What is Biblical Christianity?

[Sakari]

As a very fresh member on the forums, I think I am allowed this kind of silly question. I'm only little by little getting to know what sort of topics are discussed and what sort of replies are given. The term Biblical Christianity emerges frequently, or something indirectly related to it, like Dave's questions of the type "Is X Biblical?"

Please, don't take this post as being of Catholic nature because I don't intend it as such. I'm just curious to know what lies behind the American sense of Biblical Christianity. Most of you seem to be from the US or Canada, and I'm pretty sure that the religious atmosphere there is entirely different from what it is in northern Europe.

Of course, we use the same term. That's what most of us are, Lutherans, and which other denomination could by definition be more Biblical? However, we don't really (or would it be safer to say that I don't) regard ourselves as Biblical in a restrictive sense of the term. I mean, for us it doesn't mean something like "just the word of the Bible and no further."

An example may clarify my point: Would a person still be considered a Biblical Christian if s/he is a Protestant but would show penchant for the Deuterocanonical books which were dropped from the Protestant Old Testament?

Another example: Would it be considered most un-Biblical to speculate on additional meanings behind the Bible's word? I mean, other than explain scripture with scripture.

Yours,
Sakari

 

[Sakari]

I took the liberty to paste Tina's subsequent question for me into this thread. It is from Is the Pope your Father?, under End Times/Bible Prophecy.

Maybe you can share with us why you do not see yourself as Biblical.
Is your Lutheran denomination following practices that do not conform with the Bible ?

The whole question of why I don't see myself as Biblical needs some clarification. I would truly appreciate if American forum members told me first their view of what Biblical Christianity involves. Maybe there's some confusion of terms on my side. Maybe I tend to take the word Biblical too literally. Tina gave me a hint earlier when she wrote this,

A Biblical Christian is one who follows the teachings of the Bible pertaining to salvation and Christian living.

but... umm... doesn't this apply to all Christians?

Anyway, we do in fact have practices that don't conform with the letter of the Bible. Women priests is an issue that causes division.

Argh. At this stage I regret I took up the whole thing at all. Maybe this is totally irrelevant for the forums and a subject that I shouldn't be worrying. Thanks for your patience. :ohwell

 

[Tina]

.

The whole question of why I don't see myself as Biblical needs some clarification. I would truly appreciate if American forum members told me first their view of what Biblical Christianity involves.

I'm not American .... so I shall respond later ..... much much later ....... :halo .....

.

 

[Adullam]

Biblical Christianity is not about beliefs. It is about new life in Christ. Christianity (as opposed to churchianity) is of a different order than the world. It is of a divine order. The order of law is for the transgressing carnal man. The order of grace is the power of the resurrected life which is subject to a higher law. Early Christians called this way "the WAY." The power of the gospel is such that a man who lives in darkness and bondage is made free to follow Christ in Spirit and truth. Biblical Christianity is the anecdote to sin and lawlessness. It is both death and life simultaneously. We allow the death to work in our lives and ways so that Christ can shine through us.

Modern churchianity does not do this. Bringing the ecclesiastical leaven into the divine order with it's temporal worldly attachments has spoiled the whole loaf. People now seek the salvation of the old man...his redemption...who is condemned to die through the gospel. So moderns are at "cross" purposes with biblical Christianity.

Biblical Christianity involves coming out of the world and it's ways...to follow the Master in the Spirit. This is the highway to holiness that was prophesied in Isaiah

"A highway shall be there, and a road, and it shall be called the Highway of Holiness. The unclean shall not pass over it, but it shall be for others. Whoever walks the road, although a fool, shall not go astray."

 

[handy]

To me, Biblical Christianity means that the Bible is fully inspired by the Holy Spirit and is the final arbitrator on which doctrines the church will hold to. If there is not a strong case to be made within the Scriptures, then a doctrine or practice would fall into the category of perhaps a tradition or an area of personal liberty.

If a church holds that the Bible isn't the final arbitrator, then to my mind they do not fall under the category of "Biblical Christianity". That isn't to say that I believe that such a church isn't Christian, not at all, just that the church allows doctrines or practices that aren't based soundly upon Scripture.

Take for instance the Roman Catholic Church. In Catholic Encyclopedia, this is written regarding the Bible:

The Bible, as the inspired recorded of revelation, contains the word of God; that is, it contains those revealed truths which the Holy Ghost wishes to be transmitted in writing. However, all revealed truths are not contained in the Bible (see TRADITION); neither is every truth in the Bible revealed, if by revelation is meant the manifestation of hidden truths which could not other be known.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm

The RCC recognizes truths that are not contained within the Scriptures. It is this recognition of things that are not contained within the scriptures that wouldn't fall under what I mean when I say "Biblical Christianity".

The Evangelical Lutheran Church here in America views the Scriptures as inspired as well, but it teaches that one must place things in "historical context". This understanding of "historical context" is how the church has moved into areas of ordianing women and homosexual pastors, not because the bible states things to the contrary, but because they believe that those prohibitions were for a certain place and time and not applicable for today. They also believe that, while the Bible is inspired, it contains errors and contradictions. So, it's these beliefs that cause me to not have the opinion that the ELCA practices "Biblical Christianity".

