What do you consider a Biblical Church?

stevevw said:

Yes and I think its when there is proper order that this allows more freedom of the spirit. The church is being qualified and thus also being open to the full potential of the spirit without corruption.

I did not mean to tar Penticostals as I think this could happen in any church. But moreso those who commercialise or secularise the church that its hard to tell the difference.

To me a church should be fairly poor. The opposite should be happening. Instead of making gain for self or even a particular church. Rather the leaders and members should be giving of their own possessions and everyone is helping each other.

I think it shows how far we have drifted away that we think having wealth to the point its no different to secular society is perfectly ok.

I don't think they are standing around barring people. This is what someone said and it may be that they personally had an issue. Though like I said I thought they were a bit too showy.

The point is that this is what is happening. Unlike MacDonalds where you can walk into any resturant in the country and expect more or less the same thing. Today its like walking into a Macs and getting Kentucky or Berger King or some back street takeaway who is dishing up something hot and spicy lol.

Do you think that this is moreso today generally in that everything seems to be about credentials or not, ad hominums and appeals to authority. A celebrity age and where looks, position, associations and possessions are the measure of power disguised as success.

Yes it would seem a basic teachings like the Good Samaritan which is simple and obvious. Yet it seems it can be compromised and rationalised as that the church does not have to be so extreme in giving the shirt off their own back. Even half as much would increase help for the needy.

But also I think that the church leadership should be involved in all aspects of the communities life. Be able to give counsel in marriage and any issue of modern society and how to handle this in todays world. Not be left to be swept along by whatever idea comes along.

The fact is its hard to be a Christian today and its easy to be lured into secular norms. I think a big part of the overseers as shepherds is to minister and protect the church as a seperated family in the world but not of the world. Which is hard as it means sometimes going against popular beliefs.

Click to expand...

I am glad you have thought on this. If you are a pastor or elder your church sounds good to me. Absolutely there opportunities to meet needs and be part of any community at least in the USA.
As to your question on titles and self promotion, even in Jesus' day the Pharisees and some others loved to be called Rabbi's even when the moment did not call for it. I suppose there is nothing new under the sun. Today the use of various forms of media have many promoting themselves. Trusting God for open doors and opportunities is the best way. Your gift, so to speak is what makes room for your. Though that Proverb is somewhat about money, but if you are gifted in God there will be opportunities. Daniel and others are proof of that. Few want to take the time like a Joseph to be seasoned in a tough season. They want to go right to the top without the character building.

stevevw said:

Yes and I think its when there is proper order that this allows more freedom of the spirit. The church is being qualified and thus also being open to the full potential of the spirit without corruption.

I did not mean to tar Penticostals as I think this could happen in any church. But moreso those who commercialise or secularise the church that its hard to tell the difference.

To me a church should be fairly poor. The opposite should be happening. Instead of making gain for self or even a particular church. Rather the leaders and members should be giving of their own possessions and everyone is helping each other.

I think it shows how far we have drifted away that we think having wealth to the point its no different to secular society is perfectly ok.

I don't think they are standing around barring people. This is what someone said and it may be that they personally had an issue. Though like I said I thought they were a bit too showy.

The point is that this is what is happening. Unlike MacDonalds where you can walk into any resturant in the country and expect more or less the same thing. Today its like walking into a Macs and getting Kentucky or Berger King or some back street takeaway who is dishing up something hot and spicy lol.

Do you think that this is moreso today generally in that everything seems to be about credentials or not, ad hominums and appeals to authority. A celebrity age and where looks, position, associations and possessions are the measure of power disguised as success.

Yes it would seem a basic teachings like the Good Samaritan which is simple and obvious. Yet it seems it can be compromised and rationalised as that the church does not have to be so extreme in giving the shirt off their own back. Even half as much would increase help for the needy.

But also I think that the church leadership should be involved in all aspects of the communities life. Be able to give counsel in marriage and any issue of modern society and how to handle this in todays world. Not be left to be swept along by whatever idea comes along.

The fact is its hard to be a Christian today and its easy to be lured into secular norms. I think a big part of the overseers as shepherds is to minister and protect the church as a seperated family in the world but not of the world. Which is hard as it means sometimes going against popular beliefs.

Click to expand...

I am glad you have thought on this. If you are a pastor or elder your church sounds good to me. Absolutely there opportunities to meet needs and be part of any community at least in the USA.
As to your question on titles and self promotion, even in Jesus' day the Pharisees and some others loved to be called Rabbi's even when the moment did not call for it. I suppose there is nothing new under the sun. Today the use of various forms of media have many promoting themselves. Trusting God for open doors and opportunities is the best way. Your gift, so to speak is what makes room for your. Though that Proverb is somewhat about money, but if you are gifted in God there will be opportunities. Daniel and others are proof of that. Few want to take the time like a Joseph to be seasoned in a tough season. They want to go right to the top without the character building.

I shouldn't be surprised by the many, varied responses here that I've just read. Some are good but many are meaningless fluff that would apply to any false religion or secular organization. I expect any church to be loving, giving, and serving others in various ways, but that doesn't differentiate a biblical Christian church from an unbiblical one. I expect most of the misguided, liberal churches today would have many of the desired qualities that responses above advocate, but that doesn't make them biblical.

I travel full time and attend new, different churches regularly. That entails me going on-line, visiting a church's website, and determining whether it's a church I want to attend for the next 2 months or not. In my case, being a Bible believing evangelical Christian, I want a church that actually respects the faith's foundational scriptures - in other words, respects the Bible's authority.

Most churches tend to have some sort of "about" or "statement of beliefs" posted, but many leave out anything controversial or specific that might differentiate between being liberal or conservative in their beliefs. They don't want to define anything that could be considered offensive or unwelcoming to anyone. I try to avoid these churches because it usually means they're liberal.

What determines a biblical church for me is one that truly follows the Bible in its core beliefs. This automatically rules out many of the denominations and even separates the supposed evangelical protestant denominations. I find most get the Gospel message right, but it's a small minority of Christians and churches anymore that actually believe the Bible as God's authoritative, infallible Word - the foundational basis of their faith. To me, that means:

The church accepts the clearly written, literal Genesis 6-day/24 hr creation and flood accounts (vs evolution); Moses' authorship of the Pentateuch; the Israelite nation, exodus, and Red Sea crossing; other OT miracles; no women pastors leading the congregation; and a stated position against the abortion, LGBT, and gender blending culture. I find the ones that do that have no problem fulfilling the other appropriate church expectations.

In short, I think a Biblical church (and Christian) should actually believe the Bible, but polls show that only a small minority do anymore. The church body has succumbed to much of the world view's pressures, political correctness, and relative moral values by allegorizing or completely disregarding the parts of the Bible that they don't like. And sadly, even the seminaries are teaching this theology - starting with Genesis.

Sir Joseph said:

To me, that means:

The church accepts the clearly written, literal Genesis 6-day/24 hr creation and flood accounts (vs evolution); Moses' authorship of the Pentateuch; the Israelite nation, exodus, and Red Sea crossing; other OT miracles; no women pastors leading the congregation; and a stated position against the abortion, LGBT, and gender blending culture. I find the ones that do that have no problem fulfilling the other appropriate church expectations.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarity of this statement. This is a set of beliefs held by a number of churches, and I think it's useful to have a name for it. "Biblical" is probably as good a name as any, as long as we all agree to use the word that way.

@Daniel Carlton , is this the definition of "Biblical" that you had in mind?

If it teaches the gospel, says that Jesus is Lord, to believe and adhere to every word in the Bible, and cracks down on sinful behavior while also being loving towards the congregation and welcoming to newcomers, then it's a Biblical church.

Daniel Carlton said:

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

I will give my answer later on as I do not want to influence answers.

Click to expand...

A biblical Church is one that predates the Bible.

prodromos said:

A biblical Church is one that predates the Bible.

Click to expand...

Very few if any individual churches predate the bible. And if one did, how would that make it a "biblical church?" Also, the age of a church does not guarantee its present soundness.

Daniel Carlton said:

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

I will give my answer later on as I do not want to influence answers.

Click to expand...

The presence of the Holy Spirit.

Daniel Carlton said:

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

I will give my answer later on as I do not want to influence answers.

Click to expand...

Knowing Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior ( John 1:1-18, John 3:16-21, John 14:6), God is a Trinity ( 1 John 5:7, Deuteronomy 6:4, John chapters 14,15, & 16, Salvation by grace & living it ( Ephesians 2:8-10, John 14:15-18), Prayer & alms giving ( Matthew 6:1-13, 1 Timothy 2:1-6), understanding the Lords commandments & the law fulfilled ( Romans 13:8-10) etc.

I consider a Biblical church as one that preaches on the entire Bible such as following a lectionary as opposed to one that cherry-picks scriptures to meet a preconceived agenda declared in the name of "inspiration."

David Lamb said:

Very few if any individual churches predate the bible. And if one did, how would that make it a "biblical church?" Also, the age of a church does not guarantee its present soundness.

Click to expand...

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

The Catholic Church

Hvizsgyak said:

The Catholic Church

Click to expand...

Really?

Protestant churches in general derive doctrine only from the Bible, whereas Catholics churches derive their doctrine from the Bible AND church tradition.

I won't say here which one is more right than the other, but it's irrational to claim that the latter is more Biblical than the former. That's like saying a 50/50 cotton/poly shirt has more cotton in it than a 100% cotton shirt.

Sir Joseph said:

I won't say here which one is more right than the other

Click to expand...

I will - the Catholic Church

Sir Joseph said:

That's like saying a 50/50 cotton/poly shirt has more cotton in it than a 100% cotton shirt.

Click to expand...

That is where you have it wrong because the Catholic Church teaches 100% from the Bible and also 100% from Tradition.

Coming from the Lutheran tradition, Dr. Luther once wrote about what are called the seven marks of the Church.

1. The Church possesses the word of God, that is, the Holy Scriptures and the Gospel. The Church receives, confesses, believes, and teaches what is in Holy Scripture and proclaims the precious and Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ.

2. The Church practices the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, through Holy Baptism in the Name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit people are born anew by the power of God's grace, through the Spirit, and receive faith by which to trust in Christ and know God in Christ.

3. The Church practices the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or Holy Eucharist, where she receives the body and blood of Jesus Christ in, with, and under the bread and wine.

4. The Church has the Holy Office of the Keys, through which she has been entrusted by her Lord the retaining and remittance of sins, through the Sacrament of Holy Confession and Absolution.

5. The Church ordains persons to the Holy Ministry to exercise the Office of the Keys; that is to say--the Church has pastors who serve to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments.

6. The Church is to be recognized as where there is prayer, praise, thanksgiving rendered to God through the Divine Service/Holy Liturgy/the Mass.

7. The Church is to be recognized as bearing the suffering and hardship of the Cross, for the people of God shall endure hardships in this world as they are called to bear and carry the cross of discipleship.

-CryptoLutheran

Daniel Carlton said:

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.

Click to expand...

I hear "biblical" and "acceptable" as meaning two quite different things.

In some sense, of course, almost all churches give importance to the Bible, so almost all churches are "biblical" churches in that way.

But when I hear a church describe itself as a "biblical church" (I've also heard the similar phrase "New Testament church"), it suggests to me a church that bases itself on the Bible to the exclusion of many other things. In that church, the Bible is much more important than, say, Christian Tradition or secular scholarship.

This is not the same as what I would mean if I said that a church was "acceptable", in the sense of being a place that I could be happy joining, where I could worship and serve God and thrive in my Christian faith.

Are you asking about what would make a church "acceptable" to me, to consider joining and worshipping in that church?

Sir Joseph said:

Really?

Protestant churches in general derive doctrine only from the Bible, whereas Catholics churches derive their doctrine from the Bible AND church tradition.

I won't say here which one is more right than the other, but it's irrational to claim that the latter is more Biblical than the former. That's like saying a 50/50 cotton/poly shirt has more cotton in it than a 100% cotton shirt.

Click to expand...

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