What is a “Bible believing Church”?

[stilllearning]

I catch myself all the time, advising people to find a “Bible believing Church”, and the other day, someone asked me.......

"I thought all Churches believed the Bible. What is a Bible believing Church?"

Here is my answer.
--------------------------------------------------
What it comes down to is, the difference between a Church’s profession and their practice.

A Church may profess to be a “Bible believing Church”, but the things they do, will determine if they really are.

There are so many examples of this, it is difficult of point out just a few. (But here goes.)

Any Church, that doesn’t baptize by immersion: (Is not a Bible believing Church!)
Any Church, that baptizes infants: (Is not a Bible believing Church!)
Any Church, that has a woman pastor: (Is not a Bible believing Church!)

Now, some may call these “bold” statements, but they really aren’t.
(Because the Bible clearly teaches that water baptism, is by immersion only!)
(Also, the Bible nowhere condones, the practice of infant baptism!) Not one time.
(And the Bible, makes it very clear, that a woman is forbidden, to pastor a Church!)
--------------------------------------------------
Now I know, that countless millions of people, attend Churches that practice one of more of these things:
But does that make it right?!?!

This is the main point of this post.
"Does popular opinion, overrule the plain teaching of God’s Word?"


My advice to these people, is if your going to believe and follow “the Bible”, than do it.

 

[Beth]

Bible believing church

I use the same expression as well. I take it to mean find a church in which the pastor teaches directly from the Bible, not from another teaching, like a catechism or other books.

 

[Jarthur001]

I catch myself all the time, advising people to find a “Bible believing Church”, and the other day, someone asked me.......

"I thought all Churches believed the Bible. What is a Bible believing Church?"

Here is my answer.
--------------------------------------------------
What it comes down to is, the difference between a Church’s profession and their practice.

A Church may profess to be a “Bible believing Church”, but the things they do, will determine if they really are.

There are so many examples of this, it is difficult of point out just a few. (But here goes.)

Any Church, that doesn’t baptize by immersion: (Is not a Bible believing Church!)
Any Church, that baptizes infants: (Is not a Bible believing Church!)
Any Church, that has a woman pastor: (Is not a Bible believing Church!)

Now, some may call these “bold” statements, but they really aren’t.
(Because the Bible clearly teaches that water baptism, is by immersion only!)
(Also, the Bible nowhere condones, the practice of infant baptism!) Not one time.
(And the Bible, makes it very clear, that a woman is forbidden, to pastor a Church!)
--------------------------------------------------
Now I know, that countless millions of people, attend Churches that practice one of more of these things:
But does that make it right?!?!

This is the main point of this post.
"Does popular opinion, overrule the plain teaching of God’s Word?"


My advice to these people, is if your going to believe and follow “the Bible”, than do it.

This phrase comes from the fundamentalist movement. It has nothing to do with what you said above. Those groups will try to back their views from the Bible. I do not agree with their views, but nonetheless, many are "Bible Believing" believers.

"Bible believing" means you hold to the authority, inerrancy and Infallibility words of scripture as true and unchanging. It means you take all the words of the Bible as from God and not man made.

 

[Jarthur001]

I use the same expression as well. I take it to mean find a church in which the pastor teaches directly from the Bible, not from another teaching, like a catechism or other books.

Not so.

Many "Bible believers" use catechism or creeds. The word creed means "believe", so you have a creed even if it is not in writing. Its the same as a statement of faith found in all churches.

The catechism and creeds i have read are based on the Bible.

 

[David Lamb]

This phrase comes from the fundamentalist movement. It has nothing to do with what you said above. Those groups will try to back their views from the Bible. I do not agree with their views, but nonetheless, many are "Bible Believing" believers.

"Bible believing" means you hold to the authority, inerrancy and Infallibility words of scripture as true and unchanging. It means you take all the words of the Bible as from God and not man made.

I don't understand, Jarthur. (I am sure it is my fault, not yours! ). If the phrase "bible-believing" means holding to the authority, inerrancy and infallibility of God's Word, how can it have "nothing to do with" the examples stilllearning gave?

 

[StefanM]

I don't understand, Jarthur. (I am sure it is my fault, not yours! ). If the phrase "bible-believing" means holding to the authority, inerrancy and infallibility of God's Word, how can it have "nothing to do with" the examples stilllearning gave?

Perhaps because one can have a correct view of the fundamentals while misinterpreting the secondary issues? That's what I'd think.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I agree with jarthur in the main on this one.

Any Church, that doesn’t baptize by immersion: (Is not a Bible believing Church!)

False. Many PCA, OPC, FPC (Free Presbyterian) are properly called Bible-believing because of their unswerving commitment to Sola Scriptura. Such a broad over-generalization is schismatic at best.

Any Church, that baptizes infants: (Is not a Bible believing Church!)

Same as above.

Any Church, that has a woman pastor: (Is not a Bible believing Church!)

Again, same as above. These statements are way too general. The fact is, churches with female elders tend to be very liberal in other areas as well, including the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. They may, or may not, be bible-believing. If they do adhere to Sola Scriptura, then they are bible-believing, albeith in error in regards to eldership.

 

[David Lamb]

Perhaps because one can have a correct view of the fundamentals while misinterpreting the secondary issues? That's what I'd think.

I see that, but there are many groupings within "Christendom" that do not even claim to seek to order their beliefs (whether "fundamental" or "secondary") and worship on the Word of God alone. If you look through a thread like Apostolic-era infant baptism you will find examples of this.

 

[David Lamb]

I agree with jarthur in the main on this one.



False. Many PCA, OPC, FPC (Free Presbyterian) are properly called Bible-believing because of their unswerving commitment to Sola Scriptura. Such a broad over-generalization is schismatic at best.



Same as above.




Again, same as above. These statements are way too general. The fact is, churches with female elders tend to be very liberal in other areas as well, including the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. They may, or may not, be bible-believing. If they do adhere to Sola Scriptura, then they are bible-believing, albeith in error in regards to eldership.

Now I have a better idea of what Jarthur intended, I agree, too.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Now I have a better idea of what Jarthur intended, I agree, too.

Amen brother. I think its a matter of how one defines Bible-believing. I don't think it should be defined on doctrinal distinctions but on the doctrine of the Scriptures. Does this sound correct brother?

 

[stilllearning]

Hi Jarthur001


You may be right, when you said.......

“Many "Bible believers" use catechism or creeds. The word creed means "believe", so you have a creed even if it is not in writing. It’s the same as a statement of faith found in all churches.
The catechism and creeds i have read are based on the Bible.”

But I have a problem, with things that are called, “Bible based”;
(Especially when it is taught from behind the pulpit.)

When we start accepting things that are “Bible based”, this is a subtle way, of getting us away from the Bible itself.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Hi Jarthur001


You may be right, when you said.......


But I have a problem, with things that are called, “Bible based”;
(Especially when it is taught from behind the pulpit.)

When we start accepting things that are “Bible based”, this is a subtle way, of getting us away from the Bible itself.

Is your statement here, "When we start accepting.." also a subtle way of getting us away from the Bible itself? For, it is itself not the text of Scripture. Consider the following:

This ancient document is the most excellent epitome of the things most surely believed among us. It is not issued as an authoritative rule or code of faith, whereby you may be fettered, but as a means of edification in righteousness. It is an excellent, though not inspired, expression of the teaching of those Holy Scriptures by which all confessions are to be measured. We hold to the humbling truths of God's sovereign grace in the salvation of lost sinners. Salvation is through Christ alone and by faith alone."
C. H. Spurgeon

He was referring to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. Doesn't sound like it got him away from the Bible itself at all.

 

[rdwhite]

Amen brother. I think its a matter of how one defines Bible-believing. I don't think it should be defined on doctrinal distinctions but on the doctrine of the Scriptures. Does this sound correct brother?

Amen, Amen...Bible believing is in reference to final authority in matters of faith and practice. Among Bible believers are disagreements of how scripture should be interpreted and applied.

 

[Revmitchell]

Not so.

Many "Bible believers" use catechism or creeds. The word creed means "believe", so you have a creed even if it is not in writing. Its the same as a statement of faith found in all churches.

The catechism and creeds i have read are based on the Bible.

These "creeds" as you put it are simply an expression of what is found in scripture. They are not the authority.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

These "creeds" as you put it are simply an expression of what is found in scripture. They are not the authority.

I don't think jarthur would say they are. But I love creeds. They are awesome.

 

[Jarthur001]

Hi Jarthur001

Good to meet you.

But I have a problem, with things that are called, “Bible based”;
(Especially when it is taught from behind the pulpit.)

I understand, but please consider this.

Theology of any kind is one step away from the Bible. We call ourselves Baptist and people know right away pretty much what we believe. Yet the Baptist faith is a group of doctrines, all based on the Bible. These doctrines that make us Baptist, are not set just in one place of the Bible. We need to pull verses from all the books to set doctrine. When you group verses, you have made a system of thought. We call this Systematic Theology. This too is one step away from the Bible.

Systematic Theology is fine to have, such as the Baptist faith, because this means we don't have to go into detail each time we talk with someone. If we did, this is all we would do. When I say I'm a Calvinist right then people have a good idea what I believe.

Like you may go to a non-believer and say...I am a Christian.
They may say...ok..I know what a Christian is. You guys have a leader called a pope and you pray to a lady called Mary. That is not the case. Therefore we have systems of faith (we call our system Baptist) which helps people understand who we are.

The "Baptist faith" means there are doctrines that ALL Baptist agree on. Then we have added lables...Free will Baptist......or Reformed Baptist which tells us a lot more about who we are.

These labels carry with them thought system...which is a creed of sorts placed within one or two words. All of this is BASED on the Bible, but is not the Bible. We hold to the Baptist faith because we have study the Word of God and believe the Baptist faith is pure to Gods word.

The same is that case with written creed. Those that believe in that creed have studied the creed and know it is backed by the Bible. It is backed in their eyes that is. The creed is not authoritative, but is based on what we say is the authority the Bible. This creed allows those that hold to the creed to answer when asked what they believe..."I hold to the LBC of 1689". The LBC of 1689 is not their Bible...but it sums up their faith. If the creed and the Bible does not line up, we change the creed and never the Bible.

The doctrine of the trinity is another system of thought. We pull from many verse to back the doctrine. We believe the doctrine is true for it is based on the Bible. But being that the doctrine is not contained fully in one passage, it is systematic theology. All systematic theology even the doctrine of the trinity is one step away from the Bible. BUT...it is based on the Bible

 

[Jarthur001]

These "creeds" as you put it are simply an expression of what is found in scripture. They are not the authority.

I agree.

 

[MB]

A Bible believing Church is one that holds to scripture for it's teachings and excludes the theories of men. They take scripture literally and follows it's teachings as exactly as they are able. There are very few indeed that are truly Bible believing.

Catechism's and denominations are thought up by men and have no authority. They simply are not inspired by God as is His Word.
MB

 

[stilllearning]

Hello again Jarthur001


Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Jarthur001]

A Bible believing Church is one that holds to scripture for it's teachings and excludes the theories of men. They take scripture literally and follows it's teachings as exactly as they are able. There are very few indeed that are truly Bible believing.

Catechism's and denominations are thought up by men and have no authority. They simply are not inspired by God as is His Word.
MB

I agree. But they can still be used.

Most songs are not the Bible, but we use them, because they are based on the Bible