What is "Bible Church" supposed to mean?

Albion said:

A "Bible Church" is normally a Non-denominational church that wants to emphasize that it is guided by the Bible rather than what every denomination supposedly goes by (Traditions, Creeds, opinions of the founders, and so on).

In practice, Bible Churches are most similar to Baptist churches or Churches of Christ.

I realize that most of these points have already been made by other posters before me, but that's my explanation FWIW.

Click to expand...

Here in the Belt Buckle of the Bible Belt my observation is most Bible churches are planted by the Reformed Baptist.

These churches tend to be small in size compared to mega churches and populated by mainly younger couples with loads of children.

They also tend to be networked with like churches locally and regionally.

Non-denominational churches decades ago were simply called "community churches". They were started when a local community had diverse Christian adherents but low population or resources. Non-denominationalism, on the other hand, seems to have more to do with wariness of institutional belonging. And back in the day, community churches were not necessarily aligned with any particular cultural orientation (there were/are community churches that are relatively liberal).

"Bible church" in my mind suggests fundamentalism of the most biblicist sort, little or no confessional statement of faith, often combined with a great deal of cultural conservativism.

PaulCyp1 said:

... Jesus Christ founded only one Church, said it was to remain one, and promised that one Church "the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth" and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". Which is why that one Church remains one in belief, one in teaching, one in worship, one in biblical understanding throughout the world after 2,000 years.

Click to expand...

Which you can only wish was the reality, and which a mere fantasy you have posted before. And what was said in response to this propaganda remains the reality.

Contrary to the desire fantasy of a unified church of Rome, besides the irreconcilable (after 1,000 years) real differences btwn the EOs and RC s, as a result of the very organ that RCs say we need to deal with division, Rome is an unholy amalgam of a variety of beliefs, from proabortion, prohomosexual public figures to cultic traditionalist devotees, all of whom Rome manifestly considers members in life and in death (thus so must you), thereby showing her interpretation of what a Catholic can be considered to be.

And that organ is the RC magisterium.

As one poster wryly put it,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

You may appeal to official statements which support a paper unity, however, such is not the Scriptural basis for determination of what one believes, which is what it does and effects. (James 2:18; Matthew 7:20) And which is the above.

Meanwhile, as far as professions go, it is actually Bible Christians, those who have most strongly affirmed the integrity of Scripture, who attest to the greatest degree of unity in common core beliefs [even those commonly held beliefs that Catholics are themselves supposed to agree on] as well as commitment, much in contrast to Catholics.

And just as Bible Christians can and so disagree on what Scripture means to some scope and degree, so can do Catholics regarding both Scripture as well as what their church teaches, and even on what magisterial level such belongs to, and thus what manner of assent is required, and what this all means.

redleghunter said:

Evangelical spans many denominations and is not a denomination.

Click to expand...

I dislike how the word is used now days. Sometimes the term is used when in the past people would have simply said "Protestant". For instance, some news sources have called Pr. Nadia Bolz-Weber an evangelical (which is true in the sense we understand it, but I'm not sure that is intended by the journalist), and other times it's used to refer specifically to white, culturally conservative Protestants, in constradistinction to mainline, liberal Protestants (which is from an historical perspective, relatively meaningless). It's very frustrating.

But I guess the term "evangelical" has gained currency in its misusage, and its stuck, and I tend to use it that way, but it still stinks. And I think it could lead to a great deal of confusion in the broader culture about our various religious traditions.

FireDragon76 said:

I dislike how the word is used now days. Sometimes the term is used when in the past people would have simply said "Protestant". For instance, some news sources have called Pr. Nadia Bolz-Weber an evangelical (which is true in the sense we understand it, but I'm not sure that is intended by the journalist), and other times it's used to refer specifically to white, culturally conservative Protestants, in constradistinction to mainline, liberal Protestants (which is from an historical perspective, relatively meaningless). It's very frustrating.

But I guess the term "evangelical" has gained currency in its misusage, and its stuck, and I tend to use it that way, but it still stinks. And I think it could lead to a great deal of confusion in the broader culture about our various religious traditions.

Click to expand...

