm a Christian. The word "Christian" is in the Bible. I am a member of the Body of Christ.

BTW, you don't have to stay in a non-denominational church to be a non-denominational. For 10 years, I attended a Baptist church and never called myself a Baptist. I was a Christian in a Baptist church.

What does God think about denominationalism?

See Infantile Christians.

Calvinism, Arminianism, dispensationalism, cessationism, continuationism, and any kind of ism tend to over-generalize. From my personal encounters of over 3 decades, I've found that people who are not trained in first-order logic tend to over-generalize more than those who know FOL. I propose a denomination-free, disciplined logical approach to Biblical interpretation. I am neither liberal nor conservative nor the middle of the road; I am logical, or at least trying to be

 

[amadeus]

I don't have a denomination and I don't belong to the category of non-denomination either.

Denominations disagree with one another on doctrinal issues. Each denomination has its strengths and weaknesses. I had set myself a program to visit all religious places accessible by Toronto's TTC. For this reason, I routinely visit denominational and non-denominational churches. I attended Catholic mass, Jewish synagogue, Muslim mosque, Mormon temple, Jehovah's Witness kingdom hall, Buddhist temple, and even some New Age meetings. I don't recommend this practice to everyone. It's good to have a home church and stay put

One reason I started this subreddit is to attempt to sort out some of these issues based on a denomination-free, disciplined logical approach to Biblical interpretation. Instead of forming an association by a fixed set of doctrines as denominational and non-denominational churches do, I attempt to form an informal association by a methodology by which any doctrine can be checked against. It is a dynamic way of forming an association.

I'm a Christian. The word "Christian" is in the Bible. I am a member of the Body of Christ.

BTW, you don't have to stay in a non-denominational church to be a non-denominational. For 10 years, I attended a Baptist church and never called myself a Baptist. I was a Christian in a Baptist church.

What does God think about denominationalism?

See Infantile Christians.

Calvinism, Arminianism, dispensationalism, cessationism, continuationism, and any kind of ism tend to over-generalize. From my personal encounters of over 3 decades, I've found that people who are not trained in first-order logic tend to over-generalize more than those who know FOL. I propose a denomination-free, disciplined logical approach to Biblical interpretation. I am neither liberal nor conservative nor the middle of the road; I am logical, or at least trying to be

Is using logic the final and best answer for approaching and pleasing God?

Remember what Jeremiah wrote here:

Jer 10:23

O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

And then see what Solomon wrote here:

Pr 3:5	Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
Pr 3:6	In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

And then see the words of Jesus here:

Mt 11:28	Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mt 11:29	Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

 

[TonyChanYT]

Is using logic the final and best answer for approaching and pleasing God?

No, in fact, logic usually fails us in this regard

 

[amadeus]

No, in fact, logic usually fails us in this regard

Yes, is one of the tools we can and do use, but there is more to God than logic alone is able to find.

1co 1:19	For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
1co 1:20	Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1co 1:21	For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

 

[quietthinker]

I don't have a denomination and I don't belong to the category of non-denomination either.

Denominations disagree with one another on doctrinal issues. Each denomination has its strengths and weaknesses. I had set myself a program to visit all religious places accessible by Toronto's TTC. For this reason, I routinely visit denominational and non-denominational churches. I attended Catholic mass, Jewish synagogue, Muslim mosque, Mormon temple, Jehovah's Witness kingdom hall, Buddhist temple, and even some New Age meetings. I don't recommend this practice to everyone. It's good to have a home church and stay put

One reason I started this subreddit is to attempt to sort out some of these issues based on a denomination-free, disciplined logical approach to Biblical interpretation. Instead of forming an association by a fixed set of doctrines as denominational and non-denominational churches do, I attempt to form an informal association by a methodology by which any doctrine can be checked against. It is a dynamic way of forming an association.

I'm a Christian. The word "Christian" is in the Bible. I am a member of the Body of Christ.

BTW, you don't have to stay in a non-denominational church to be a non-denominational. For 10 years, I attended a Baptist church and never called myself a Baptist. I was a Christian in a Baptist church.

What does God think about denominationalism?

See Infantile Christians.

Calvinism, Arminianism, dispensationalism, cessationism, continuationism, and any kind of ism tend to over-generalize. From my personal encounters of over 3 decades, I've found that people who are not trained in first-order logic tend to over-generalize more than those who know FOL. I propose a denomination-free, disciplined logical approach to Biblical interpretation. I am neither liberal nor conservative nor the middle of the road; I am logical, or at least trying to be

Ahhhh, I see you are in process of creating your own denomination. What shall it be called? The Non Denominational co-operative?
Will you have a charter? ....and apply for a tax exemption? Isn't this the order of events that initiates every religious collective?

