What do people mean: Bible Based Church

[QueenCat]

I'm trying to understand, both here and irl, what people mean when they say their church is "Bible based" or they are looking for a "Bible based" church. I can't imagine anyone thinking their church isn't Bible based.

[Starr]

Many of the terms used in the church world have different meanings to different people. It is good to clear things up if you're discussing something particular. Have fun. :D

[Garga]

It implies that the church believes the bible is the literal word of God.

 

Some churches believe the bible is more allegorical than literal. They would not be "bible based." Yes, they believe in God and do follow the bible, but when you say "bible based", you're inferring that people believe it literally and as the final authority.

 

Some churches have other writings that hold as much weight as the bible in how they live their lives. Those might not be considered "bible based" since the bible isn't the only authority.

 

You're right that no one is going to say, "My church isn't bible based!" but when someone says they're looking for a bible based church, they probably mean a church that believes the bible is inerrant and literal.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Garga

[Sophia]

Well, if there's anything I've learned from this board it's that not everyone is operating on the same definitions.

 

So when I hear bible based, I think it means the Bible is accepted as the word of God and it means what it says. If the Bible says the world was created in six days, then it was created in six days. I do know other bible believing Christians who disagree with that.

 

So, I think you really have to ask for clarification on what bible based means (to the individual) and get ready to hear several different answers.

[milovany]

It implies that the church believes the bible is the literal word of God ... You're right that no one is going to say, "My church isn't bible based!" but when someone says they're looking for a bible based church, they probably mean a church that believes the bible is inerrant and literal.

 

:iagree:

 

And I also think it means that they're adherents to the doctrine of sola scriptura -- that not only is the Bible the inerrant written word of God, but that it's the only revelation of God that we have.

 

For comparison, other churches -- namely Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic -- believe that Scripture is just one of many Holy Traditions handed down by the apostles and early church; that the sacraments, the festal cycle, the rules/times of fasting, the lives of the saints, the liturgies, etc. are also a way God has revealed Himself to us and are on equal par with the Scripture (and as a related belief, that these things do not contradict the written word of God).

Edited October 21, 2010 by milovaný

[ktgrok]

:iagree: Yup, I believe that the church traditions predate the Bible. That the New Testament is based on the church, not the church on the new testament.

 

:iagree:

 

And I also think it means that they're adherents to the doctrine of sola scriptura -- that not only is the Bible the inerrant written word of God, but that it's the only revelation of God that we have.

 

For comparison, other churches -- namely Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic -- believe that Scripture is just one of many Holy Traditions handed down by the apostles and early church; that the sacraments, the festal cycle, the rules/times of fasting, the lives of the saints, the liturgies, etc. are also a way God has revealed Himself to us and are on equal par with the Scripture (and as a related belief, that these things do not contradict the written word of God).

[TravelingChris]

I will tell you what I mean- the teaching in the church is based on the Bible. There have been churches I visited and churches where friends of mine have visited where something else is more important- political ideas, pop psychology, whatever. I think those churches always have a view of the Bible is a nice set of moral stories. So the churches I attend or join have preaching directly tied to the Bible. The theme can come from outside the Bible but the teaching comes from the Bible. We are old earthers.

[ktgrok]

That makes sense. Yes, I've been to churches where the "sermon" was little more than a political advertisement. Yuck. Or where it was all just a pep talk that had nothing to do with the Bible. also yuck.

 

I expect the sermon to tie in with the reading for that day!

 

Katie

 

I will tell you what I mean- the teaching in the church is based on the Bible. There have been churches I visited and churches where friends of mine have visited where something else is more important- political ideas, pop psychology, whatever. I think those churches always have a view of the Bible is a nice set of moral stories. So the churches I attend or join have preaching directly tied to the Bible. The theme can come from outside the Bible but the teaching comes from the Bible. We are old earthers.

[angela in ohio]

I will tell you what I mean- the teaching in the church is based on the Bible. There have been churches I visited and churches where friends of mine have visited where something else is more important- political ideas, pop psychology, whatever. I think those churches always have a view of the Bible is a nice set of moral stories. So the churches I attend or join have preaching directly tied to the Bible. The theme can come from outside the Bible but the teaching comes from the Bible. We are old earthers.

