"Bible beleiving Church"

[JustaServant]

Teflon93

The very phrase “Bible-believing” implies the WHOLE of Scripture, does it not?

There is only one Church which is consistent with the whole and that is the Catholic Church. Others magnify aspects to the detriment of others, some (Word of Faith for example) take ONE VERSE and build a cult around it.

A good way to find out which is which is to simply ask them to explain James 2. It’s a good fault line because James inveighs against those who claim to believe and yet do nothing, a variation of Christ’s criticism of the Pharisees’ empty faith.

Those who distort Scripture to suit their latter day theology have to dismiss, discount, or warp this passage to do so.

They are, after all, “either/or” Christians.

Catholics are “both/and” Christians, and see Scripture as a whole.

We prefer the box set to the “greatest hits” approach to the Bible, in other words.

Tomster

By their fruits they are known. Bible study which produces or propagates heresy is a bad thing. In fact, as St. Augustine noted, ’ heresies have not arisen except when the good Scriptures were not well understood, and what was not well understood in them was rashly and boldly asserted.’ Through Luther, although Calvin seems to have been the first to announce monobiblicism clearly, the Bible became the arm of the Protestant revolt. A dumb and difficult book was substituted for the living voice of the Church, in order that each one should be able to make for himself the religion which suited his feelings. And the Bible open before every literate man and woman to interpret for themselves was the attractive bait used to win adherents. Not the solid rock of truth but the shifting sand of private interpretation is the foundation on which Protestantism was built.

 

[JustaServant]

Used to use that term a lot once. It basically meant that a church ‘believes’ the Bible to be inspired and without ‘errors’ (i.e. lies, falsehoods, mistakes, legends, ect.).
All well and good.
Here is the problem as I encountered it:

1.In many of the ‘bible believing churches’ I was a part of and pastored, very little Bible was being read (as opposed to a minimum of three Scripture readings in a Catholic Mass). Very often the preacher will read one verse of scripture and go on for a half hour without ever returning to that verse or any other verse.

1. In many of the ‘bible believing churches’ I was a part of and pastored, many christians would never crack their Bible except for Sunday morning. I used to say from the pulpit that ‘those who clutch their KJVs the hardest never seem to READ their KJVs’!
2. In the ‘bible believing churches’ that did not practice the two above examples (for which I give them much credit for) they are stuck in the doctrine of ‘sola scriptura’. They read and study much Bible, the problem is what they are teaching is their interpretation, not the Bible.

 

[Popes_Soldier]

So, let me get this straight: when you say that we’re not in full communion, you say that that’s actually defending me, but when I hold you to the same standard and say that I don’t believe you’re in full communion, that’s wrong?

Isn’t that just a little hypocritical?

I’m curious, how is saying that we’re not in full communion with Christ “defending” me?

Well, speaking for myself, I mean you are not in full communion with the Church because you reject many elements of what Christ established.
When you say we are not in full communion, in a way you are calling us to reject that which Christ established, which is an oxymoron (I think thats the right word). You cannot gain fuller communion with Christ by rejecting and moving away from that which Christ established.

 

[JustaServant]

Well, speaking for myself, I mean you are not in full communion with the Church because you reject many elements of what Christ established.
When you say we are not in full communion, in a way you are calling us to reject that which Christ established, which is an oxymoron (I think thats the right word). You cannot gain fuller communion with Christ by rejecting and moving away from that which Christ established.

He’s banned, but perhaps he’ll still read it.

 

[Popes_Soldier]

He’s banned, but perhaps he’ll still read it.

Now who can we argue with. LOL

 

[Church_Militant]

oh, it seems he has been banned…

okay, reboot topic!

Y’know, there was something about that dude’s wording and posting style that reminds me of a couple of incarnations of an a-C guy that has been tossed off here for that same kind of stuff before.

Dollars to donut holes he was discovered to be someone banned before. Any forum will throw you off for circumventing their ban.

