NothingIsImpossible
Well-Known Member
Well the pastor does offer his advice on some things. But he doesn't force people to accept his views. He leaves it between God and the person if they don't like what they hear.
Upvote
0
Albion
Facilitator
And that's not something I want to denounce. But the question here asked which denomination is closest to the Biblical model. It certainly is NOT "do whatever you think best and believe whatever you are convinced is right." The Apostolic church was very definite about what it believed.
Upvote
0
NothingIsImpossible
Well-Known Member
Well our church is direct bible teaching. In other words the bible says not have sex before marriage, so its what they teach. Try to dress modestly at church, like don't show up in a tank top and small skirt.
Upvote
0
Albion
Facilitator
'Direct Bible teaching' would involve taking a stand on many other issues, however, and non-denominational congregations characteristically avoid taking those stands. Many non-denoms affirm a belief in Jesus as the Son of God, the Bible as the rule of faith, something about Baptism and the Lord's Supper, Salvation by grace...and little more than that. The rest is either what the pastor thinks or what the people in the congregation decide for themselves.
Upvote
0
Reader Antonius
Lector et Didascalus
- Nov 26, 2007
- 1,639
- 400
- 34
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-American-Solidarity
Wow! Talk about a loaded question. But it is a good one.
First of all, it depends what you mean by "Biblical." What does that mean to you? For example, does it mean that the denomination attempts to "construct" Christianity based solely on what's in the Bible? Does it mean that the Bible is the final say in the denomination's theology? Does it mean that the Bible is upheld and/or at least not contradicted by the denomination?
How you answer that affects what you seek.
I will give you my experience. I was raised Baptist and was a very devout young Baptist at that. I firmly believed that the Baptist tradition was the most Biblical form of Christianity (which was why I followed it). By that, I meant that the Baptists (in my church, which had semi-Calvinist leanings) matched most closely in their theology what I read in the Bible.
It never dawned on me however that my reading of the Bible was influenced strongly by what I had received from that church. It also never dawned on me that the way I was using the Bible may not itself be a Biblical precept or way of doing things.
When I became Catholic, my perspective changed slightly. I still believe that the Catholic Church fits most closely all of the Biblical data, both in the sense that the Bible is best explained from a Catholic doctrinal perspective and that nothing in Catholic theology contradicts Biblical teaching. Yet, I now understood that the idea that our Christianity must be constructed from the Bible alone is not either a Biblical idea or anything like what was believed for the first 1,500 years of Christian history. I understood the role of Apostolic Tradition and the teaching authority of a living, hierarchical church. All of which I also found in Scripture. So there became a kind of three-way source for my beliefs...and it remains so to this day.
But as I said, I believe Catholicism most closely synthesizes and explains Biblical revelation. I just don't believe that the Biblical revelation is the only revelation anymore.
Hope that makes some semblance of sense and is helpful.
First of all, it depends what you mean by "Biblical." What does that mean to you? For example, does it mean that the denomination attempts to "construct" Christianity based solely on what's in the Bible? Does it mean that the Bible is the final say in the denomination's theology? Does it mean that the Bible is upheld and/or at least not contradicted by the denomination?
How you answer that affects what you seek.
I will give you my experience. I was raised Baptist and was a very devout young Baptist at that. I firmly believed that the Baptist tradition was the most Biblical form of Christianity (which was why I followed it). By that, I meant that the Baptists (in my church, which had semi-Calvinist leanings) matched most closely in their theology what I read in the Bible.
It never dawned on me however that my reading of the Bible was influenced strongly by what I had received from that church. It also never dawned on me that the way I was using the Bible may not itself be a Biblical precept or way of doing things.
When I became Catholic, my perspective changed slightly. I still believe that the Catholic Church fits most closely all of the Biblical data, both in the sense that the Bible is best explained from a Catholic doctrinal perspective and that nothing in Catholic theology contradicts Biblical teaching. Yet, I now understood that the idea that our Christianity must be constructed from the Bible alone is not either a Biblical idea or anything like what was believed for the first 1,500 years of Christian history. I understood the role of Apostolic Tradition and the teaching authority of a living, hierarchical church. All of which I also found in Scripture. So there became a kind of three-way source for my beliefs...and it remains so to this day.
But as I said, I believe Catholicism most closely synthesizes and explains Biblical revelation. I just don't believe that the Biblical revelation is the only revelation anymore.
Hope that makes some semblance of sense and is helpful.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