 

Yes, this. Less motivational speaker, more Biblical passages examined and applied. :D

[mytwomonkeys]

i'll be honest. that term gets on my nerves. so does the term "spirit filled". imho, it insinuates "we" are the real deal, as if other churches are not. my sister-in-law always references these types of terms, and her basis is whether or not people are shouting and dancing in the aisles. through her eyes, our church is not bible based or spirit filled. (not to imply that all others using these terms define them in the same regard)...just expressing my experience. it just doesn't sit well with me.

[Chris in VA]

It's funny, because as Episcopalians, we preach from the Bible each and every Sunday. We are liturgical and have 3 readings from the Bible, covering almost the entire thing every 3 years, using the Common Lectionary (some E churches use a different lectionary, but still cover the Bible in 3 years).

Yet, when I hear Bible-based Church, I tend to think of a non-denom or very conservative denom church, not a mainline (Presby, Episcopal, Lutheran, Cath).

 

Defining terms is a great practice.

[Laurie4b]

The terms can be used as descriptive terms. Whether or not they are judgmental comes from the person using them.

[QueenCat]

i'll be honest. that term gets on my nerves. so does the term "spirit filled". imho, it insinuates "we" are the real deal, as if other churches are not. my sister-in-law always references these types of terms, and her basis is whether or not people are shouting and dancing in the aisles. through her eyes, our church is not bible based or spirit filled. (not to imply that all others using these terms define them in the same regard)...just expressing my experience. it just doesn't sit well with me.

 

That's kind of why I asked. I find it an odd term. And sometimes used in an offensive way.

[QueenCat]

It's funny, because as Episcopalians, we preach from the Bible each and every Sunday. We are liturgical and have 3 readings from the Bible, covering almost the entire thing every 3 years, using the Common Lectionary (some E churches use a different lectionary, but still cover the Bible in 3 years).

Yet, when I hear Bible-based Church, I tend to think of a non-denom or very conservative denom church, not a mainline (Presby, Episcopal, Lutheran, Cath).

 

Defining terms is a great practice.

 

We go to an United Methodist Church. Sermons are always biblically based. I've heard people, not knowing where I go, list UMC as one of several (usually, they include most of the ones you mentioned above) they think are not biblically based, and all I can think is "what?".

[mytwomonkeys]

That's kind of why I asked. I find it an odd term. And sometimes used in an offensive way.

 

yes. that has been my experience as well. it really bothers me because i believe in the Bible, literally. we aren't liberal & we don't rearrange the Word of God to meet our lifestyle. rather, my husband and I apply it to our lives in ways that most people find incredibly conservative and radical. to simply assume my church isn't bible based or spirit filled based on the fact that it's of the methodist denomination is judgmental of my SIL. she has never even visited our church, and her brother (my husband) is the worship pastor. it really hurts his feelings.

 

my experience goes beyond my SIL. i have encountered this attitude on several occasions. i don't understand it.

[ma23peas]

We go to an United Methodist Church. Sermons are always biblically based. I've heard people, not knowing where I go, list UMC as one of several (usually, they include most of the ones you mentioned above) they think are not biblically based, and all I can think is "what?".

 

I sometimes say "Bible teaching" church...I have dear friends who are methodist ministers....this is not ALL methodist churches but of the 7 or 8 I've attended they will pick out 1-2 verses and build a discussion around it...they never have their Bible with them as they're speaking and flip back and forth with supportive scripture. I love a Bible teaching church because I want to get INTO the word not just get opinion out of the word....so by taking Proverbs 3:5-6 and tying it in with scripture from specific events in biblical history and then showing how Paul was tested in his ability to trust in God in x,y,z...I feel like I'm getting a bigger picture...

 

Both are perfectly acceptable, I just prefer to have a church that uses more scripture. I liken it to a literature study...some may take one aspect of a chapter and talk about allegory/character development..or you could take allegory and find 10-12 places in the book where it supports that...I just prefer more referencing to the Bible...simply reading passages of the Bible and not 'teaching' is another style perfectly acceptable, I just prefer digging deeper than what I can do on my own at home.

 

Tara

[unsinkable]

:lurk5:

[Gwenhwyfar]

anytime that i've heard the term used, the person speaking was referring to a very small, VERY conservative type of (protestant) church where the members believed in a word-for-word literal interpretation of the bible.

