Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, Episcopalian, Methodist, Adventists, Pentecostal, etc. Every single denomination is far removed from the teachings of the New Testament and practices of the early Christians. Yet each and every single denomination with fight tooth and nail against you in order to protect their sacred cows — the man-made traditions that have been handed down to them. They are each guilty of proof-texting the Bible in order to support their various traditions, a result of God's Word being divided into chapters and verses. The Bible was meant to be read — not referenced.
Every single denomination is ignorant as to the history and origins of their traditions (and even beliefs). Most of them will claim that they do everything "by the book." But this is a false assertion. Many of the traditions most denominations today practice are rooted in Greco-Roman culture and Pagan rituals. They were predominantly put into place by Emperor Constantine, and later by the Catholic system. If you want to argue with me on this, I encourage you to pick up a copy of Pagan Christianity? and give it a read. It is well-documented. Do yourself a favour and educate yourself. Do not cling to your traditions in fear of the truth. You fear what you do not know, and you refuse to learn the truth because you know it would demand that you take action and conform yourself to the Word of God.
When the early Christians partook of the Lord's Supper, it was a full meal, in the exact same manner as the Last Supper recorded in the Scriptures. During Emperor Constantine's reign and the later Catholic system, this turned into Mass. During the Reformation, certain elements were changed, but it predominantly remained the same as the Mass. No doubt your denomination fails to make the distinction between the bread and the wine. The current practice, and teachings associated with it, are a far cry from how the early Christians practiced and partook of the Lord's Supper. If they were to attend our services today, they would be utterly ashamed of us.
Moreover, a priest or a preacher is not needed in order to administer baptism and partake of the Lord's Supper. Such a practice is utter sacrilege! Likewise, the entire concept of "church membership" is foreign to the Scriptures and is an ungodly, unbiblical practice. These practices are anti-biblical sentiments! Some religious system memberships require you to jump through all sorts of hoops in order to become part of their denominational system. It is utterly ridiculous how far these systems have fallen from the biblical prescription. If someone made confession of Christ, they automatically were members of the church. If there were some problem with a member, the entire church in its various gatherings was informed of it, and they dealt with it.
Most traditions in post-Reformation denominations still retain Catholic practices with minor alterations, and sometimes with complete substitutions that still amount to the same thing. Yet, these individuals will blindly, and often arrogantly, argue against you despite having zero knowledge of the facts. They try to defend their traditions by opinions and feelings, refusing to admit that they are wrong.
Those who call themselves "elders" in your denominations are supposed to be looking out for the flock, and yet they are leading the flock astray. Do your homework and learn your history, "elders"! (And your Bible!) You think Augustine was such a wonderful man of God? Try learning more about him and paying closer attention to his teachings. Augustine was a disciple of Ambrose, and heavily influenced by Cyprian, who was a sacramentalist. He was a Platonist who platonized and re-wrote Christianity as the religion of the Roman State. He was the impetus that accommodated Christianity to the Constantinian Imperial System. The beliefs of the Catholic system were found in embryonic form in the teachings of Augustine: prayer to the dead, belief in Purgatory, the efficacy of relics, baptismal regeneration, the re-sacrifice of the body of the Lord in the Mass, the authority of the Church outside of whose Sacraments there can be no salvation, the Divine inspiration of the Apocrypha, etc. He even believed that it was legitimate to use violence against your critics and adversaries. This is who John Calvin looked up to. Why did the Reformers only go as far back as the 300s when trying to reform the church? They should have went right back to the first century. Every single one of the "church" fathers introduced ungodly elements into Christ's church that remain today. Jerome is predominantly responsible for all the heretical teachings and beliefs found in the Catholic system. It is understandable why the Catholic system would turn to these fathers
and rely on them, but Christ's church truly reforming according to the
Word of God should take them with a grain of salt, testing their teachings against the Scriptures.
Not one of these denominations has bothered to test the teachings of the early "church" fathers, or their own traditions and practices, against the Scriptures. They fail in the admonition of 2 Timothy 2:15, and they fail to follow in the example of the Bereans of Acts 17:11. The Reformation predominantly corrected much of the wrong theology of the Catholic system, but it also introduced some of their own false theology (as have Baptists and every other denomination). What the Reformation failed to do was to correct the errors associated with the liturgy and the modern worship service, as well as the priesthood of all believers. All liturgies or modern worship services today are practically identical.
Despite their many other errors, Anabaptists recovered and practiced every-member functioning in the church, precisely as prescribed in the New Testament. Because they believed in the priesthood of all believers (that every Christian has the right to participate in meetings [1 Cor. 14:26, 30-31]), they were persecuted and murdered by both Catholics and Calvinists. Funny how "Christians" either erected laws or followed laws that contradicted Scripture and put opponents in prison and/or murdered them. Calvin's Geneva was no better than the Pope's Rome.
Leaders in your religious denominational systems today will argue against individuals like me and the every-member functioning prescription of the Bible, attempting to argue that it is "undermining respect for authority." They say this because it is all about power with them. Their position has puffed up their ego and made them arrogant and proud. What does authority in the church in Scripture look like? It certainly does not involve one man or a set of men with titles that elevate themselves above their peers (Matthew 23:1-12). It is not a hierarchical authority. The only true authority in the church is Christ Jesus, the Head of His body. Authority in the church in Scripture is elders (older men with a proven track record) appointed in order to maintain order. They are not above their peers by rank, nor are they to lord their appointment over their peers. The position requires humility.
Just because you belong to a certain denomination, do not cease studying the Scriptures and testing their traditions, teachings, and practices against the Scriptures the way that the Bereans did. Your denomination is not the be-all end-all of scriptural truth. Your denomination contains several errors that are not in accord with Scripture, though they might attempt to proof-text the Bible in order to find support for them. Your denomination's religious practices are entirely without biblical warrant, rooted in Greco-Roman culture and Pagan rituals. This is why a Bible without chapters and verses is so very important, and why you need to pay attention to the author's intended structure of each book as well as to the context of what the author wrote.
The Bible is not about you! You are not in the Bible, and it was not written to you. There are, however, applications for you. If I write a letter to Bob pertaining to marriage, and you happen to read it, you can learn from it and apply it, but it was not written to you. You need to know who wrote it, who they were writing to, what was happening at the time, and what they were writing about. You need to understand the social historical context surrounding each book and where they fall historically. Every post-first century religious context is foreign to the Bible, and therefore is not the context of the Bible. The right context for interpreting the Bible is the context that produced it. You cannot impose your culture upon the Bible and think you have the correct context.
Away with tradition, and back to the Bible!
“Ecclesia, semper reformanda secundum verbi Dei.”
(“The church, always reforming according to the Word of God.”)