Non-denominational / Bible Church

"No creed but the Bible" — rejection of denominations, creeds, and inherited tradition; the wish to be simply the New Testament church with no label.

Their basis
They appeal to sola scriptura and to the Bereans who examined the Scriptures (Acts 17:11), to Jesus rebuking human tradition that voids God's word (Mark 7:8-9; Matt 15:6-9), and to Paul's rebuke of party-spirit — 'I follow Paul... I follow Apollos' (1 Cor 1:10-13). They see denominational division as the very thing Paul condemned.

Scripture answers
Scripture does not pit itself against faithfully handed-down teaching: Paul commands holding to the traditions taught (2 Thess 2:15), guarding 'the pattern of sound words' (2 Tim 1:13-14), and contending for 'the faith once for all delivered' (Jude 3). The historic creeds (Apostles', Nicene) simply summarize what the Bible says about Christ, and the church is 'the pillar and buttress of the truth' across the ages (1 Tim 3:15; Eph 4:11-14). Rejecting all creeds can cut a church off from 2,000 years of the Spirit's guarding — and 'no creed' quietly becomes an unwritten creed enforced by one pastor.

2 Thessalonians 2:152 Timothy 1:13-14Jude 31 Timothy 3:15Ephesians 4:11-14

In fairness: A genuinely strong point — Scripture DOES name party-spirit and division as fleshly sin (1 Cor 1:10-13; 3:3-4), and this project's own charter is 'beholden to no tradition.' Their instinct to return to the bare New Testament is godly, not a fault.

Autonomous, fully independent local church — each congregation governs itself under Christ alone, answering to no outside body.

Their basis
Christ addresses each individual church directly (Rev 2-3), elders are appointed in every town (Titus 1:5; Acts 14:23), and Christ alone is the head of the church (Col 1:18; Eph 1:22). No pope, no bishop, no denominational headquarters.

Scripture answers
The local church with its own elders is indeed the New Testament's primary unit — but the churches were never isolated islands. The Jerusalem Council settled doctrine for all the churches together (Acts 15:1-29), congregations shared money across regions (2 Cor 8-9; Rom 15:26), letters were circulated between them (Col 4:16), and there was apostolic oversight and correction. Total independence can leave a leader unaccountable — Scripture warns of Diotrephes 'who loves to be first' and answers to no one (3 John 9-10; cf. 1 Pet 5:1-3).

Acts 15:1-292 Corinthians 8:1-15Colossians 4:161 Peter 5:1-33 John 9-10

In fairness: The self-governing local congregation with its own elders truly IS the New Testament pattern, and freedom from a distant bureaucracy is a legitimate, biblical instinct — the caution is only about accountability, not about the model itself.

Dispensational framework — a sharp Israel/Church distinction, a pretribulation rapture, and 'once saved, always saved' eternal security (especially in 'Bible Churches').

Their basis
They 'rightly divide the word of truth' (2 Tim 2:15 KJV) into dispensations, expect a rapture to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess 4:16-17; John 14:3), and rest in eternal security — no one can snatch Christ's sheep from His hand (John 10:28-29; Eph 1:13-14; Rom 8:38-39). Much of this traces to Darby and the Scofield Reference Bible / Dallas Seminary.

Scripture answers
Eternal security and Christ's certain return are precious biblical truths. But the detailed dispensational timetable is a 19th-century SYSTEM, not stated as such in the text; sincere believers read prophecy differently, so honesty describes the options rather than binding one chart as gospel. And assurance must be held together with the New Testament's real calls to persevere — 'the one who endures to the end will be saved' (Matt 24:13; Heb 3:14; 10:26-29; John 15:6). Security is a promise to the persevering, not a license.

2 Timothy 2:151 Thessalonians 4:16-17John 10:28-29Hebrews 3:14Matthew 24:13

In fairness: Eternal security has strong textual support (John 10:28-29; Phil 1:6), and the aim of reading the whole of Scripture carefully and taking Christ's return seriously is exactly right. The caution is against turning one man's system into a test of fellowship.

Baptism and the Lord's Supper as 'ordinances' only — symbols of obedience and remembrance, not means of grace; believer's baptism by immersion; informal, non-liturgical worship.

Their basis
They count two ordinances, not sacraments: baptism follows a personal profession, by immersion (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38; Rom 6:3-4), and the Supper is done 'in remembrance of me' (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-26). Simplicity of worship reflects the freedom of the New Covenant, not liturgical form.

Scripture answers
This is a defensible reading, and where honest believers split on baptism's mode and subjects, the text is described, not ruled. One caution only: the New Testament treats these as more than bare symbols — baptism is joined to real union with Christ (Rom 6:3-4; Gal 3:27), and the Supper is a genuine 'participation in the body and blood of Christ,' not to be taken carelessly (1 Cor 10:16; 11:27-29). Reducing them to mere memory can drain away the weight Scripture gives them.

Romans 6:3-41 Corinthians 10:161 Corinthians 11:27-29Galatians 3:27Luke 22:19

In fairness: The 'ordinance' language, believer's baptism, and simplicity of worship all have genuine New Testament footing — this is a difference of emphasis among family, not an error of the gospel.