 

(i'm just saying how i've HEARD it used)

[Daisy]

We attend what we would call a Bible-based church and it covers much of what has already been said.

 

The Bible is the only divine revelation from God (sola scriptura).

The Bible is without error.

The Bible is to be taken literally. (The virgin birth actually happened. Jesus actually rose from the dead. Rarely does this include debate over minor areas of Scripture such as creation and eschatology.)

The Bible is preached line by line on Sunday mornings (No pop psychology on how you can have a better life now. You are going to hear Scripture.)

 

We don't use the term Bible-based though. We just say sola Scriptura.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Daisy

[6packofun]

Yes, this is how I understand the term, too. I'd like the sermon or teaching to overflow from the Scriptures that we're covering that Sunday, not a Christian living topic with some verses thrown in to back up the pastor's points. The latter *can* be effective, but that method can contribute to taking verses out of context, incorrect application, and it sort of discourages personal study (at least for me, but not ALL the time) because there are verses plucked from here and there around a topic rather than a single passage within the surrounding context. KWIM? There is nothing wrong with topical studies, but I prefer that we mostly go through the Word of God systematically. I like that our pastor feels one of his major roles is helping us all to be students of the Word.

[Barry Goldwater]

We attend what we would call a Bible-based church and it covers much of what has already been said.

 

The Bible is the only divine revelation from God (sola scriptura).

The Bible is without error.

The Bible is to be taken literally. (The virgin birth actually happened. Jesus actually rose from the dead. Rarely does this include debate over minor areas of Scripture such as creation and eschatology.)

The Bible is preached line by line on Sunday mornings (No pop psychology on how you can have a better life now. You are going to hear Scripture.)

 

We don't use the term Bible-based though. We just say sola Scriptura.

:iagree:

 

We left our church to begin attending a 'Bible' church about 3 yrs ago. The most obvious difference is a 'systematic' study, line-by-line preaching of the Scripture. To some the worship services might feel "academic" or rigorous. For me, it has been exactly what I needed at that point in my life, PTL!

 

It is NOT to say that churches that don't practice this style are any 'less' Christian, far from it. I believe the Lord has continually led us both by geography and by circumstance to the exact corporate worshipping location that was appropriate for us and for His will at any given time.

[QueenCat]

The Bible is preached line by line on Sunday mornings (No pop psychology on how you can have a better life now. You are going to hear Scripture.)

 

We don't use the term Bible-based though. We just say sola Scriptura.

 

Daisy,

First, please know that my intent is not meant to be snarky or sarcastic. I'm really trying to understand what you mean, and having a hard time putting in to words my thoughts.

I used the term "bible based" because I've met people who are new to our area, who mentioned they were searching for a "Bible based" church.

I'm a little confused by your comment "the Bible is preached line by line". Does that mean the preacher reads the Bible without discussing what it means? I like hearing a passage or chapter, listening to the background from when it was written, and how we can learn from it to live our life for Christ. Some may call that "pop psychology", I call it "learning from God's Word". Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. I don't think I'd like hearing a strict reading from the Bible without any explanation as to what it means. Granted, one person's interpretation isn't always the same as the next person's....

Thanks,

Cathie

[Grace Academy]

yes. that has been my experience as well. it really bothers me because i believe in the Bible, literally. we aren't liberal & we don't rearrange the Word of God to meet our lifestyle. rather, my husband and I apply it to our lives in ways that most people find incredibly conservative and radical. to simply assume my church isn't bible based or spirit filled based on the fact that it's of the methodist denomination is judgmental of my SIL. she has never even visited our church, and her brother (my husband) is the worship pastor. it really hurts his feelings.

 

my experience goes beyond my SIL. i have encountered this attitude on several occasions. i don't understand it.

 

Well, your SIL is missing out. I think it is insane to be so afraid to learn how other people worship.

[lionfamily1999]

I sometimes say "Bible teaching" church...I have dear friends who are methodist ministers....this is not ALL methodist churches but of the 7 or 8 I've attended they will pick out 1-2 verses and build a discussion around it...they never have their Bible with them as they're speaking and flip back and forth with supportive scripture. I love a Bible teaching church because I want to get INTO the word not just get opinion out of the word....so by taking Proverbs 3:5-6 and tying it in with scripture from specific events in biblical history and then showing how Paul was tested in his ability to trust in God in x,y,z...I feel like I'm getting a bigger picture...