 

[Aunty Jane]

I don't have a denomination and I don't belong to the category of non-denomination either.

There were no Christian denominations in the first century. Either you were a Jew still attached to Judaism’s Pharisees, Sadducees or the very very small sect of the Essenes.......or you were a follower of Jesus Christ and broke off ties with that apostate religious system. The religion originally given to Israel was a singular religion......God never broke his worshippers into sects with different beliefs......why would he? There is only one truth, not many versions of it.

Denominations disagree with one another on doctrinal issues. Each denomination has its strengths and weaknesses.

The truth does not have weaknesses. Only man made teachings have weaknesses.

I had set myself a program to visit all religious places accessible by Toronto's TTC. For this reason, I routinely visit denominational and non-denominational churches. I attended Catholic mass, Jewish synagogue, Muslim mosque, Mormon temple, Jehovah's Witness kingdom hall, Buddhist temple, and even some New Age meetings. I don't recommend this practice to everyone. It's good to have a home church and stay put

So how has that worked for you?

Is a “home church” something that brings like minded people together? What if people are not like minded?
How does 1 Cor 1:10 apply there?

Instead of forming an association by a fixed set of doctrines as denominational and non-denominational churches do, I attempt to form an informal association by a methodology by which any doctrine can be checked against. It is a dynamic way of forming an association.

Since Jesus asked a very important question in Matt 24:45, it seems as if we need to find the “faithful and discreet slave” whom he appointed to “feed” his entire household “their food at the proper time”....It wasn’t a serve yourself buffet....it was a complete meal served to all, who ate the same food prepared by the same ‘kitchen’. So who are the chefs in this global kitchen? And where is this “food” served today?

I'm a Christian. The word "Christian" is in the Bible. I am a member of the Body of Christ.

That is a very easy claim to make, but how do you prove that you are part of this “body” if the other members disagree with what you believe? The holy spirit creates unity, not division.

I was a Christian in a Baptist church.

I don’t believe it is possible to be a Christian in a church that fails to teach the truth.....I don’t believe you will find Jesus has ever been there.

What does God think about denominationalism?

He abhors it.....it is what destroyed Judaism.....men drawing others off after themselves and creating divisions. Unity of faith has always been promoted by God in his word. Where were Jews or Christians left to decide what is truth on their own.....God always provided teachers.

Calvinism, Arminianism, dispensationalism, cessationism, continuationism, and any kind of ism tend to over-generalize. From my personal encounters of over 3 decades, I've found that people who are not trained in first-order logic tend to over-generalize more than those who know FOL. I propose a denomination-free, disciplined logical approach to Biblical interpretation. I am neither liberal nor conservative nor the middle of the road; I am logical, or at least trying to be

Logic? I personally find the Bible to be very logical, but I do not find most churches who claim to be “Christian” have much of a logical approach to scripture at all. The focus seems to be on going to heaven, but I haven’t found too many heaven bound “Christians” who have a clue as to what they are going to do there....

How is it possible to have a denomination free “interpretation of the Bible”? You will never rope all those steers in one corral....

Why was there a need for a “body of Christ”?

 

[Lambano]

There were no Christian denominations in the first century.

That's just a foundational myth.

12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 1:12)​

​

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. (Galatians 2:11-12)​

We've had denominations for 2000 years. But nobody can see what's right before their very eyes because they want to believe the myth that in the beginning we were all one happy family.

 

[JBO]

There were no Christian denominations in the first century. Either you were a Jew still attached to Judaism’s Pharisees, Sadducees or the very very small sect of the Essenes.......or you were a follower of Jesus Christ and broke off ties with that apostate religious system. The religion originally given to Israel was a singular religion......God never broke his worshippers into sects with different beliefs......why would he? There is moly one truth, not many versions of it.

I don't think you are correct in that. In 1 Corinthians 1 Paul laments the divisions that arose there:

1Co 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
1Co 1:11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers.
1Co 1:12 What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ."
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

They just hadn't yet formalized it to the point of establishing separate meeting times and places. His response to such divisions was a return to or a limitation of the message of the gospel. He said,

1Co 2:1 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom.
1Co 2:2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
1Co 2:3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling,
1Co 2:4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
1Co 2:5 that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

He then proceeded, in the rest of chapter 2, to defend that demonstration of the Spirit and power, namely his (and the other apostles and prophets) divinely given authority for the preaching of God's revelation.

Too many misunderstand Paul's message to mean that they, as Christians, are given special insight, understanding and revelation by the Holy Spirit. That was exactly what Paul was opposing.