One question that always comes to mind when I see people do that is, “why, if they are Christians, and they agree to abide by the rules of the forum here, and then get banned for breaking those rules, do they then break their agreement again by coming back? Isn’t that dishonest?”

Is that the witness of a faithful Christian?

I have been tossed of of a few n-C/a-C forums and I refuse to return for that very reason. In fact, I see it in the context of the New Testament when Our Lord tells us. “And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off even the dust of your feet, for a testimony against them.” (Luke 9:5)

 

[Popes_Soldier]

…“And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off even the dust of your feet, for a testimony against them.” (Luke 9:5)

And don’t forget: Titus 3:10 (KJV)
“A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject”

I love the KJV for this verse alone. Its the only one that uses the word “heretic”.

 

[Teflon93]

Farbeit for me to speculate on why someone was banned. The CAF mods are the best I’ve ever seen—they take great pains to allow productive discussion to happen, even though it may take a very circuitous path to get to the good stuff. They invariably give plenty of warning whenever discussion violates Forum rules and are immune to the moderator caprice which sadly marks many an Internet message board. In my opinion, Michael Francis, the mod of this Forum, is the best of the best.

That said, it’s still sad that we wound up missing a really good discussion topic, and I’m glad we’re getting back to it.

Having previously been part of “Bible-believing” communities, I have yet to see a good response as to why, if one claims to be such, one does NOT believe John 6 and James 2 in particular. I suspect it is due to the perception that these are uniquely Catholic, and that Reformation-era baggage drives the traditions whence the “Bible-believing” communities came to shun these. A similar mechanism lays behind the “strange new respect” many Protestants on this board evince to have for the Orthodox Church, which, after all, interprets Scripture in a way far more similar to the Catholic Church than the Protestant communities—the fact that the Orthodox do not recognize papal authority seems to lead these Protestants to view them as “us” as opposed to the Catholic “them.”

And yet if one is to claim to be “Bible-believing”, one must account for ALL of Scripture. Claiming to be “Bible-believing” while simply using favored verses to support favored extra-Biblical doctrines is simply dishonest.

I believe the Church. Since the Church is the arbiter of Scripture, guided by the Holy Spirit which abides within her, I also believe the Bible. There is no conflict between the two; the living Church simply continues to deepen our understanding of the revelation entrusted to it and embodied in Scripture.

The fact that Protestants by and large profess the Nicene Creed, which itself is not found in the Bible, but rather is the distillation of Biblical truth as formulated through centuries of theology and history, is an indication that in their hearts they know we’re right.

 

[Neal]

shurg I would say that most, if not all but the ultra liberal churches are Bible beleiving, the problem is the Bible is hard to interpret, I mean, the newest stuff is 2000 years old. There are a lot of seemingly contradictory statements in the Bible so I think trying to distill the diferances between Catholics and Protestants by using scripture is not an easy task. Thats why we have the Church, to interperate the Bible…

It’s wierd though, does any other Catholic besides me find that their reading of Romans is infulenced by evengelicals? I can hardly read Romans without having an internal dialouge of apologetics running in my head. Before I was interoduced to evengelical chritianity I never thought twice about these passages, but its like, now when I read them I hear the criticizums against the Church, even though at face value NOTHING in Romans contradicts the Church, nothing in Romans talks about faith alone or scripture alone…Especially in light of the rest of the Bible.

 

[estesbob]

I think in the simplest terms Bible believing church most often is used to denote" non-Catholic" If you really think about itall Christian denominations are Bible believing. To call a Church a Bible believing Church would be redundant unless the person stateting that believes there are christian Church’s that are not Bible believing. The Catholic Church is the one most often accuded of that. Call me paranoid if you want but whenever I hear the term Bible believing church I think that is a veiled attack on the Catholic Church

 

[JustaServant]

I think in the simplest terms Bible believing church most often is used to denote" non-Catholic" If you really think about itall Christian denominations are Bible believing. To call a Church a Bible believing Church would be redundant unless the person stating that believes there are christian churches that are not Bible believing. The Catholic Church is the one most often accuded of that. Call me paranoid if you want but whenever I hear the term Bible believing church I think that is a veiled attack on the Catholic Church

DING! DING! DING! You’re the next contestant on the ‘Price is Right’!
That’s exactly right.
It implies there are non-‘Bible believing’ churches. I bought this in my fundamentalist days (like our banned friend). The problem was when I met people and pastors from those non-‘Bible believing’ churches, I found it to be a lie. Catholics are accused of this in particular. It reveals a great ignorance.