 

Both are perfectly acceptable, I just prefer to have a church that uses more scripture. I liken it to a literature study...some may take one aspect of a chapter and talk about allegory/character development..or you could take allegory and find 10-12 places in the book where it supports that...I just prefer more referencing to the Bible...simply reading passages of the Bible and not 'teaching' is another style perfectly acceptable, I just prefer digging deeper than what I can do on my own at home.

 

Tara

We're Baptist, our old pastor was VERY Bible based. 90% of his sermon was straight out of the Bible, 10% was explanation or comparison to modern day situations. So, you would have the "lesson" scripture, then there would be a TON of scripture supporting and explaining it and somewhere in the middle he would relate it to today. With him, I felt like I was getting a very biblically sound lesson.

 

Our sub-pastor (iykwIm) is more inclined to choose a few verses and then spend the rest of the time with amusing anecdotes that relate back. I don't find this type of preaching very spiritually fulfilling.

We attend what we would call a Bible-based church and it covers much of what has already been said.

 

The Bible is the only divine revelation from God (sola scriptura).

The Bible is without error.

The Bible is to be taken literally. (The virgin birth actually happened. Jesus actually rose from the dead. Rarely does this include debate over minor areas of Scripture such as creation and eschatology.)

The Bible is preached line by line on Sunday mornings (No pop psychology on how you can have a better life now. You are going to hear Scripture.)

 

We don't use the term Bible-based though. We just say sola Scriptura.

I asked my Bible study leader about sola Scriptura and he had no idea what I was talking about :lol:, but we do call ourselves 'Bible based.'

Daisy,

First, please know that my intent is not meant to be snarky or sarcastic. I'm really trying to understand what you mean, and having a hard time putting in to words my thoughts.

I used the term "bible based" because I've met people who are new to our area, who mentioned they were searching for a "Bible based" church.

I'm a little confused by your comment "the Bible is preached line by line". Does that mean the preacher reads the Bible without discussing what it means? I like hearing a passage or chapter, listening to the background from when it was written, and how we can learn from it to live our life for Christ. Some may call that "pop psychology", I call it "learning from God's Word". Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. I don't think I'd like hearing a strict reading from the Bible without any explanation as to what it means. Granted, one person's interpretation isn't always the same as the next person's....

Thanks,

Cathie

It means that the sermon revolves around scripture. For instance, a preacher preaching on stewardship can find zillions of examples in both the Old and New Testaments. Rather than relying on anecdotes for additional examples or clarity they rely on the Bible itself.

 

It doesn't mean there is no comparison to today, just that the reliance is more on the Bible.

[simka2]

Just gonna dive bomb this thread for a second. I am terrified of MOST "bible-based" churches and here's why...

 

For me there is a huge problem with linking a verse from Genesis, to a verse from Malachi, to say a verse from Matthew and then finally as bookend one from 1st Corinthians. The heart, purpose, cultures, language used and unique situations are so vastly different. What is meant to show a continual stream of thought, actually becomes a distortion. It sews scriptures together to say something the original author(s) may have never intended it to say.

 

My prefrence is a portion of scripture, couched in context, then coorelations draw between that context and our present context, leading to practical application.

 

I don't like it when ministers use various verses to bolster one conclusion...the exception being if they contextualize every individulized verse.

[mytwomonkeys]

Well, your SIL is missing out. I think it is insane to be so afraid to learn how other people worship.

 

thank you. i couldn't agree with you more.

[hana]

You're right that no one is going to say, "My church isn't bible based!" but when someone says they're looking for a bible based church, they probably mean a church that believes the bible is inerrant and literal.

 

Well, I'm going to say it--my church (UU) isn't Bible-based.

[lionfamily1999]

Between myself and Simka we're good examples of why there is such diversity in Christianity. What works for one does not work for another and what may seem like a slight for one is a compliment for the other.

[simka2]

Between myself and Simka we're good examples of why there is such diversity in Christianity. What works for one does not work for another and what may seem like a slight for one is a compliment for the other.

:iagree:Well said ;)!