Again, this isn't to say that I don't believe that Catholics or Lutherans are not Christians. I personally know, love and fellowship with some truly strong Christians who are Catholic or Lutheran. Both churches preach Christ crucified, died, buried and raised again for the remission of the sins of man. They certainly are Christian, but their views of the Bible do not line up with what I mean when I say "Biblical Christianity".

 

[Free]

Biblical Christianity is not about beliefs. It is about new life in Christ.

And who is Jesus?

 

[justvisiting]

I agree pretty much with what "Handy" said.
Some of the key doctrines of Christianity (to be Biblical) are:
I do not believe in Universalism...all men will be Saved...just because they believe in A God.

Jesus is the ONLY way.
Act 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
Act 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

All men sin
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
I don't think the totally innocent will be judged though...as a child that is without knowledge.

The Resurrection
1Co 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
1Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

The Godhood of Christ and thus the power to redeem
1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
As for some of the particulars of what sin IS...Romans 1 clarifies it very well.
Other than those... I think I could probably get along with most, although I would have to see the specifics, also.
As for doctrines that differ...I still consider doctrine important. I do not agree with many of the things Catholics or others might teach. ie. Mary worship...Pope as final authority...Purgatory...penance, indulgences. etc.

SCRIPTURE COMES FROM GOD
Finally ...the key thing ...as stated...is that the scripture itself...IS the final authority...for men of God wrote as they were inspired or lead of THE HOLY SPIRIT.
I still have some friends that differ slightly...but there are some lines that I will draw.. as stated with key doctrines.

 

[Sakari]

Thank you all for your wise answers. You really have thrown light into the question.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church here in America views the Scriptures as inspired as well, but it teaches that one must place things in "historical context". This understanding of "historical context" is how the church has moved into areas of ordianing women and homosexual pastors, not because the bible states things to the contrary, but because they believe that those prohibitions were for a certain place and time and not applicable for today. They also believe that, while the Bible is inspired, it contains errors and contradictions. So, it's these beliefs that cause me to not have the opinion that the ELCA practices "Biblical Christianity".

Right. This is precisely how it is in our local Evangelical Lutheran Church. The obvious danger in this kind of teaching is that who can decide what parts of Scripture would be viewed as not applicable for today. Not applicable! The longer the list of non-applicables grows, the farther away from Christianity we move.

Again, this isn't to say that I don't believe that Catholics or Lutherans are not Christians. I personally know, love and fellowship with some truly strong Christians who are Catholic or Lutheran. Both churches preach Christ crucified, died, buried and raised again for the remission of the sins of man. They certainly are Christian, but their views of the Bible do not line up with what I mean when I say "Biblical Christianity".

I tend to agree, albeit I said above something like "... and which other denomination could by definition be more Biblical." This reflects the way things were in Luther's own day.

I'm not American .... so I shall respond later ..... much much later ....... :halo .....

My bad. I should have said "other forum members". For some reason, when I'm thinking of the Christian world outside of Europe, my mind automatically flies to the US, notwithstanding I've never been there. This must be because we have had numerous documentaries on our TV about religious life in the US. (It is different from ours, that's for sure.)

 

[Tina]

.

An example may clarify my point: Would a person still be considered a Biblical Christian if s/he is a Protestant but would show penchant for the Deuterocanonical books which were dropped from the Protestant Old Testament?

Does your Lutheran denomination consider the Deuterocanonical books as inspired scriptures ?


.

 

[VenomFangX]

Many people perhaps feel inspired but most of the time it is due to psychology of the mind and not spiritual intervention.

were dropped from the Protestant Old Testament?

Dropping books as you suggested is like putting those books in a compiled order in the first place as the council of Nicea did with our current bible, This is a human activity and nothing to do with the Lord.
yours
ÒõýþüäðýóÖ

 

[Sakari]

Does your Lutheran denomination consider the Deuterocanonical books as inspired scriptures ?

Oh no. We follow Luther's suggestion to consider these books as "useful to read", but not inspired. In this, I think, we are no different from other protestant denominations.

 

[Sakari]

Dropping books as you suggested is like putting those books in a compiled order in the first place as the council of Nicea did with our current bible, This is a human activity and nothing to do with the Lord.

The canon of the New Testament developed over time. Maybe you are right in saying that it was human activity. Anyway, during the first three or four centuries, it was not at all an easy task to decide what to include and what to leave out.

By the way Òõýþü, you quoted me within Tina's quote, she is not to be blamed ;)

 

[TheCatholic]

....As for doctrines that differ...I still consider doctrine important. I do not agree with many of the things Catholics or others might teach. ie. Mary worship...Pope as final authority...Purgatory...penance, indulgences. etc. .....

We do not "worship" Mary

As for the rest, I will gladly debate you in the debate forum