What do you consider a Biblical Church?

[ViaCrucis]

For those who are promoting their church as the only true church, please understand I was not talking about denominations but what YOU personally need to see in a church to make it acceptable.

As a Lutheran I believe that the Lutheran Confessions as contained in the Book of Concord, especially the Augsburg Confession provide a true and faithful witness to true Christian faith. Because the Confessions are Biblical. If I didn't believe that, then I probably wouldn't be Lutheran. So the minimum of what I can consider acceptable is nothing less than what I regard to be the true confessed faith of Christ's Holy Church, i.e. the Ecumenical Creeds and the Lutheran Confessions.

If I were a Catholic, then the minimum of what is acceptable is that it is the Holy Catholic Church which Christ founded, which exists in fullness through its communion with St. Peter's successor and Christ's temporal representative in the person of the Pope in Rome. Thus anything outside and aside from this would not be acceptable.

If I were Orthodox, then the minimum of what is acceptable is that it is the Holy Catholic Church which Christ founded, which exists in fullness in all the holy bishops of the Church in communion with one another which has received the Apostolic deposit of faith in the Church's most holy Tradition which has been preserved and kept alive by the Holy Spirit since the beginning, and thus there is nothing acceptable except Orthodoxy.

Could a Baptist, for example, accept infant baptism? The answer is no; thus for the Baptist those things which are distinctively Baptist are what make their church/tradition/communion acceptable.

Thus each person is going to believe their church is biblical; if they didn't, they would not belong to that church. I would not be a member, or participate, in a church that I believed to be unbiblical.

So everyone is going to present an argument rooted in their theological and ecclesiological tradition.

This is unavoidable.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[David Lamb]

The Church had existed for a full generation before the first Gospel was written.

My post, to which you were replying, was about individual local churches, like the church at Ephesus or the church at Antioch. I don't know of a single such church that existed before the New Testament was completed and still exists today.

 

[David Lamb]

For those who are promoting their church as the only true church, please understand I was not talking about denominations but what YOU personally need to see in a church to make it acceptable.

Yes, that is how I understood your post - to refer to individual, local churches.

 

[Daniel Carlton]

Yes, that is how I understood your post - to refer to individual, local churches.

Thank you.

Other’s clearly do not understand.

 

[prodromos]

My post, to which you were replying, was about individual local churches, like the church at Ephesus or the church at Antioch. I don't know of a single such church that existed before the New Testament was completed and still exists today.

The Church in Corinth is still there as is the Church in Thessaloniki. The Church in Antioch relocated to Damascus but still exists today.

 

[prodromos]

Thank you.

Other’s clearly do not understand.

Clearly we are not able to read your mind, and your OP was quite ambiguous.

 

[Daniel Carlton]

Clearly we are not able to read your mind, and your OP was quite ambiguous.

Most people understood, you did not.

Are you still upset about the idolatry thread? If so, you should do the Christian thing and be peaceful and not keep entering my threads looking to argue out of bad will.

 

[prodromos]

Most people understood, you did not.

It doesn't change the fact that your OP is ambiguous

Are you still upset about the idolatry thread? If so, you should do the Christian thing and be peaceful and not keep entering my threads looking to argue out of bad will.

Wow, projecting much? I'm not in the slightest upset by the idolatry thread. I'm not the one who requested it be shut down when it didn't go the way you apparently wanted. This is a public forum. If you want an echo chamber then you should create your own private chat group. All I've done is present my own view in response to the thread you posted. It most definitely isn't out of bad will. If you don't want to hear opinions which differ from your own then don't start any threads. Sheesh!

 

[Daniel Carlton]

Just a reminder this is the question of the OP “What are the must have or must not have to be considered a biblical church?”

 

[prodromos]

Just a reminder this is the question of the OP “What are the must have or must not have to be considered a biblical church?”

You forgot to add, "according to the modern, Protestant mindset".

 

[BibleBeliever1611]

Has KJV Bible and soul-winning, those are the most important ones. Calvinism would be a nuisance but if it's KJV and soul winning it's already great. A church gets bonus points if it's not calvinist.

 

[PloverWing]

What is a biblical church to you? What are the must have or must not have to be considered a biblical church?

Here is one definition of a "biblical church" that would catch my attention:

Imagine a church that does serious, scholarly study of the Bible. Classes are offered in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, so that we can read the Scriptures in their original languages, and most church members participate in these classes. The church library has volumes of commentaries from a variety of perspectives: Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, Lutheran, an assortment of others; and includes early Christians with a figurative/analogical approach, Fundamentalist Protestants with a more literal approach, Liberal Protestants with a more secular literary-analysis approach. If there aren't any Old Testament / New Testament scholars among the members, we connect with online classes offered by a seminary or university. And lots of discussion and debate, so that we're really engaging with what we're reading.

I would attend Bible studies at a church like that. (If they're not liturgical, I'd want to keep attending the worship services at my own church on Sunday mornings, but I'd come to the "biblical church" for their evening Bible study.)

 

[linux.poet]

A biblical church:
1. Preaches sermons through a book of the Bible, engaging in expository preaching and exegesis that is consistent with sound hermeneutics.
2. Proclaims the Gospel of Jesus Christ, free of heretical perspectives that are inconsistent with the Gospel of John.
3. Follows Biblical guidance and imperatives for how the church should be run.
4. Exists to glorify God and reach the world with Gospel, both in claim and in the truth. Edifies and supports believers in Christ with what God would have them do.

Here is one definition of a "biblical church" that would catch my attention:

Imagine a church that does serious, scholarly study of the Bible. Classes are offered in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, so that we can read the Scriptures in their original languages, and most church members participate in these classes. The church library has volumes of commentaries from a variety of perspectives: Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, Lutheran, an assortment of others; and includes early Christians with a figurative/analogical approach, Fundamentalist Protestants with a more literal approach, Liberal Protestants with a more secular literary-analysis approach. If there aren't any Old Testament / New Testament scholars among the members, we connect with online classes offered by a seminary or university. And lots of discussion and debate, so that we're really engaging with what we're reading.

Someone start this church, I’ll move to wherever it is, and drive there immediately.

I’m serious.

Though I will be tempted to find a Bible Church nearby when I get tired out by the denominational differences and need a break to go back to familiar safety. Christianity isn’t just about hyper-intellectualism, it’s also about relationship with God and others. Organizationally, this church could struggle massively with that: orthodox service at 8 AM, Catholic Mass at 9 AM, Bible Church type service at 10:30 AM, Lutheran at 12 PM, etc. Can you imagine the overhead and the exhausted staff, not to mention the intellectual classes and the studies on top of that? There’s kind of a reason why we have Christian universities, and people are like “that should be free” but are you willing to donate for that massive expense?

This might work better as an Interdominational library; libraries hold classes for the public. In a fantasy world, there would be churches of all denominations surrounding the library so those who benefited from the classes and books could worship how they were used to, but also maybe try a new style of service and meet new friends. Anyone got some extra money sitting around? I got a project for you.

(it would be massively cheaper to do this as a forum, but we would have to hire or acquire people to teach the classes and get all of those books under some kind of license, which is more connections and data than I have.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Here is one definition of a "biblical church" that would catch my attention:

Imagine a church that does serious, scholarly study of the Bible. Classes are offered in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, so that we can read the Scriptures in their original languages, and most church members participate in these classes. The church library has volumes of commentaries from a variety of perspectives: Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, Lutheran, an assortment of others; and includes early Christians with a figurative/analogical approach, Fundamentalist Protestants with a more literal approach, Liberal Protestants with a more secular literary-analysis approach. If there aren't any Old Testament / New Testament scholars among the members, we connect with online classes offered by a seminary or university. And lots of discussion and debate, so that we're really engaging with what we're reading.

I would attend Bible studies at a church like that. (If they're not liturgical, I'd want to keep attending the worship services at my own church on Sunday mornings, but I'd come to the "biblical church" for their evening Bible study.)

I personally have an affinity for your concept here, and since my own studies go in so many directions and affect how I believe, I wish there were churches out there like what you describe. As it is instead, too many churches today are structured within a bunker mentality and are a far cry from being able to envision a more diverse form of inquiry and contemplation of the Christian Faith.

(As a matter of verification of what I've just said, I'm going to see how many folks here latch onto the fact that I use the term "diverse" and then immediately jump to defensive conclusions as to what it is they think I actually mean in my usage of that term.)

 

[Sir Joseph]

Well, no. And I say that as a Sola Scriptura person.

If the Bible teaches the authority of Tradition, which Catholics believe, then it is more Biblical to believe in the two-pronged authority of Scripture and Tradition. It would, therefore, be less biblical to reject the divine inspiration and authority of Sacred Tradition if the Bible teaches the inspiration and authority of Sacred Tradition.

The analogy would be saying "I have a entire shirt" when one only has half a shirt.

It is less biblical to say "I only believe the Bible" if the Bible does not support that position. Thus from the Catholic and Orthodox perspectives, they are more Biblical by believing in the authority of Sacred Tradition.

This means that the question, then becomes, which position is biblical: Bible Alone or Bible and Tradition?

Of course those aren't even the only two positions; there is a great deal of nuance and complex ideas among various Christian traditions, even within the broad tent of Protestantism.

E.g.
Within Lutheranism we subscribe to Sola Scriptura; but we do so within the framework of Norma Normans and Norma Normata; which is to say Lutheranism isn't "Bible Only" (and, I'd argue, no denomination or tradition is entirely "Bible Only", even the ones that explicitly claim to be); Lutheranism recognizes the unique position of Scripture as the singular written word of God and deposit of faith, but we never approach Scripture outside and except within the lived-in community of Christians, and the whole history of Christianity from the Apostles onward. This means that while, for example, the ancient Councils and the Creeds are not equal to Scripture or share the unique authority which Scripture alone has; it does mean that the Councils and Creeds are authoritative because they derive their authority from Scripture; and thus the Creeds are authoritative. Tradition, in submission to Scripture, is authoritative in the same way that a representative of a royal court bears the royal seal and thus carries the authority of the crown; not an authority equal with; but an authority received and in submission to. The purpose of Sola Scriptura is not to deny the importance, or even the authority, of Christian tradition--but to place tradition in submission to Holy Scripture. This is the sort of normative principle that arose from within the Evangelical Reformation, not to deny or rebel against Christ's Holy Catholic Church, but to reform Christ's Holy Catholic Church by asserting the primacy of Scripture and, even moreso; the primacy of Christ and His Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

Now that Viacrucis is an excellent response, given your interpretive premise of the Bible's use of the word "traditions". I disagree firmly with your premise, but at least you're not trying to counter with an argument that 100% + 100% = %100.

 

[bèlla]

I personally have an affinity for your concept here, and since my own studies go in so many directions and affect how I believe, I wish there were churches out there like what you describe. As it is instead, too many churches today are structured within a bunker mentality and are a far cry from being able to envision a more diverse form of inquiry and contemplation of the Christian Faith.

It isn’t the church’s responsibility to comply with every wish believers conceive. You have to be willing to roll up your sleeves and stop waiting for them to do it for you. If it doesn’t exist it‘s because you haven’t decided to build it. If you want an intellectual utopia you’ll have to fund it. And you’d work out the kinks on what it includes along with the musts and maybe’s for the facility. You’d source location possibilities and explore digitization for materials for global access and so on.

Why would you expect that from the church when it’s evident the project requires different gifting for fruition? You don’t need a shepherd for that. You need leadership, administration, wisdom and so on. ;-)

~bella

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It isn’t the church’s responsibility to comply with every wish believers conceive. You have to be willing to roll up your sleeves and stop waiting for them to do it for you. If it doesn’t exist it‘s because you haven’t decided to build it. If you want an intellectual utopia you’ll have to fund it. And you’d work out the kinks on what it includes along with the musts and maybe’s for the facility. You’d source location possibilities and explore digitization for materials for global access and so on.

Why would you expect that from the church when it’s evident the project requires different gifting for fruition? You don’t need a shepherd for that. You need leadership, administration, wisdom and so on. ;-)

~bella

Wish me luck then! Lol!