[thowell]

Just gonna dive bomb this thread for a second. I am terrified of MOST "bible-based" churches and here's why...

 

For me there is a huge problem with linking a verse from Genesis, to a verse from Malachi, to say a verse from Matthew and then finally as bookend one from 1st Corinthians. The heart, purpose, cultures, language used and unique situations are so vastly different. What is meant to show a continual stream of thought, actually becomes a distortion. It sews scriptures together to say something the original author(s) may have never intended it to say.

 

My prefrence is a portion of scripture, couched in context, then coorelations draw between that context and our present context, leading to practical application.

 

I don't like it when ministers use various verses to bolster one conclusion...the exception being if they contextualize every individulized verse.

 

 

Just a question.. I can somewhat understand what you are saying and it required me to stop and think about this for awhile. If the scriptures aren't related then do you not agree that many of the scripture in the Old Testament was actually a picture of Christ to come? I am just wondering your thought on this. For example when I was trying to get through Leviticus (hardest book for me to read) my Pastor told me to read it as a picture of Christ and I have to say it made a huge difference.

[simka2]

Just a question.. I can somewhat understand what you are saying and it required me to stop and think about this for awhile. If the scriptures aren't related then do you not agree that many of the scripture in the Old Testament was actually a picture of Christ to come? I am just wondering your thought on this. For example when I was trying to get through Leviticus (hardest book for me to read) my Pastor told me to read it as a picture of Christ and I have to say it made a huge difference.

 

Actually, I do, but that takes scripture out of the "literal" and into the "prohpetic."

 

I was more coming from the "literal" and "life application" side of things. When you move into the prophetic your reading with an entirely different lens...so to speak ;) I hope that makes some sense!!!!

 

I should add that I do think they have relation and meaning to each other. I just don't think you can piece together support for a specific belife or practice....without doing ground work into all the verses being used. KWIM?

Edited October 22, 2010 by simka2
adding thought

[thowell]

Ok, Let me see if I get this. If you can read say something in the Old Testament like Leviticus, and see it as a prophetic reading then that is not the same as taking the Bible as a literal text?? Our Pastor has always said we believe the Bible in a literal tense. In the way that we believe the things in the Bible are real and really happened as it is written. I know some believe they are just stories. So can you have both? Please know that I have only come back to God in the last few years after being in a rebellious state for awhile. I am a work in progress and sometimes have a hard time understanding all the lingo that people use to describe how and what they believe.

[QueenCat]

My prefrence is a portion of scripture, couched in context, then coorelations draw between that context and our present context, leading to practical application.

 

I don't like it when ministers use various verses to bolster one conclusion...the exception being if they contextualize every individulized verse.

 

:iagree: This is exactly how I feel, and I do believe this is biblically based.

[simka2]

Ok, Let me see if I get this. If you can read say something in the Old Testament like Leviticus, and see it as a prophetic reading then that is not the same as taking the Bible as a literal text?? Our Pastor has always said we believe the Bible in a literal tense. In the way that we believe the things in the Bible are real and really happened as it is written. I know some believe they are just stories. So can you have both? Please know that I have only come back to God in the last few years after being in a rebellious state for awhile. I am a work in progress and sometimes have a hard time understanding all the lingo that people use to describe how and what they believe.

 

No prob! Others here may be able to answer this a bit better..I have had alot of cold medicine :D

First off...I think your Pastor is spot on! But maybe we need to discuss the term "literal." Do we take it "literally" in it's english language as we have it, or do we take it literally as it was written in its original languages. A good study bible will actually mark where these translation changes have taken place.

 

My issue is "linking" verses from vastly different cultures, and in essence taking them out of their context to prove a specific point. The bible covers a huge span of time, cultures, influences and situations.

 

If the verses in Leviticus do not literally say they are proffesying about Jesus, aren't we making the leap from the literal meaning of leviticus, to a prophetic meaning? I think both are wonderful!

[ktgrok]

see to e thats a bible study, not a sermon. I think of them differently. Personal preference I suppose.