That’s the problem of an ignorant media who are mostly not Christian and unchurched. They are out of their element and believe their own press.

When I see posters here use evangelical pejoratively, I remind them the “pope” of evangelicals was John Stott an ordained Anglican priest. The pope comment was of course tongue in cheek because of his efforts to unify and encourage as many churches and denominations to the evangelical cause.

https://www.lausanne.org/content/john-stott-biblical-basis-of-evangelism

David Cabrera said:

Don't all churches believe in the Bible and have worship based on them?

Click to expand...

Hi I have been to and watched many different church services on line to see 1st hand what is being taught. I have in past went to a church that was called a Bible church. This church had an 1 1/2 sunday school where they went through a book of the Bible then a service where they worshiped and were taught another book of the Bible line by line. The emphasis on the scriptures is high. If you watch Joel Osteen he will have a bible in his hands and might quote 3 verses the entire sermon. These guys will give you what it says and use other scriptures to back it up.

redleghunter said:

That’s the problem of an ignorant media who are mostly not Christian and unchurched. They are out of their element and believe their own press.

When I see posters here use evangelical pejoratively, I remind them the “pope” of evangelicals was John Stott an ordained Anglican priest. The pope comment was of course tongue in cheek because of his efforts to unify and encourage as many churches and denominations to the evangelical cause.

https://www.lausanne.org/content/john-stott-biblical-basis-of-evangelism

Click to expand...

Billy Graham is partly to blame, because he started using the term in the 60's to refer to his brand of religion. And then the term "Evangelical" gradually shifted towards that style of religion, esp. as Graham's ministry became more internationally known.

But as you point out, more familiarity with religious history would go a long ways towards clarifying how vague and/or squishy the term evangelical really is.

The people who lose out in all this are people that might read all these news stories and think somebody like Pr. Nadia, John Stott, Billy Graham, etc. would be more or less in the same religious tradition and religious trajectory because they all are broadly evangelical, yet their religions are very different enough that they might generally not have fellowship with one another.

ALL churches read and use the Bible every week. Protestant and Catholic. Pastors and Priests. They all read the Bible every week ... and the same verses.

But for some inexplicable reason, "Bible Churches" believe that they are above everyone else, and that only they read the Bible. Its just another form.of human snobbery.

My advice is ... dont worship with people with small minds.

Blessings!

PeaceByJesus said:

Meanwhile, as far as professions go, it is actually Bible Christians, those who have most strongly affirmed the integrity of Scripture, who attest to the greatest degree of unity in common core beliefs [even those commonly held beliefs that Catholics are themselves supposed to agree on] as well as commitment, much in contrast to Catholics.

Click to expand...

And "Bible Christians" presumably means "us and not y'all". Got it. And Catholics most certainly come under the heading of "y'all".

Back a few years ago. I was teaching at a Korean Evangelical church (probably not a "Bible Church" because we confessed the ancient Creeds of the Church, and most of its members are Korean) the pastor of a nondenom church next door killed and dismembered the church maintenance man, torched the building, emptied the church bank accounts, and lit out for parts unknown. Unfortunately for him, he used a church credit card while on the lam, so he was nicked somewhere up north and sent back to Nashville to face the music. More recently, the pastor of a Church of Christ here was caught breaking into cars at local malls during the Christmas shopping season, I guess to spread Christmas cheer amongst his friends and family. He did, or is ding, time for that. On that basis, I reckon it's time to call fotr a reformation of "Bible Churches", considering the number of Bible Church pastor who have robbed their churches, murdered their parishioners, carried on adulterous affairs with their church sisters, abused, sexually and otherwise, children left in their card, and generally demonstrated the most deplorable kind of depravity. So what are you doing to clean up the ghastly mess in Bible Churches? Or are you content to just sit there and pretend there's no problem there, and point accusing fingers at the Catholics/ Smells more than a little hypocritical to me.

Jipsah said:

Back a few years ago. I was teaching at a Korean Evangelical church (probably not a "Bible Church" because we confessed the ancient Creeds of the Church,

Click to expand...

I guess you don’t know much about Bible churches. That’s fine as most posting here don’t either. Most are creedal as they are planted by Reformed Baptist and Reformed churches.

You can actually look up their statement of beliefs. They are Trinitarian and orthodox.

gideon123 said:

ALL churches read and use the Bible every week. Protestant and Catholic. Pastors and Priests. They all read the Bible every week ... and the same verses.

But for some inexplicable reason, "Bible Churches" believe that they are above everyone else, and that only they read the Bible. Its just another form.of human snobbery.

My advice is ... dont worship with people with small minds.

Blessings!

Click to expand...

In your church how many people bring their Bibles to church (this includes electronic devices) and use them?

Brian Mcnamee said:

Hi I have been to and watched many different church services on line to see 1st hand what is being taught. I have in past went to a church that was called a Bible church. This church had an 1 1/2 sunday school where they went through a book of the Bible then a service where they worshiped and were taught another book of the Bible line by line. The emphasis on the scriptures is high. If you watch Joel Osteen he will have a bible in his hands and might quote 3 verses the entire sermon. These guys will give you what it says and use other scriptures to back it up.

Click to expand...

Yes and Sunday is a full day. Not a 45 min to an hour service. Including adult Bible study, children and teen Bible study, the worship and Lord’s Supper, and sermon it is 4 hours. Longer with fellowship. The week is jammed packed as well.

redleghunter said:

I guess you don’t know much about Bible churches. That’s fine as most posting here don’t either. Most are creedal as they are planted by Reformed Baptist and Reformed churches.

You can actually look up their statement of beliefs. They are Trinitarian and orthodox.

Click to expand...

I am a bit confused because most Baptists I have met do not use creeds. Many say they only use the Bible. I know there are Baptists that are confessionally oriented (like Particular Baptists) however I don't think most American Baptists are the confessional type.

FireDragon76 said:

I am a bit confused because most Baptists I have met do not use creeds. Many say they only use the Bible. I know there are Baptists that are confessionally oriented (like Primitive Baptists) however I don't think most American Baptists are the confessional type.

Click to expand...

You will find the same statements on for example the Trinity in Baptist confessions or statements of faith or even expanded on in their constitution.

gordonhooker said:

So what? Is there a point in there somewhere?

Click to expand...

You will find exactly the same or very similar in many Bible churches.

redleghunter said:

You will find the same statements on for example the Trinity in Baptist confessions or statements of faith or even expanded on in their constitution.

Click to expand...

A creed is more than just a list of things we as individuals happen to think are true, like a "statement of faith", it's also a symbol of the continuity of faith. In fact that idea is actually emphasized moreso in many churches that use creeds liturgically.

Merely saying "I believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is consistent with the creeds, but it really doesn't tell us alot about the Trinitarian relations. Mormons can say that, too.

chevyontheriver said:

I sometimes call them the 'non-denominational denomination'.

Click to expand...

Nice play on words, but what if it means cult? When you make them a denomination, then it appears valid like lb or lira is part of monetary denomination.

redleghunter said:

You will find exactly the same or very similar in many Bible churches.

Click to expand...

I have no idea why you have singled me out to rabbit on about something that I was not even know what you talking about. Please go away...

David Cabrera said:

Don't all churches believe in the Bible and have worship based on them?

Click to expand...

Students of history know that the early Christian church certainly wasn't a" bible church" in the context in which the phrase is now used. The canon of the New Testament was several centuries in the future, there were many disputed books early on claiming to be apostolic, so it wasn't obvious even what the bible was then!

In that time , there were very few books, the church was underground and actively oppressed, so writings if found were burned, and most could not read anyway. So history confirms the true faith was in essence passed down by bishops - successors of apostles by word of mouth and occasional letter, and the church decreed what was true doctrine or not. Read early fathers.

That explains why St. Paul says " hold true to tradition taught by word of mouth and letter" , is why scripture says " the foundation of truth is the church" and the early fathers are at pains to point out, that only the doctrine taught by bishops should be accepted, under the primacy of Rome. Also saying " how can they teach if they are not sent?"

Read iraneus, who makes fascinating reading showing the snapshot of the church well before the New Testament, higlighting the role of apostolic succession , church authority, and tradition, indeed as iraneus points out - the first canon ( i.e. Fledgling New Testament) such as marcions were declared heretical by Rome. It would be another several centuries before councils finally rubber stamped it.

The " bible church " phenomenon, is very much an invention of the reformation, made possible only by the printing press. It is only in very recent times the average person could afford a bible, and was educated enough to read it. That is why stain glass windows have gospel scenes. For many pictures and verbal, were the only way to communicate.

So it is only in recent times all were empowered to decide what the bible means for themselves, until which time meaning of doctrine was also passed down along with words.

Luther despaired of the consequence of his own folly with " sola scriptura"
" as many doctrines as heads" " every milkmaid now has their own doctrine" he lamebted. But pandora was out of the box by then.

The whole idea of bible church presumes meaning is self evident. But mutually exclusive interpretations of every aspect of doctrine in the reformation churches proves that " tradition" - i.e. Faith handed down is needed to pass meaning, just as the early church said.

The bible also declares Jesus gave the power to "bind and loose " to apostles jointly and Peter alone. Which means to the Jewish audience then " rule on disputes of law and doctrine" . Jesus foresaw the need for the church to be a voice of authority. So the question then is which church? Which has been epin existence long enough?

Love &Forgiveness said:

The whole Bible is about Jesus.

Click to expand...

And this is constituent to your argument that we don't need the Bible? You will find it is impossible to argue against the necessity of the Bible without referring to the Bible, or otherwise essentially declaring yourself a prophet, which you would verify referring to the Bible designating the ministry and enabling of the Holy Spirit, as described in the Bible. Unless, of course, you want to simply be so audacious as to simply assert that, and then you can join the ranks of the antiquated and contemporary false prophets and say whatever you wish with the pretense of authority.

If you have Jesus you have the Bible in your heart. True Believers have the Bible is written on their heart and mind.

Click to expand...

If this were true there would not be shepherds and teachers as inferior ministers of what the Holy Spirit is already doing without, in God's providence, human intervention (Ephesians 4:11-12). We wouldn't be commended that "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17)," because the man of God would be "fully equipped" without the Bible. After all, why even say this? Why write anything after Christ's ascension if this were true? Because it is not, and operating without full accountability to the Word of God is dangerous for you and anyone who listens to you while you are walking in this manner.

The Bible is a useful resource for teaching, rebuking, verifying Truth, but not necessary. All you need is Love. To love God and love others. That sums it up! But Love comes from God through a relationship with Jesus.

Click to expand...

The reasons you establish for the Bible's "usefulness" here actually demonstrates why it is necessary. If the Holy Spirit has been assigned by Christ to be sufficient for our Christian walk apart from, ironically, the Holy Spirit inspired Word of God then why do we need to teach, rebuke, and verify truth? Certainly the Holy spirit, if He decided to operate this way, would not need our cooperation. And certainly you do not think that verifying truth is merely "useful." Jesus and the apostles also used the Scriptures to demonstrate that Jesus was the Christ (Luke 4:14-21, Matthew's countless quotes, Acts of the Apostles 17:2-12, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4), showing us that the Holy Spirit is not rendering obsolete or unnecessary His inspired written Word in the work of salvation and verifying Jesus' Messiahship.

We need the Bible to establish collective accountability of the saints and thereby preclude self-confident self-determination (the purpose for which we practice 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 4:6), because, as aforementioned, it is the only means by which we identify false teachers pretending to the witness of the Holy Spirit. The Scripture is also necessary to equip us for every good work (again, 2 timothy 3:16-17), to prepare us for Christ's return (Matthew 24:25-44), to resist the devil's superior (as compared to ours) cunning (Matthew 4:4-10), and to give us vital insight into God's dealings with man through inspired historical accounts (Romans 15:4, 1 Corinthians 10:11), among other things.

In summary, the only person who doesn't need a Bible is the person who remembers their Bible. But then you have not eliminated it's necessity but, by practice, recognized how much you need it. Obviously there are special circumstances, such as a person who is unable to read or has no access to their own Bible, but such people, for the aforementioned reasons, need the nurturing and guidance of someone who knows their Bible well or can read it to them.