 

[Lambano]

Sects, sects, sects. We've always been obsessed with sects.

 

[quietthinker]

Sects, sects, sects. We've always been obsessed with sects.

did you say sex? or was it 666?

 

[Aunty Jane]

That's just a foundational myth.

You think so? When has God ever allowed his people to believe whatever they wish, or to practice whatever they think is appropriate, or to interpret scripture individually? If holy spirit was the power behind the creation of the universe, then surely God has the power to make his worshippers united in one truth?
Have you ever stopped to ask why humans always end up divided? Do we think that the fractured, disunited “Christianity” that is practiced in the world today could have any sanction from God or his Christ?

Who is it that receives Christ’s rejection at the judgment? It is those who mistakenly thought that the Christianity they practised was the real thing...they will be devastated at his rejection, but their choices were theirs to make. (Matt 7:21-23) There is a reason why “few” are on the road to life. (Matt 7:13-14)

12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 1:12)​

How does Paul’s introduction in his letter to the Corinthians identify those to whom he was writing?
1 Cor 1:1-2....
“Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by God’s will, and Sosʹthe·nes our brother, 2 to the congregation of God that is in Corinth, to you who have been sanctified in union with Christ Jesus, called to be holy ones, together with all those everywhere who are calling on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours”.

We have two distinct groups mentioned here.....those “called to be holy ones” (saints) “TOGETHER WITH all those everywhere who are calling on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, THEIR LORD AND OURS”.

So not all receive what Paul calls “the heavenly calling” (Hebrews 3:1) There are other Christians who are not of that calling, so only the “holy ones” (saints) will go to heaven. Those claiming that you must be “born again” in order to be save are in error. Those “born again” have a role to play in the Kingdom of God...but they are not the only ones who are saved.

How many churches do you know who acknowledge this fact? None that I know of, because people seem to be obsessed with the idea that they must be the ‘special ones’ who are “born again” and therefore must be saints with their Lord in heaven. Why is it then that they have no idea why they are chosen or what the purpose is in their choosing?

So when you study the Bible outside of that mindset, you see a whole new truth....Christendom is not of God’s creation, but set up as a counterfeit religious system....a poor substitute created by the “sower” of the “weeds” in Jesus’ parable. (Matt 13:24-30; 36-43)

The only way that the churches of Christendom are united is in their disunity, when Paul said in 1 Cor 1:10 that “you should all speak in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you may be completely united in the same mind and in the same line of thought”.

Those of the first century who claimed attachment to their teachers were not disunited in their beliefs because all were taught one truth by those whom Jesus personally instructed, so having holy spirit united them in that one truth. The human trait was to follow their teachers instead of Christ. They had to understand that they were all one body of Christians, united in the same truth regardless of who the teacher was. But the teacher was not permitted to substitute his own ideas for the teachings laid down by Jesus. This is what creates sectarianism and it is seen all through man’s history.....the propensity to follow men and their ideas.

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. (Galatians 2:11-12)​

Again we see something demonstrated in Peter that Paul had to correct. Fear of man is a trap that Peter fell into (even on the night of Jesus’ arrest). He freely associated with his gentile brothers until “the party of the circumcision” arrived. These were the ones that the apostles had to correct as it was causing divisions in the congregations. These ‘die hard’ Jews wanted to impose circumcision on the gentile Christians. Paul dressed Peter down in front of everyone and rightly so.
The apostles and older men met in Jerusalem to sort out this cause for division, and sent a letter to all the congregations eliminating circumcision and any other “Jewish” law from having to be observed by Gentile Christians.....except some “necessary things”.

They wrote...”We are therefore sending Judas and Silas, so that they also may report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (Acts 15:27-29)

For the Gentile Christians, coming from their religious background, these were things that they needed to fully understand, but for Jews, this was what they they already knew from God’s law. Now there was to be an adjustment on both sides...the only things that ALL Christians now had to practice, brought them into unity.

We've had denominations for 2000 years. But nobody can see what's right before their very eyes because they want to believe the myth that in the beginning we were all one happy family.

For sure there were teething problems in early Christianity, bringing people from two entirely different religious systems into one united religion......but before the last books of the Christian scriptures were written, unity of belief and purpose was to be accepted by all, based on the teachings of Christ and his apostles. That would not remain true for long however because an apostasy was foretold, (by Jesus and his apostles) and it was beginning even in their day. This is why their writings are so important....but sticking to what they taught was the difficulty because of this human trait to follow men....it goes back to Nimrod who, after the flood, gained followers in opposition to God and started a whole religious rebellion against the true God.