 

 

I sometimes say "Bible teaching" church...I have dear friends who are methodist ministers....this is not ALL methodist churches but of the 7 or 8 I've attended they will pick out 1-2 verses and build a discussion around it...they never have their Bible with them as they're speaking and flip back and forth with supportive scripture. I love a Bible teaching church because I want to get INTO the word not just get opinion out of the word....so by taking Proverbs 3:5-6 and tying it in with scripture from specific events in biblical history and then showing how Paul was tested in his ability to trust in God in x,y,z...I feel like I'm getting a bigger picture...

 

Both are perfectly acceptable, I just prefer to have a church that uses more scripture. I liken it to a literature study...some may take one aspect of a chapter and talk about allegory/character development..or you could take allegory and find 10-12 places in the book where it supports that...I just prefer more referencing to the Bible...simply reading passages of the Bible and not 'teaching' is another style perfectly acceptable, I just prefer digging deeper than what I can do on my own at home.

 

Tara

[Garga]

 

You're right that no one is going to say, "My church isn't bible based!"

 

Well, I'm going to say it--my church (UU) isn't Bible-based.

 

:lol::lol: You got me!

 

But seriously, I was referring to denominations that do follow the bible, yet wouldn't have the label "bible based." (See the other posters for examples of what isn't thought of as "bible based.")

[TravelingChris]

Well I guess my version of Bible based isn't what some people believe is Bible based. I have never attended a pentecostal type church, not that it can't be for others but just saying it isn't in my definition of Bible Based. I have also attended Methodist churches that were Bible based. I have also visited Methodist churches in other areas and they weren't what I called Bible based. In my view, the preacher chooses a Bible text, then expands on it. He may have a theme which helps him choose a text for the week. Often this is a sermon series with different texts in different weeks. Not always are the texts one after another. Sometimes they are. Typical series include Living a Spiritful Life or New Beginnings or God's Mercy in our Lives (as far as I remember, these weren't particular themes anyone has did in the churches I have attended but these titles seem typical).

 

Now I will go into more deeply what I consider non Biblically based. In these churches, there will be a reading and then there will be a sermon that has nothing to do with the reading and often nothing to do with the Bible either. One particularly memorable one I attended had a reading I don't remember but then a discourse on tv shows and Sandanista rebels and liberation theology. It was very confused and not relevant at all. Another one included some reading, then Jesus loved the poor so we should enact certain legislation and elect certain people. By pop psychology, I am talking about sermons which are based on psychological theories with barely any mention of the Bible at all. I am not referring to sermons which discuss the Bible at length and then proceed to talk about applications for our lives. That seems not only relevant but helpful. But long rants on our country's political process or foreign policy are not.

[QueenCat]

Now I will go into more deeply what I consider non Biblically based. In these churches, there will be a reading and then there will be a sermon that has nothing to do with the reading and often nothing to do with the Bible either. One particularly memorable one I attended had a reading I don't remember but then a discourse on tv shows and Sandanista rebels and liberation theology. It was very confused and not relevant at all. Another one included some reading, then Jesus loved the poor so we should enact certain legislation and elect certain people. By pop psychology, I am talking about sermons which are based on psychological theories with barely any mention of the Bible at all. I am not referring to sermons which discuss the Bible at length and then proceed to talk about applications for our lives. That seems not only relevant but helpful. But long rants on our country's political process or foreign policy are not.

 

Your definition of pop psychology makes sense to me. I've never heard a preacher rant on politics, thank goodness!

[Barry Goldwater]

see to e thats a bible study, not a sermon. I think of them differently. Personal preference I suppose.

 

Yes, DW has made the same comment...at least about OUR church, and I can't argue with that...as I said, to me the worship has a very academic or scholarly feel...We took over 3 months to go through the book of I Peter :tongue_smilie: (it's not that long of a book!) But I personally have really benefited from this preaching style and approach. I understand clearly that it is not for everyone, and that doesn't make them a bad or weak Christian...this style might not be for ME in 10 years...seasons of life and all that...but because I started attending this church I've experienced a renewal of interest and discipline in pursuing in-depth Bible study on my own on a daily basis, which was missing before.

[Onceuponatime]

Just gonna dive bomb this thread for a second. I am terrified of MOST "bible-based" churches and here's why...

 

For me there is a huge problem with linking a verse from Genesis, to a verse from Malachi, to say a verse from Matthew and then finally as bookend one from 1st Corinthians. The heart, purpose, cultures, language used and unique situations are so vastly different. What is meant to show a continual stream of thought, actually becomes a distortion. It sews scriptures together to say something the original author(s) may have never intended it to say.

