What is "Bible Church" supposed to mean?

[redleghunter]

I really think there's a huge difference between arguing over a doctrine like justification, and whether or not you believe an ancient bronze age story from a pre-scientific age is historically factual.

Justification is directly linked to the bodily resurrection of Christ right?

 

[redleghunter]

A lot of the DTS-affiliated churches in the Dallas area back in the 80s when I was attending one for a while, were called Bible Fellowship churches. But two big ones now are Schofield (as in C. I. Schofield, the dispensationalist) Memorial Church, and Chuck Swindoll's Stonebriar Community Church.

Schofield church has been around since 1877.

 

[Love &Forgiveness]

Which is simply another false dichotomy. Just where do you get your definition of your Jesus? Did He personally appear to you? Why do you even believe in the Nicene Creed?

Which argument employs another logical fallacy a well as an error of ignorance. As regards the former, the fact that someone is given the word of God, but does not apprehend it, simply does not impugn at the least the necessity and efficacy of it. One can have access life-saving medicine, but unless they take it then they can die.

As regards your factual error, the Jews who Jews memorized the entire Law did believe in God, (Acts 26:7) as even demons do, but not unto salvation, since they do not believe all He said. Of course, if one rejects Scripture, then they can just dismiss what it says about anyone.

And the soothsayer Joseph Smith also claimed to see Jesus, the Father and the Son, as well as converse with Moses, Elias and Elijah. The point is that visions alone are not determintive of what is valid, and while some people in the past as well as the present can believe on the Lord Jesus via a dream or vision, such subjective experiences are subject to testing by the established authority, which the Christ of Scripture attested to.

The fact is that apart from Scripture, the Christ you believe in could be anything or anyone.

But which is also a false either/or dichotomy, for the fact that faith is given to us from God is simply not opposed to faith coming from the word of God, and of Scripture assuredly being the word of God. God also gives food, however, He usually uses a delivery service of types.

Who said anything about being earned? That is simply a strawman which flows from your previous false either/or dichotomy.

Which contradicts your previous statement on the Bible, "I know we don't need it." Now it is true that God could even appear in the clouds to every nation and declare, "I am God almighty, and I am going to show you how I want things to be done from now on," and zap Hollywood studios (among other things and people).

However, this is not anything like how God works as a norm (but remember Sodom).
For while God expressly revealed Himself to a very limited few and His will in a very limited scope, yet when He chose to reveal His will to an entire nation then He preserved it in writing, which is His manifest means of preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Ps. 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Lk. 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)

And as is abundantly evidenced, the "word of God/the Lord" was normally written, even if subsequent to to being spoken, and as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme substantive standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

Indeed. However, the ones who preached to them were those to whom the Lord, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." "that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures." (Luke 24:44-45) (Luke 24:27)

And thus the Christ they believed in was not some abstract deity, but one whose message of His identity and work flowed out of Scripture, and thus the Gentiles converts were immediately schooled in Scripture as able, "Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," (Romans 1:2) "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Romans 16:26)

They are not simply personal testimonies about Jesus in their lives, but also of public declarations about Himself and His will, preserved by inspired-of-God writing, and as such the transcendent supreme substantive standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims.

In contrast, you are elevating subjective experiences of God above the objective established supreme transcendent substantive testimony of Scripture, to which the Christ of Scripture appealed to as being so. The former certainly is indispensable, for Scripture promises it, but they are not the supreme standard on Truth.

1 Corinthians 8:1-3 NLT
Now regarding your question about food that has been offered to idols. Yes, we know that "we all have knowledge" about this issue. But while knowledge makes us feel important, it is love that strengthens the church. [2] Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn't really know very much. [3] But the person who loves God is the one whom God recognizes.

 

[marineimaging]

Finally wiki'd this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_church

Not a big surprise.

Ditto.

Surprise, surprise. Sounds basically like a generic type of evangelicalism.

This aspect reminds me of Calvary Chapel, tbh.

This was actually a bit of new information, at least for me. It's logical, I admit, but I hadn't really thought much about it.

As a general thing, it sounds like the average "Bible church" could otherwise fit relatively comfortably inside the Southern Baptist Convention or among the Calvary Chapel types. Why they don't join those organizations is a bit of a mystery. Apart from hipster non-denominational snob appeal, I mean.

My personal experience with "Bible church" types comes from ages and ages ago. The members seemed to think the Southern Baptists were "too liberal".

Not all. We simply do not follow the SBC because they do not speak for us. We teach and follow the bible because it is the inerrant word of God, sufficient and perfect for the eternal salvation of believers. We keep our services local and germane to our community needs as well. But with the Bible comes the direction of the Holy Spirit and that leads us to understand God's word and what we are supposed to do in relation to each other , our neighbors, and to the world as a whole.

 

[Jipsah]

I don't think the Bible is "full of errors" but it does contain things that are just flat-out impossible, such as the claim that the earth does not move.

The Bible, not being a science text, couches things in terms of the viewer's perspective, just as we do in normal conversation. We speak of the sun going up and down because it appears to, not because we think it's orbiting the earth.

But when we unpack the text from its historical context, with Jesus as a Galilean peasant surrounded by crops, it is useful as a metaphor for telling us about the power of faith.

Precisely. And to try to make it into an engineering tome makes for uniformly ridiculous results.

 

[Jipsah]

I think you are explaining some form of Pentecostal Church. Not a Bible church.

The difference being?

 

[Jipsah]

Yes it’s becoming clear.

Apparently those aren't real Scotsmen, oh, sorry, real Bible churches. Because in real Bible churches the pastor isn't an adulterer or a burglar or a murderer. So all we have to do is make sure the Bible church we want to make our home isn't run by one of those folks.

 

[Jipsah]

Sounds like so much of decades of Catholic scholarship .

Yes, Biblical scholarship is definitely a Bad Thing.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Love &Forgiveness said: ↑

I'm not against the Bible. I know we don't need it. We only need Jesus.

PeaceByJesus said: ↑

Which is simply another false dichotomy. Just where do you get your definition of your Jesus? Did He personally appear to you? Why do you even believe in the Nicene Creed?

Love &Forgiveness said: ↑ Faith comes by hearing, but the Jews memorized the entire Law and they still didn't believe in God.

PeaceByJesus said: ↑ Which argument employs another logical fallacy a well as an error of ignorance. As regards the former, the fact that someone is given the word of God, but does not apprehend it, simply does not impugn at the least the necessity and efficacy of it. One can have access life-saving medicine, but unless they take it then they can die.

As regards your factual error, the Jews who Jews memorized the entire Law did believe in God, (Acts 26:7) as even demons do, but not unto salvation, since they do not believe all He said. Of course, if one rejects Scripture, then they can just dismiss what it says about anyone.

Love &Forgiveness said: ↑ In the Bible we see people believing in Jesus because of the miracles He did. We see people believe in Him because they saw Him risen, for instance Thomas. We see some believe because of visions.

PeaceByJesus said: ↑ And the soothsayer Joseph Smith also claimed to see Jesus, the Father and the Son, as well as converse with Moses, Elias and Elijah. The point is that visions alone are not determintive of what is valid, and while some people in the past as well as the present can believe on the Lord Jesus via a dream or vision, such subjective experiences are subject to testing by the established authority, which the Christ of Scripture attested to.

The fact is that apart from Scripture, the Christ you believe in could be anything or anyone.

Love &Forgiveness said: ↑ Salvation is accomplished by Faith from start to finish and that Faith is given to us from God.

PeaceByJesus said: ↑ But which is also a false either/or dichotomy, for the fact that faith is given to us from God is simply not opposed to faith coming from the word of God, and of Scripture assuredly being the word of God. God also gives food, however, He usually uses a delivery service of types.

Love &Forgiveness said: ↑ Faith is a gift, not something earned through reading the Bible.

PeaceByJesus said: ↑ Who said anything about being earned? That is simply a strawman which flows from your previous false either/or dichotomy.

Love &Forgiveness said: ↑ Paul used the Scriptures because that is the Word of God and the only way to reach some people, but not the only way to reach all people.

PeaceByJesus said: ↑ Which contradicts your previous statement on the Bible, "I know we don't need it." Now it is true that God could even appear in the clouds to every nation and declare, "I am God almighty, and I am going to show you how I want things to be done from now on," and zap Hollywood studios (among other things and people).

However, this is not anything like how God works as a norm (but remember Sodom).
For while God expressly revealed Himself to a very limited few and His will in a very limited scope, yet when He chose to reveal His will to an entire nation then He preserved it in writing, which is His manifest means of preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Ps. 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Lk. 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)

And as is abundantly evidenced, the "word of God/the Lord" was normally written, even if subsequent to to being spoken, and as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme substantive standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

Love &Forgiveness said: ↑ Most of the people that became believers in Jesus never read the Scripture. They most likely didn't have them.

PeaceByJesus said: ↑ Indeed. However, the ones who preached to them were those to whom the Lord, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." "that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures." (Luke 24:44-45) (Luke 24:27)

And thus the Christ they believed in was not some abstract deity, but one whose message of His identity and work flowed out of Scripture, and thus the Gentiles converts were immediately schooled in Scripture as able, "Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," (Romans 1:2) "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Romans 16:26)

Love &Forgiveness said: ↑ What the Scriptures are is a testimony of God from those who witnessed Him in their lives.

PeaceByJesus said: ↑ They are not simply personal testimonies about Jesus in their lives, but also of public declarations about Himself and His will, preserved by inspired-of-God writing, and as such the transcendent supreme substantive standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims.

In contrast, you are elevating subjective experiences of God above the objective established supreme transcendent substantive testimony of Scripture, to which the Christ of Scripture appealed to as being so. The former certainly is indispensable, for Scripture promises it, but they are not the supreme standard on Truth.

1 Corinthians 8:1-3 NLT
Now regarding your question about food that has been offered to idols. Yes, we know that "we all have knowledge" about this issue. But while knowledge makes us feel important, it is love that strengthens the church. [2] Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn't really know very much. [3] But the person who loves God is the one whom God recognizes.

What non-sequitur is another example of your irrational illogical responses. Here the one who asserts we do not need the Bible invokes the Bible in support of herself, by which she apparently presumes to attack my refutations by relegating them to be what "knowledge" is referring to in the passage, in contrast to her "love."

But of course, besides taking 1 Corinthians 8 out of context, and engaging in another false either/or dichotomy, since just what is loving needs to be defined, and Scripture states that "Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;" (1 Corinthians 13:6) and God's word is truth, which Scripture assuredly is, then it only strengthens my case.

 

[redleghunter]

The difference being?

My point.

 

[redleghunter]

Apparently those aren't real Scotsmen, oh, sorry, real Bible churches. Because in real Bible churches the pastor isn't an adulterer or a burglar or a murderer. So all we have to do is make sure the Bible church we want to make our home isn't run by one of those folks.

I’ll raise your true Scotsmen with a red herring with a side of cold slaw.

 

[FireDragon76]

Justification is directly linked to the bodily resurrection of Christ right?

Since nobody understands how exactly a dead body could live again, walk through walls, appear and disappear instantly (or moreover, how a body ascends into heaven. Are we to believe, as Carl Sagan points out, that this is Jesus' space shot? Is he somewhere in the Milk Way Galaxy?), I think a certain amount of latitude on this is warranted. But otherwise, I take a dim view of the more liberal scholars who say Jesus body was tossed into a pit and that's the end of it.

 

[redleghunter]

Since nobody understands how exactly a dead body could live again, walk through walls, appear and disappear instantly (or moreover, how a body ascends into heaven. Are we to believe, as Carl Sagan points out, that this is Jesus' space shot? Is he somewhere in the Milk Way Galaxy?), I think a certain amount of latitude on this is warranted. But otherwise, I take a dim view of the more liberal scholars who say Jesus body was tossed into a pit and that's the end of it.

It was a basic question. You hold to the scholars of the 19th century. Isn’t the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ linked to our justification?

 

[FireDragon76]

It was a basic question. You hold to the scholars of the 19th century. Isn’t the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ linked to our justification?

What does it mean to "hold to 19th century scholars"? That's not my theological orientation, which is more Neo-Orthodox like Barth or Bonhoeffer. Some of the 19th century critical scholars were overly committed to a rationalistic worldview.

 

[redleghunter]

What does it mean to "hold to 19th century scholars"? That's not my theological orientation, which is more Neo-Orthodox like Barth or Bonhoeffer. Some of the 19th century critical scholars were overly committed to a rationalistic worldview.

The Neo Orthodox were a reaction to the 19th century skepticism. They were actually hand in hand with the Fundamentalists until the mid to late 1920s. Well at least the Presbyterians.

What does any of this have to do with answering if you see the linkage of the bodily resurrection of Christ with justification.

 

[FireDragon76]

What does any of this have to do with answering if you see the linkage of the bodily resurrection of Christ with justification.

We need to clarify what we are discussing. As a Lutheran I believe faith takes hold of God's promises for us, for our salvation. I don't see how the story of Genesis being literal history is essential for our salvation, for instance. However, when we are baptized into the faith, or we are presented with the body and blood of Christ in Holy Communion, justifying faith takes hold of those promises as our own. Lutheranism is therefore fundamentally sacramental, rather than intellectual or notional, in its orientation.

Likewise, I'm willing to grant a variety of interpretations on just what happened in the resurrection of Jesus. I think there are some interpretations of course that aren't acceptable, but generally I do not believe its right to create sharp distinctions using vague words such as "bodily resurrection", potentially prone to being misunderstood, when we don't even know how a previously body could travel through walls, appear and disappear, etc.

 

[redleghunter]

We need to clarify what we are discussing. As a Lutheran I believe faith takes hold of God's promises for us, for our salvation. I don't see how the story of Genesis being literal history is essential for our salvation, for instance. However, when we are baptized into the faith, or we are presented with the body and blood of Christ in Holy Communion, justifying faith takes hold of those promises as our own. Lutheranism is therefore fundamentally sacramental, rather than intellectual or notional, in its orientation.

Likewise, I'm willing to grant a broad variety of interpretations on just what happened in the resurrection of Jesus. I think there are some interpretations of course that aren't acceptable, but generally I do not believe its right to create sharp divisions

I did not mention Genesis but posed a simple orthodox belief from Romans 4:25.

If you don't want to confirm Christ rising from the dead bodily for our justification that's fine. But such is a basic Christian belief which Jesus talked about during His ministry.

 

[FireDragon76]

I did not mention Genesis but posed a simple orthodox belief from Romans 4:25.

If you don't want to confirm Christ rising from the dead bodily for our justification that's fine. But such is a basic Christian belief which Jesus talked about during His ministry.

I believe as the creeds state, that he rose from the dead on the third day. "Bodily resurrection" is something that 20th century fundamentalists used as a litmus test on the faith of others.

 

[Jipsah]

I did offer a definition as in Bible Christians, those who have most strongly affirmed the integrity of Scripture, who attest to the greatest degree of unity with the link showing what they overall attest to in response to survey questions, from which we could define Bible churches in general.

And the definition was itself based on what, exactly? I have to assume that the survey respondents self-identified their churches as "Bible Churches", else the assignment to that category would necessarily have been arbitrary. How did the survey determine which churches "most strongly affirmed the integrity of Scripture"? With a question like "How much do y'all affirm the integrity of Scripture? A - A lot, B - Quite A Bit, C - Some, D - Not Much, E - Not At All"? And these churches "attest to the greatest degree of unity", you say. Unity with whom, and on what points? I'd have liked to see how that conclusion was drawn, and from what data.

It still seems to me that fleeing the and taking refuge in "Bible churches" might not be a particularly shrewd move, as there are, shall we say, fundamental differences in the BCs that should give a conscientious Catholic pause. The first in my mind would be the teaching of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. All Catholics and a great many Protestants believe in it, but almost no Evangelicals do. The question is far from trivial, and most of us who believe in the RP believe that the rejection of that belief is unacceptable. This seems to me a place where the Evangelicals have to do violence to the Scripture to maintain their "memorial only" doctrine intact, and thus belies their "Bible only" claim. The conscious rejection of the ancient creeds of the Church, the rule amongst Baptists and generally true in their descendents and offshoots is also cause for concern. The creeds define the true fundamentals of the faith, and rejecting them for either a truncated version embraced too often because the real creeds are "too Catholic", or accepting de facto creeds created by the leader(s) of a particular congregation, is hazardous on its face. Making up one's own "orthodoxy" on the fly is an open invitation to rediscover ancient heresies and hail them as newfound truth.

On top of all that, if you flee the RCC to escape predators who prey on the faithful, you're likely to find yourself simply choosing a new set of predators. Do you really think sexual abuse is unique to the RCC? Or theft from the Church? Or theft in general? Abuse of children? Even murder? If so, then you're living in a fantasy world. As I point out briefly in a previous post, this same vile behavior takes place in all denominations, sects, cults... and yes, all religions. Thump the Catholics all you like, but look around you a bit, and see if there's not enough depravity to go around happening in every bloody organization where people in positions of trust and authority can abuse those who trust them.

I'm an Anglican. The Church of England has become largely a Church of the Zeitgeist, eager to prove how idiotically open minded they are, and what new perversions they can embrace and how many pernicious and unChristian beliefs they can espouse in the name of "diversity". The Episcopal Church (TEC), is, with the possible exceptions of hold-outs like the Korean Episcopal Church in the US and various backwoods parishes where old gaffers like me hold forth, an even worse snake-pit than the CofE. Should those of us who are still old school Anglicans sign on with some strip-mall "Bible church" where there's no liturgy, no creeds, no solemnity when we take the Body and Blood of our Lord, no mighty hymns, no confession, in short, none of most of the things that constitute worship for us? I'll pass. I'm going to stay in the Anglican faith and fight against the decay.

We may not win, the end is not in our hands. It may be as the Blessed Virgin told King Alfred in Chesterton's poem "The Ballad of the White Horse":

• Men may uproot where worlds begin,
  Or read the name of the nameless sin;
  But if he fail or if he win
  To no good man is told.

• "But you and all the kind of Christ
  Are ignorant and brave,
  And you have wars you hardly win
  And souls you hardly save.
  "I tell you naught for your comfort,
  Yea, naught for your desire,
  Save that the sky grows darker yet
  And the sea rises higher."

 

[redleghunter]

I believe as the creeds state, that he rose from the dead on the third day. "Bodily resurrection" is something that 20th century fundamentalists used as a litmus test on the faith of others.

I will proudly count Justin Martyr as a Fundamentalist then.

Chapter 9. The resurrection of Christ proves that the body rises
If He had no need of the flesh, why did He heal it? And what is most forcible of all, He raised the dead. Why? Was it not to show what the resurrection should be? How then did He raise the dead? Their souls or their bodies? Manifestly both. If the resurrection were only spiritual, it was requisite that He, in raising the dead, should show the body lying apart by itself, and the soul living apart by itself. But now He did not do so, but raised the body, confirming in it the promise of life. Why did He rise in the flesh in which He suffered, unless to show the resurrection of the flesh? And wishing to confirm this, when His disciples did not knowwhether to believe He had truly risen in the body, and were looking upon Him and doubting, He said to them, You have not yet faith, see that it is I; Luke 24:32, etc. and He let them handle Him, and showed them the prints of the nails in His hands. And when they were by every kind of proof persuaded that it was Himself, and in the body, they asked Him to eat with them, that they might thus still more accurately ascertain that He had in verity risen bodily; and He ate honey-comb and fish. And when He had thus shown them that there is truly a resurrection of the flesh, wishing to show them this also, that it is not impossible for flesh to ascend into heaven (as He had said that our dwelling-place is in heaven), He was taken up into heaven while they beheld, Acts 1:9 as He was in the flesh. If, therefore, after all that has been said, any one demand demonstration of the resurrection, he is in no respect different from the Sadducees, since the resurrection of the flesh is the power of God, and, being above all reasoning, is established by faith, and seen in works.
(On the Resurrection, Justin Martyr 100-165 AD)

So Justin Martyr was not 20th century.

Only the Gnostics denied the bodily resurrection of Christ.