He established original Babylon, from which all false religious ideas sprang, and spread into the whole world when God confused their language to prevent them from carrying out their own agenda. (Genesis 11:1-9)
“Babylon the great” is Nimrod’s satanically inspired legacy....an institution from which all of God’s people must exit immediately before God brings the curtain down on this entire global mess. (Rev 18:4-5, 1 John 5:19)

The whole “denomination” thing is satanically inspired because he is the god of this world (2 Cor 4:2-3) and his MO has never changed. If he can influence their leaders, he has their people under his control.

If God calls his “people” out of “Babylon the great” then he has to have somewhere else to send them.....
He is the one who shows us where that is....and it’s invitation only. (John 6:44; 65)

 

[quietthinker]

When has God ever allowed his people to believe whatever they wish, or to practice whatever they think is appropriate, or to interpret scripture individually?

hmmm, it seems he is allowing it today or do you mean that all the members of the JW fan club walk in lock step unison?

Who is it that receives Christ’s rejection at the judgment?

'He who comes to me will I in no wise cast out'.....Jesus. I wonder if that applies to those who are drawn to Jesus but have different conclusions about a variety of biblical matters to myself?

One speaks of what and who one loves, herein can one tell the truth of their allegiance.

 

[Tulipbee]

My great++grandparents had an old Presbyterian church in their store, now it's PCA, I suppose. After delving into my parents' religion, I ultimately uncovered the truth of Calvinism. Now I've found my spiritual home.

 

[TonyChanYT]

I ultimately uncovered the truth of Calvinism.

See The logical problem with Calvin and Calvinism and follow up there

 

[Aunty Jane]

hmmm, it seems he is allowing it today or do you mean that all the members of the JW fan club walk in lock step unison?

Unity of belief and oneness of purpose was a hallmark of the Christian faith as Paul said....
“Now I urge you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you should all speak in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you may be completely united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.”

Why was Paul “urging” his fellow Christians here? Because divisions begin with someone saying “I think”, not “the Bible says”.....and even then as you demonstrate in your own quotation.....

'He who comes to me will I in no wise cast out'.....Jesus. I wonder if that applies to those who are drawn to Jesus but have different conclusions about a variety of biblical matters to myself?

Being “drawn TO Jesus” is one thing....being “drawn” BY God is another. (John 6:44, 65)

Jesus also said....in Matt 7:21-23....
“Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’”

Do those whom Jesus rejects assume that they are Christians in good standing? Do they offer him their proof of discipleship in all the things they did “in his name”......they think that they know him....but Jesus has never known them!
In his reply, he reject all of their ‘works’ as of no consequence.
So what does that mean in the big picture? What does “coming to Christ” actually mean?

One speaks of what and who one loves, herein can one tell the truth of their allegiance.

Talk is cheap....Jesus is more concerned with what we “do” (or refuse to do) rather than what we “say”.....he has been appointed as our judge, and no one can make any excuses to him.
The judgment we face in the near future will have no second chances.

 

[Aunty Jane]

My great++grandparents had an old Presbyterian church in their store, now it's PCA, I suppose. After delving into my parents' religion, I ultimately uncovered the truth of Calvinism. Now I've found my spiritual home.

I would love to hear what attracts you to Calvinism....? What is this “truth” that you uncovered?

 

[Tulipbee]

See The logical problem with Calvin and Calvinism and follow up there

TonyChanYT, your historical overview of logical developments, from Aristotle to George Boole and Gottlob Frege, provides a fascinating context for understanding the evolution of logical reasoning. It's interesting to note the progression from Aristotle's syllogism to the more formalized systems introduced by Boole and Frege, ultimately leading to the foundation of modern science and mathematics.
Your observation regarding John Calvin's use of logic in his "Institutes" is insightful. Indeed, the 16th century lacked the formal precision of First-Order Logic (FOL) as we understand it today. Calvin's theological analysis, while influential, operated within the constraints of the logical tools available during his time.
The comparison between Calvin's language, with phrases like "therefore" and "seems," and the objective precision favored by FOL highlights the evolution in our approach to logical reasoning. The shift from subjective evaluation to objective precision has certainly shaped modern theological discourse, as well as other fields.
Your mention of theologians today who may not be trained in FOL serves as a reminder of the ongoing evolution in our tools for reasoning and analysis. The move towards more disciplined approaches, such as a probabilistic approach to Biblical hermeneutics, reflects the continued quest for precision and rigor in theological reasoning.
The intersection of logic and theology is a rich area of exploration, and your post adds valuable insights into this intriguing connection. #LogicAndTheology

 

[Tulipbee]

I would love to hear what attracts you to Calvinism....? What is this “truth” that you uncovered?

Aunty Jane, it's delightful to engage in a conversation about the profound and distinctive elements of Calvinism that resonate with my understanding. Let me share a few aspects that draw me to this theological framework.

1. Sovereignty of God: Calvinism emphasizes the absolute sovereignty of God. The acknowledgment that God is in control of all things, including salvation, provides a comforting assurance. It underscores the divine authority and wisdom that governs the universe.
2. Doctrines of Grace (TULIP): The TULIP acronym succinctly captures the five points of Calvinism: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. Each point contributes to a cohesive understanding of God's redemptive plan, highlighting His initiative in saving His people.
3. Predestination and Election: The Calvinistic view of predestination underscores God's foreknowledge and sovereign choice in electing individuals for salvation. This doctrine emphasizes that salvation is entirely a result of God's grace, not based on human merit.
4. Biblical Emphasis: Calvinism places a strong emphasis on the authority of Scripture. The doctrines are derived from a careful and systematic examination of the Bible. The commitment to scriptural integrity and exegesis resonates with my desire for a solid foundation in faith.
5. Reformed Theology: Calvinism is part of the broader Reformed tradition, which encompasses a rich theological heritage. The emphasis on covenant theology, the centrality of Christ, and a holistic understanding of God's redemptive plan adds depth and coherence to the overall theological framework.
6. God's Glory as the Ultimate Purpose: The Calvinistic perspective often echoes the Reformed emphasis on Soli Deo Gloria – the glory of God alone. It reinforces the idea that everything exists ultimately for God's glory, which aligns with my understanding of life's purpose.

These are just a few glimpses into why Calvinism has become a spiritual home for me. The richness of its theological insights, coupled with a deep reverence for God's sovereignty, has profoundly shaped my understanding of faith. #CalvinisticFaith

 

[TonyChanYT]

TonyChanYT, your historical overview of logical developments, from Aristotle to George Boole and Gottlob Frege, provides a fascinating context for understanding the evolution of logical reasoning. It's interesting to note the progression from Aristotle's syllogism to the more formalized systems introduced by Boole and Frege, ultimately leading to the foundation of modern science and mathematics.
Your observation regarding John Calvin's use of logic in his "Institutes" is insightful. Indeed, the 16th century lacked the formal precision of First-Order Logic (FOL) as we understand it today. Calvin's theological analysis, while influential, operated within the constraints of the logical tools available during his time.
The comparison between Calvin's language, with phrases like "therefore" and "seems," and the objective precision favored by FOL highlights the evolution in our approach to logical reasoning. The shift from subjective evaluation to objective precision has certainly shaped modern theological discourse, as well as other fields.
Your mention of theologians today who may not be trained in FOL serves as a reminder of the ongoing evolution in our tools for reasoning and analysis. The move towards more disciplined approaches, such as a probabilistic approach to Biblical hermeneutics, reflects the continued quest for precision and rigor in theological reasoning.
The intersection of logic and theology is a rich area of exploration, and your post adds valuable insights into this intriguing connection. #LogicAndTheology

You made my day, Brother

 

[dev553344]

I don't have a denomination and I don't belong to the category of non-denomination either.

Denominations disagree with one another on doctrinal issues. Each denomination has its strengths and weaknesses. I had set myself a program to visit all religious places accessible by Toronto's TTC. For this reason, I routinely visit denominational and non-denominational churches. I attended Catholic mass, Jewish synagogue, Muslim mosque, Mormon temple, Jehovah's Witness kingdom hall, Buddhist temple, and even some New Age meetings. I don't recommend this practice to everyone. It's good to have a home church and stay put

One reason I started this subreddit is to attempt to sort out some of these issues based on a denomination-free, disciplined logical approach to Biblical interpretation. Instead of forming an association by a fixed set of doctrines as denominational and non-denominational churches do, I attempt to form an informal association by a methodology by which any doctrine can be checked against. It is a dynamic way of forming an association.

I'm a Christian. The word "Christian" is in the Bible. I am a member of the Body of Christ.

BTW, you don't have to stay in a non-denominational church to be a non-denominational. For 10 years, I attended a Baptist church and never called myself a Baptist. I was a Christian in a Baptist church.

What does God think about denominationalism?

See Infantile Christians.

Calvinism, Arminianism, dispensationalism, cessationism, continuationism, and any kind of ism tend to over-generalize. From my personal encounters of over 3 decades, I've found that people who are not trained in first-order logic tend to over-generalize more than those who know FOL. I propose a denomination-free, disciplined logical approach to Biblical interpretation. I am neither liberal nor conservative nor the middle of the road; I am logical, or at least trying to be

I am non denomination I think. And I allow myself to worship with anyone I choose.