 

My prefrence is a portion of scripture, couched in context, then coorelations draw between that context and our present context, leading to practical application.

 

I don't like it when ministers use various verses to bolster one conclusion...the exception being if they contextualize every individulized verse.

 

This is how I have come to think about Bible lessons lately because I've been delving into Biblical History. I prefer to camp on one spot in scripture and study the context and original intent, if possible.

 

May I ask what kind of church you attend?

[weaver_67579]

i'll be honest. that term gets on my nerves. so does the term "spirit filled". imho, it insinuates "we" are the real deal, as if other churches are not. my sister-in-law always references these types of terms, and her basis is whether or not people are shouting and dancing in the aisles. through her eyes, our church is not bible based or spirit filled. (not to imply that all others using these terms define them in the same regard)...just expressing my experience. it just doesn't sit well with me.

 

to others not just like them. In fact, IRL I have never heard anyone say it without that insulting tone and meaning.

[unsinkable]

Well I guess my version of Bible based isn't what some people believe is Bible based. I have never attended a pentecostal type church, not that it can't be for others but just saying it isn't in my definition of Bible Based. I have also attended Methodist churches that were Bible based. I have also visited Methodist churches in other areas and they weren't what I called Bible based. In my view, the preacher chooses a Bible text, then expands on it. He may have a theme which helps him choose a text for the week. Often this is a sermon series with different texts in different weeks. Not always are the texts one after another. Sometimes they are. Typical series include Living a Spiritful Life or New Beginnings or God's Mercy in our Lives (as far as I remember, these weren't particular themes anyone has did in the churches I have attended but these titles seem typical).

 

Now I will go into more deeply what I consider non Biblically based. In these churches, there will be a reading and then there will be a sermon that has nothing to do with the reading and often nothing to do with the Bible either. One particularly memorable one I attended had a reading I don't remember but then a discourse on tv shows and Sandanista rebels and liberation theology. It was very confused and not relevant at all. Another one included some reading, then Jesus loved the poor so we should enact certain legislation and elect certain people. By pop psychology, I am talking about sermons which are based on psychological theories with barely any mention of the Bible at all. I am not referring to sermons which discuss the Bible at length and then proceed to talk about applications for our lives. That seems not only relevant but helpful. But long rants on our country's political process or foreign policy are not.

 

Hey, what Catholic Church were you at when you heard this?!?!

 

:bigear:

 

:lol:

 

ETA: All kidding aside: We NEVER hear candidates names. The parishes I attend Mass at are very careful to NOT use anyone's name but to talk about qualities of candidates that align with our teaching.

Edited October 22, 2010 by unsinkable

[hana]

:lol::lol: You got me!

 

But seriously, I was referring to denominations that do follow the bible, yet wouldn't have the label "bible based." (See the other posters for examples of what isn't thought of as "bible based.")

 

 

:) Yes, this has been an interesting thread! For a traditional Christian church, it seems divisive to say Bible-based or not-Bible-based, when it really seems to be a matter of degree.

[simka2]

This is how I have come to think about Bible lessons lately because I've been delving into Biblical History. I prefer to camp on one spot in scripture and study the context and original intent, if possible.

 

May I ask what kind of church you attend?

 

I am at a non-denominational church, led by a mature (aged) man, with his doctorate.

 

After our last church it was important to me that our pastor have his doctorate. That was not the only quality we looked for, but it was a non-negotiable for me ;)!

[Parrothead]

to others not just like them. In fact, IRL I have never heard anyone say it without that insulting tone and meaning.

Me, too.

 

If I ever decide to change from Catholic to Protestant, you can be sure I'll not step foot into a so-called Bible-based church.

[Parrothead]

Hey, what Catholic Church were you at when you heard this?!?!

 

:bigear:

 

:lol:

 

ETA: All kidding aside: We NEVER hear candidates names. The parishes I attend Mass at are very careful to NOT use anyone's name but to talk about qualities of candidates that align with our teaching.

Hey! That is a time honored tradition in the Catholic church. You know how we Catholics feel about tradition. Or is that Tradition. :lol: