What is true bible based Christianity? (according to bible only Christians)

[ConstantineTG]

The only real difference between Orthodox and Catholics is papal authority.

This is not true. There are A LOT of differences between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. We’re farther apart on many beliefs than we’d care to admit. But anyone who’d take the time to learn about both will quickly realize that the issue of the Papacy is not the only thing that is dividing us. It is the biggest thing, but not the only one. Even if we agree on the Papacy today there is still a long list of things we need to fix and agree on before any true unity can happen.

 

[Friars_Minor]

Just to provide you with an alternative answer:

…

Actually, what I appreciate most about Anglicanism is its willingness to acknowledge its own fallibility: collectively, we are not “making a claim to truth” so much as we are trying to understand what is true.

… And hence my issue… WOULD GOD “ABONDON” HIS FLOCK? would he not ensure that his church is protect so that THE GATES OF HELL WILL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST HER? Would he allow his Church to promote or approve acts that could be contrary to his laws? for example… contraception… abortion… euthanasia??? The Catholic Church is infallible for this reason…

Also… How can a group believe in an infallible book that has been put together by a fallible institution? this does not make sense… the bible is infallible because the the Holy Catholic Church is infallible

On the topic of faith alone (besides the other great points raised by John653) i point out 1Cor13:13… if we are saved by faith alone, why does 1 Cor 13:13 say that love is greater than faith?

Galatians 5:6, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumsion is of any avail, but faith working through love…" faith working through love…just as the Church teaches.

 

[mynamesjoe]

This is not true. There are A LOT of differences between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. We’re farther apart on many beliefs than we’d care to admit. But anyone who’d take the time to learn about both will quickly realize that the issue of the Papacy is not the only thing that is dividing us. It is the biggest thing, but not the only one. Even if we agree on the Papacy today there is still a long list of things we need to fix and agree on before any true unity can happen.

“From the perspective of the Catholic Church, the ecclesiological issues are the central issue which is why they characterize the split between the two churches as a schism. In their view, the Eastern Orthodox are very close to them in theology and the Catholic Church does not consider the Orthodox beliefs to be heretical”

that’s from Wiki, not really sure if it’s accurate but that’s what I know from the east west problems.

But correctly if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that basically that means is that Catholics think that Orthodox are making a big stink over things that don’t really matter.

I know Orthodox think things differently, but can an orthodox think of anything besides the papacy that is a serious objection to Catholicism?

 

[Izdaari]

I may not be the intended target audience, not being a solo scriptura type, but…

IMHO, this is all too complicated. Do you believe what’s in the Apostles Creed (whether or not you believe in using creeds)? Do you believe what’s described in C.S. Lewis’ excellent little book Mere Christianity? That’s true bible based Christianity. Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox can all qualify.

 

[jrtrent]

what makes your claim to truth any different from your incorrect protestant brethren?

IMHO, this is all too complicated. Do you believe what’s in the Apostles Creed (whether or not you believe in using creeds)? Do you believe what’s described in C.S. Lewis’ excellent little book Mere Christianity? That’s true bible based Christianity. Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox can all qualify.

So maybe we focus too much on differences? If one denomination’s claim to truth isn’t so different from that of another that they can’t both believe what’s in the Apostles’ Creed, then maybe the differences between them aren’t as important as people sometimes think? I’ve read in another thread that, at least today, most Protestants would consider themselves to have unity with other Protestants (and maybe beyond) on the basis of their shared faith in Christ, even if each can point out what they might consider error in less important points of doctrine and practice.

It’s been too many years since I’ve read Mere Christianity, so thanks for the reminder about that book.

 

[jlhargus]

“From the perspective of the Catholic Church, the ecclesiological issues are the central issue which is why they characterize the split between the two churches as a schism. In their view, the Eastern Orthodox are very close to them in theology and the Catholic Church does not consider the Orthodox beliefs to be heretical”

that’s from Wiki, not really sure if it’s accurate but that’s what I know from the east west problems.

But correctly if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that basically that means is that Catholics think that Orthodox are making a big stink over things that don’t really matter.

I know Orthodox think things differently, but can an orthodox think of anything besides the papacy that is a serious objection to Catholicism?

JL: I think you are basically correct. The Orthodox have never in and ecumenical council defined any dogma including papal primacy. They have remaind frozen in dogma since the schism. There are Orthodox theologians who have developed theories. Yet no council of all the Orthodox groups have accepted them.

 

[kbwall]

items that Roman Catholics would have to accept and fully confess:

the authority of the Ecumenical Councils over the pope

You see the authority of the pope as manmade and wrong. What makes the Ecumenical council so much better?

give Holy Communion to all church members, including infants

Wouldn’t an infant, who doesn’t really have teeth, or any eating skills, just choke if you gave it communion?

 

[manualman]

This is not true. There are A LOT of differences between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. We’re farther apart on many beliefs than we’d care to admit.

Depends on which EO patriarch you ask and when, which is one of the major problems with EO ecclesiology in the first place! I’ll agree that there are many more APPARENT differences between RC and EO than just the papacy. How many are genuine conflicts and how many are simply different ways blind men accurately describe an elephant is, IMO, a rather open question and a man’s opinion on it as often says more about him than the theology of either side.

In my opinion, we’re a lot CLOSER in belief than most care to admit. Both sides just have allowed pride to exaggerate problems out of proportion. Of course humility then demands that I admit to being a rank amatuer on such things, but I’ve picked a bit up both here and from Fr. Tom Loya’s (Byzantine Catholic priest) radio show ‘Light of the East.’

My opinion: The problems are insurmountable as long as we want them to be.

EDIT: Tangent guilt! OP asked about commonality of belief among those who describe themselves as ‘bible christians.’ IIRC, Karl Keating had an excellent description in the early portions of his book “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” where he explains/apologizes for using the label ‘fundamentalist’ to describe people who might prefer something like “conservative, evangelical, bible-believing christians.” Apparently he quailed at the thought of having to write that out 6,000 times… But the book had an impressive and charitable list of beliefs common to probably 80%+ of that crowd.

 

[jrtrent]

Wouldn’t an infant, who doesn’t really have teeth, or any eating skills, just choke if you gave it communion?

I’m not sure of the mechanics, myself. I believe that the Orthodox deliver the elements by means of a spoon, that the bread is floating in the wine and a bit of each is given to each communicant. Perhaps for infants, no chunk of bread is on the spoon, maybe just crumbs in the wine, or maybe just wine alone in the spoon. I doubt choking is a common occurrence or seen as a problem given the length of time the practice has been going on.

You see the authority of the pope as manmade and wrong. What makes the Ecumenical council so much better?

Well, that’s kinda/sorta the OP’s question. A Presbyterian baptizes infants, but a Baptist doesn’t. Lutherans believe in universal atonement, but the Reformed do not. Everyone claims to use scripture alone through the guidance of the Holy Ghost to justify their faith and practice, so why the differences?

Personally, while I was still a Lutheran, and having already been a Presbyterian as a child, as well as a Baptist, then later Mormon and then Reformed Baptist, and with other family members being Lutheran, Catholic, and Methodist, I was confused by all the different truth claims, especially since I knew such sincere, loving people in all these churches doing their best to serve God. I was impressed reading about Georg Calixtus, a 17th century Lutheran theologian, who distinguished between essential and non-essential teaching on the basis of “the concensus of the first five centuries.” Justo Gonzalez, in his The Story of Christianity, explained it this way:

“During those five centuries, Calixtus argued, there was a concensus among Christians. Some positions were condemned as heretical, and we ought to do likewise. But it would be folly to affirm that somehting that cannot be found in those first five centuries is essential for salvation. Such an assertion would lead to the conclusion that no one was saved during the early centuries of the life of the church!”

