According to Protestants which church is the most biblical?

[Peculiar]

dennisknapp:

I don’t understand your point. Could you clarify?

Peace

I meant that Catholics talk about others using “private interpretation” but that when a person chooses to either accept or reject what the Catholic church teaches about itself, they necessarily use their own private interpretation in making that assessment. There is no belief apart from such “private interpretation.”

 

[ruzz]

There is no MOST biblical church. Only Least biblical.

As long as the church’s constitution is based on the bible, the church is biblical.

ALL protestant churches would probably agree that the RCC is least biblical.

Out of thousands of independent churches who have no sole authority to line them up and put them in a universal agreement, they all seem to agree on one thing. They all seem to agree that many of the teachings of the RCC are incorrect. They base this NOT on past papal decisions and faith in the authorities but on their own interpretations. And surprisingly, they all agree. How could so many thousands of independent bible scholars be wrong?

.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

dennisknapp:

According to Protestants which church is the most biblical?

Is it the Baptists? Methodists? Lutherians?

I would like to know.

Peace

The one that they are part of. The one I like the best is on Route 1 in Alexandria, VA. The name of the church (which looks like it can sit about 50 people max) is, get this:

Full Gospel Open Bible Church of the Redeemer

This, I assume is so that noone confuses it with the following churches:

Partial Gospel Open Bible Church of the Redeemer
Full Gospel Closed Bible Church of the Redeemer
Partial Gospel Closed Bible Church of the Redeemer
Full Gospel Open Bible Church of Joe the Plumber
Full Gospel Open Bible Golf Society of the Redeemer

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

ruzz:

There is no MOST biblical church. Only Least biblical.

As long as the church’s constitution is based on the bible, the church is biblical.

ALL protestant churches would probably agree that the RCC is least biblical.

Out of thousands of independent churches who have no sole authority to line them up and put them in a universal agreement, they all seem to agree on one thing. They all seem to agree that many of the teachings of the RCC are incorrect. They base this NOT on past papal decisions and faith in the authorities but on their own interpretations. And surprisingly, they all agree. How could so many thousands of independent bible scholars be wrong?

.

Because if they agreed with the Magisterium on everything, they would be Catholic.

 

[dennisknapp]

Peculiar:

I meant that Catholics talk about others using “private interpretation” but that when a person chooses to either accept or reject what the Catholic church teaches about itself, they necessarily use their own private interpretation in making that assessment. There is no belief apart from such “private interpretation.”

I would not classify accepting obvious historical fact as “private interpretation” in the sense that you are implying. When the term interpretation is used it refers to how someone understands a certain document–like the bible. When a person accept the truth of the Catholic Church they are accepting a historical fact–like George Washington existed in the 18th century. No “private interpretation” needed.

Peace

 

[Genesis315]

As long as the church’s constitution is based on the bible, the church is biblical.

What if the church came before the Bible and it’s authority was not given to them by a book or a constitution, but by Jesus?

ALL protestant churches would probably agree that the RCC is least biblical.

I mean, obviously. If I’m not mistaken, I think that’s what makes them protestant.

Out of thousands of independent churches who have no sole authority to line them up and put them in a universal agreement, they all seem to agree on one thing. They all seem to agree that many of the teachings of the RCC are incorrect. They base this NOT on past papal decisions and faith in the authorities but on their own interpretations.

Again, of course all protestant churches will disagree with the Catholic Church. If they didn’t they wouldn’t be protestant.

And surprisingly, they all agree. How could so many thousands of independent bible scholars be wrong?

Ummm, only protestant Bible scholars say the Catholic Church is wrong. The vast majority of all Bible scholars ever have believed the Catholic Church is right. Don’t just limit your view to modern scholars. Remember, every Bible scholar since the Bible existed up until the 1500s said the Catholic Church was right. Using your own logic, since there are so many in agreement they must be right and your little protestant minority of scholars are wrong.

 

[Ignatius]

Peculiar:

One could just as easily say that they need an even higher Authority to tell them which Authority has the right to determine correct interpretation.

Now you’ve got it! Jesus Christ is that Higher Authoity. He, Himself said: “I will give you the Keys to the Kingdom o of heaven.” and “whatsoever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, whatsoever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

God Bless.

 

[Peculiar]

dennisknapp:

I would not classify accepting obvious historical fact as “private interpretation” in the sense that you are implying. When the term interpretation is used it refers to how someone understands a certain document–like the bible. When a person accept the truth of the Catholic Church they are accepting a historical fact–like George Washington existed in the 18th century. No “private interpretation” needed.

Peace

Accepting that the Catholic Church has existed for a long time is acknowledgement of historical fact. Accepting that the Catholic Church teaches the truth is a belief, which could be either correct or incorrect. The New Testament warns of many existing and looming apostasies in the first century (such as Paul’s warning to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:29-30). Therefore, even if a church claims to date back that far, its doctrines must be assessed in accordance with Galatians 1:6-9.

 

[dennisknapp]

Peculiar:

Accepting that the Catholic Church has existed for a long time is acknowledgement of historical fact. Accepting that the Catholic Church teaches the truth is a belief, which could be either correct or incorrect. The New Testament warns of many existing and looming apostasies in the first century (such as Paul’s warning to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:29-30). Therefore, even if a church claims to date back that far, its doctrines must be assessed in accordance with Galatians 1:6-9.

And what would be your historical assessment of the Catholic Church in light of Galatians 1:6-9?

 

[Maccabees]

The catholic church perfectly preaches the gospel alone for 2000 years. The gosepl of the Trinity and of Jesus being the Son of God and our Saviour and the cause for our salvation the catholic church preached this from the bery Beginning before Galations in fact we determined Galations to be part of the Gospel what other church determined the apostolic and Nicean creeds. Certainly not protestantism. You put us on the level of mormon having angels which preach of another Gospel of Moroni or somthing stop being ridiculous the new testament that you have came from the catholic church. Your church is diluted catholicism. The fullness of your gospel is completed in Christ Church the catholic church.

 

[Genesis315]

Peculiar:

Accepting that the Catholic Church has existed for a long time is acknowledgement of historical fact. Accepting that the Catholic Church teaches the truth is a belief, which could be either correct or incorrect. The New Testament warns of many existing and looming apostasies in the first century (such as Paul’s warning to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:29-30). Therefore, even if a church claims to date back that far, its doctrines must be assessed in accordance with Galatians 1:6-9.

Gal. 1:6-9

6 I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. 7 Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

The Catholic Church has been preaching the same gospel truth for 2000 years. That’s the great thing about apostolic succession. Luther is the guy who started preaching a new gospel. Since then, every sola scriptura protestant has created his own personal gospel with his private interpretation. The Catholic Church has been defending the true gospel and anathematizing preachers of false gospels since the beginning.

 

[Ignatius]

ruzz:

And surprisingly, they all agree. How could so many thousands . . . . be wrong?

.

And when the martyrs were being sent to be killed by the lions in the colleseum, “they all agree. How could so many thousands be wrong?” It has always been so. The whole world has been against the Church since Jesus founded it almot 2000 years ago.

BTW, here’s something interesting for you.

---

Do you have any idea when your faith was founded and by whom? You may find this enlightening:

If you are a member of the Jewish faith, your religion was founded by Abraham about 4,000 years ago.

If you are Roman Catholic, Jesus Christ founded your Church in the year A.D. 30.

If you are Islamic, Mohammed started your religion in what is now Saudi Arabia around A.D. 600.

If you are Eastern Orthodox, your sect separated from Roman Catholicism around the year 1054.

If you are Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk in the Catholic Church, in 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England (Anglican), your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded when John Knox brought the teachings of John Calvin to Scotland in the Year 1560.

If you are Unitarian, your group developed in Europe in the 1500s.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion branched off Puritanism in the early 1600s in England.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1607.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are an Episcopalian, your religion came from England to the American colonies. It formed a separate religion founded by Samuel Seabury in 1789.

If you are a Mormon (Latter-day Saints), Joseph Smith started your church in Palmyra, N.Y. in 1830.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year your religion was founded by Mary Baker Eddy.

If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, your religion was founded by Charles Taze Russell in Pennsylvania in the 1870s.

If you are Pentecostal, your religion was started in the United States in 1901.

---

God Bless

 

[Genesis315]

Don’t forget all the “non-denominational” churches that are founded by their individual pastors.

 

[BlueMit11]

Curious:

If you were a Protestant you would go to the church that
a) most closely fit with your own beliefs/interpretations/previous learning of the bible
and/or
b) you like the best - music you like, people you like, sermons you like
and/or
c) is the church to which “the holy spirit guided you.”

There is no one church for Protestants. You know that. We can’t go to “The Protestant Church” like you guys can go to “The Catholic Church.” If you were a Protestant you’d go where you darn well pleased and/or where you decided the Lord wanted you to go. That’s all.

Aaagghh! The moral relativism hurts! What happens when one protestant is led by God to one church, and another to a church with contradicting views? Then God contradicts himself and the whole world collapses.

I realized this about the doctrine of sola scriptura (of which I am getting an even better glimpse into its ridiculousness by way of Henry Graham’s Where We Got the Bible): The whole idea is one of control. If I am protestant, my guide is a book–something tangible which I can hold and be in control of. If I am Catholic, my guide is the Church–something bigger than me, which I am a part of. Thus, it requires more humility to submit to a Church than to submit a Bible to one’s self.

…also, the whole fact about us being the one true Church