 

[Neal]

I think in the simplest terms Bible believing church most often is used to denote" non-Catholic" If you really think about itall Christian denominations are Bible believing. To call a Church a Bible believing Church would be redundant unless the person stateting that believes there are christian Church’s that are not Bible believing. The Catholic Church is the one most often accuded of that. Call me paranoid if you want but whenever I hear the term Bible believing church I think that is a veiled attack on the Catholic Church

Oh it is, I have no doubt about it

but I for one want to take the Bible back! Make it known that the Catholic Church treasures the Word of God and, in the words of Vatican II, venerates the Scriptures as She does the Body of Christ.

 

[estesbob]

Oh it is, I have no doubt about it

but I for one want to take the Bible back! Make it known that the Catholic Church treasures the Word of God and, in the words of Vatican II, venerates the Scriptures as She does the Body of Christ.

Me too! The ironic part is that the so-called Bible believing Churches reject transubstantiation, which is clearly taught the Bible, but embrae Sola Scripture and OSAS, which is not.

And of course without the Catholic Church there be no Bible for them to believe in, but that’s a topic for another thread.

 

[JustaServant]

Me too! The ironic part is that the so-called Bible believing Churches reject transubstantiation, which is clearly taught the Bible, but embrae Sola Scripture and OSAS, which is not.

And of course without the Catholic Church there be no Bible for them to believe in, but that’s a topic for another thread.

And how can they be a ‘Bible believing’ church when there are books missing in there Bibles?

 

[Neal]

And how can they be a ‘Bible believing’ church when there are books missing in there Bibles?

My senior year world lit teacher who was some kind of Baptist or something in High school referred to them as “extra books” when we talked about Jewish Literature. I also got an A in my Jewish History presentation by basically regurgitating Genesis though Maccabees in outline form…

 

[heisenburg]

The thing that always confused me about SOME ‘bible believing’ churches is that in one service, they may have a small group of passages they discuss (maybe a paragraph). A sermon on that small paragraphs worth of verses… then its song and dance on once a quarter they get communion (if at all)

however, then they point to the Catholic church and say 'she is not bible believing…

There is a bit of a problem here though…

In a normal service… the first part is a reading from the old, song from psalms, a reading from the letters and a reading from the Gospels… the second half of mass is almost entirely out of scripture…

In other words… Mass is nothing BUT scripture…

If you want to say you do not agree with the Catholic Churches understanding thats one thing… but how can we be non-‘bible believing’ when almost all of our Mass COMES from scripture…

Kinda hard to be opposed to scripture if your service is profuse with it…

Kinda hard to also judge the Mass when their own church has so LITTLE scripture in their own services…

In Christ

 

[Teflon93]

These are all excellent points, many of which illuminate key reasons why my wife and I became Catholics.

I’d like to highlight a couple of things.

1. Protestant evangelicals in particular have laid claim to St Paul. Indeed, we have seen in the various salvation threads that a significant chunk of these elevate St Paul’s epistles (they disdain St Peter’s, St Jude’s, and St James’ epistles for rather obvious reasons) over the Gospels, claiming that the Gospels do not have “doctrinal content” but the epistles do. I initially approached my rereading of St Paul post-conversion with some trepidation, but was amazed at the very orthodox Catholic teaching of the Apostle when his epistles are read in their entirety rather than excerpted. How great is it that we’re in the middle of the Pauline Year in the Church? We ought to approach St Paul with renewed appreciation and defend against the distortion of his teaching all the more vigorously.
2. The reason why we continue to pin Protestants down as to how tradition influences their interpretation of Scripture in particular is that many of them refuse to admit that they rely upon tradition at all. Fundamentalists and nondenominationals in particular do this. Unfortunately for the mainline Protestants who acknowledge the role of their tradition, these two groups are on the rise while the others continue to decline. We go where the battle is. Perhaps mainline Protestants who are offended by this ought to spend some time arguing the importance of tradition with their Fundamentalist and nondenom brethren. Anyone who wants to accuse Catholics of tilting against strawmen really ought to make the case that every Protestant readily acknowledges the role of the tradition handed to them. I don’t think they can, given the evidence to the contrary provided by their non-mainline Protestant brethren, but that would be far more effective than casting a blind eye toward the unwillingness of some Protestants to acknowledge their reading of the Bible began with the tradition their pastor taught them.
3. Likewise, anyone claiming to be “Bible-believing” Christians ought to have the intestinal fortitude to identify who the “non-Bible-believing” Christians are and make their case. The fact that there is far less Scripture read in “Bible-believing” services than in Mass certainly works against any such claim contra the Catholic Church.
4. It is simply impossible to be a Christian in 2008 unless you believe the Bible. After all, Christ died and ascended two millennia ago. The apostles died within a century of Pentecost. We have only our tradition to rely upon with regard to Christ and his teaching; that tradition is significantly based upon the New Testament. How is it possible to be a Christian unless you believe the Bible? Perhaps one could be baptized without any knowledge of Scripture, although one’s parents had to have it, but to avoid sin thereafter is well nigh impossible without the knowledge contained within the Bible. I could conceive of someone who never heard, read, or understood Scripture yet somehow managed to hew to Christ, but it’s a big stretch. Perhaps it was more possible in prior eras without modern impediments to living a righteous life.

 

[JustaServant]

1. Likewise, anyone claiming to be “Bible-believing” Christians ought to have the intestinal fortitude to identify who the “non-Bible-believing” Christians are and make their case. The fact that there is far less Scripture read in “Bible-believing” services than in Mass certainly works against any such claim contra the Catholic Church.

In fairness to Protestant evangelicals, there are ‘churches’ out there that deny the foundation of the Christian faith (Virgin birth, Resurrection, ect.) and question the valitity of the Bible itself. Uniterians pop to mind immediately, as do certain factions within liberal Protestantism. These were the reasons for the rise of the fundamentalist movement at the turn of the 20th century.
The problem is that it is a generic term that can apply to many things. For example, if one believes the Creation account of Genesis to be an alegory, does that make he or she a "non-Bible-believer’?

 

[Teflon93]

In fairness to Protestant evangelicals, there are ‘churches’ out there that deny the foundation of the Christian faith (Virgin birth, Resurrection, ect.) and question the valitity of the Bible itself. Uniterians pop to mind immediately, as do certain factions within liberal Protestantism. These were the reasons for the rise of the fundamentalist movement at the turn of the 20th century.
The problem is that it is a generic term that can apply to many things. For example, if one believes the Creation account of Genesis to be an alegory, does that make he or she a "non-Bible-believer’?

Precisely!

If you’re going to brand yourself “Bible-believing”, as though that were a differentiator among Christian communities, have the guts to define the term openly.

Of course, what they really mean is not belief in the Bible, but in whatever they happen to teach. This usually shows up in the “essential” vs. “non-essential” doctrine formulation, wherein the terms are rarely ever defined explicitly.

 

[Philthy]

Hypothetical situation:
What qualifies a church to be a “bible believing church“?
Can all Christian churches regardless of doctrine claim this title? If the answer is no, what is the specific measure we use to determine it?

Sorry for the long story, I have heard this phrase used before and was hoping someone could explain it.
JED

Im sorry if this has already been expressed - I didnt bother to read all the posts to answer this very simple question.

There is no qualifier, and there is no specific measure - anybody can make the claim.