When the Lutheran congregation I attended split, and there was no other AFLC affiliated congregation in the area, I found in the conservative Anglican movement a position that made sense to me and was in keeping with Calixtus’s notion of the concensus of the first five centuries. Excerpts on Anglican use of councils:

“the Church of England’s prime interest in this period was the recovery of the faith of the primitive, undivided Church. . . were directed to “teach nothing which you would have religiously held and believed by the people, save what is agreeable to the teaching of the Old or New Testament, and what the Catholic and ancient bishops have collected from this self-same doctrine.” . . Anglican theologians spent a tremendous amount of time, from the Elizabethan Settlement up and until the English Civil War, articulating an understanding of conciliarity that would uphold the doctrines of the great early councils without allowing for the errors of Trent. . . The bishops of the various churches around the world represent their dioceses and synods when they gather in council. The power they have, therefore, comes not from themselves but from the gift of the Holy Spirit found in the Church as a whole. . . in Anglicanism, the first four Ecumenical Councils hold a special authority because there can be no doubt but that they are Ecumenical, according to the criteria laid out by the Divines.”

 

[untruestory]

Didn’t Lewis himself say that what he describes as Christianity in Mere Christianity is in a way insufficient?
Regardless, there lies the problem of disagreement with things as fundamental as salvation and morals.

Should we focus on unity and working out our differences? Absolutely, yes. That doesn’t mean we ignore them.

 

[jrtrent]

Didn’t Lewis himself say that what he describes as Christianity in Mere Christianity is in a way insufficient?

I think you’re right.

 "I hope no reader will  suppose that "mere" Christianity is here put

forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions-as if a
man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or
anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several
rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I
attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and
chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try
the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the
rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable.
. . . You must keep on praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall,
you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house.
And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which
pleases you best by its paint and paneling. . .
When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen
different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong
they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you
are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the
whole house."

 

[fnr]

So that you understand where I’m coming from I’m a practicing Catholic. I’m open to truth but thoroughly convinced in what I now know. I’m simply asking to try and understand the protestant perspective.
How do you define “true” Christianity?
With the hundreds (if not thousands) of interpretations of what constitutes true Christianity all claiming authority and truth from the bible with divine guidance from the Holy Spirit what makes your claim to truth any different from your incorrect protestant brethren?
Peace and love

I’ll suggest that the Bible alone doesn’t give you a single coherent narrative, particularly the New Testament. There are at least four, if not five, different types of book in the NT:
-Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matt, Luke)
-Acts (Luke, Part II)
-Gospel of John and Johannine Letters
-Absolutely 100% genuine Pauline epistles (1 Thess, Gal, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Philemon, Philippians, Romans)
-Absolutely 100% not Pauline epistles attributed to Paul (1 Tim, 2 Tim, Titus)
-Epistles maybe written by Paul, attributed to him (2 Thess, Ephesians, Colossians)
-James
-Hebrews
-1 and 2 Peter
-Jude
-Revelation

The epistles attributed to Paul don’t even agree between the “genuine” letters and the pseudoepigraphic letters (1 Tim, 2, Tim, Titus) – for example, slavery. The role of women is another example (the female apostle Junia in Romans to point out one spectacularly inconvenient person for men-only priesthood advocates, versus the instruction that women should never teach men).

John’s soteriology is not the same as Paul’s – the commission of the Apotles to forgive or retain sins in the end of John’s gospel (that shows up in James, which also says to confess sins). 1 John’s statement that he who acts righteous is righteous vs. Romans 1:17 – to pretend that they are consistent requires you to leave sola scriptura behind, because on their face, they don’t agree.

Paul hardly mentions the life of Christ, and the Gospels spend the bulk of their text talking about what Jesus said and did… this creates major tension between the importance of the Incarnation vs. the Atonement.

All these internal disputes make it so that consistent and coherent orthodoxy is impossible based on sola scriptura alone.

 

[Izdaari]

I think you’re right.

 "I hope no reader will  suppose that "mere" Christianity is here put

forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions-as if a
man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or
anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several
rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I
attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and
chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try
the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the
rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable.
. . . You must keep on praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall,
you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house.
And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which
pleases you best by its paint and paneling. . .
When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen
different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong
they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you
are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the
whole house."

That’s right! My point is that Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox are all rooms in the same house. Everyone in the house is a “true bible based Christian”. The rooms are all off of the same hall, though perhaps in different wings. We have each chosen a room that suits us, that we think has the most truth, and that’s as it should be, but what unites us is much bigger than what divides us, and we have a tendency to forget that.

:angel1: