"Bible beleiving Church"


Hypothetical situation:

A man goes to a local “rock” concert he reads about in the local newspaper. He is an avid music fan and although the bands advertised are “Christian” bands, he decides to give it a chance anyway. The man is basically agnostic and has no family roots in any organized religion.
Anyway, during the concert and preaching in between sets, the man has a deep conversion experience after hearing the Gospel for the first time. You could say “he got saved”. He responds to the alter call at the end of the concert and publicaly professes faith in Christ and accepts him as personal savior.
Now this is where it gets interesting. The concert is now ending and the preacher tells the new Christians to go out and find a “bible believing” church in order to take the next step in their new walk with Christ.

He immediately begins reading the bible and within the first week or two visit’s a handful of churches in his local area. After reading through scripture a question arises in his mind about Baptism. He wonders if he should have his two small children baptized.
He asks each pastor at the local churches he visits . The Lutheran ,Methodist and Catholic pastors say “Yes” (Baptism is regenerative) while the Baptist and Nondenominational pastors say “No” (Baptism symbolic; only for adult believers). Both groups use scripture to support views. He also brings up other topics such as predestination, end times prophecy and assurance of salvation . He gets many differing answers.

What qualifies a church to be a “bible believing church“?
Can all Christian churches regardless of doctrine claim this title? If the answer is no, what is the specific measure we use to determine it?

Sorry for the long story, I have heard this phrase used before and was hoping someone could explain it.



I think that when the non-catholic churches claim to be “bible believing”, what they are really claiming is that they believe “scripture alone” as their final authority to teach salvation.
If the teachings of another church contradicts what that “bible believing” church believes the bible to be teaching, then the other teachings would be be deemed either unbiblical, or up for debate if it was not considered to be essential for salvation.

Most protestant churches believe in scripture alone as their sole rule of faith, that is having authority over the believer, with the traditions and the writings of the church fathers being helpful for insight to scripture, but if those resources contradict their interpretation of scripture, then they are not to be believed.

While the Catholic church believes in scripture and the church with its sacred traditions and teaching magisterium all having authority over the believer.

So with the Catholic church being a “bible believing” church, we believe that we look to the church for the correct understanding of what is written within the bible, the bible is inerrant and infallible, and the church is infallible in its teaching of what is held within scripture in matters of faith and morals.




Just stick with the one that gave us the Bible in the first place, the Catholic Church, and you will be OK


The very phrase “Bible-believing” implies the WHOLE of Scripture, does it not?

There is only one Church which is consistent with the whole and that is the Catholic Church. Others magnify aspects to the detriment of others, some (Word of Faith for example) take ONE VERSE and build a cult around it.

A good way to find out which is which is to simply ask them to explain James 2. It’s a good fault line because James inveighs against those who claim to believe and yet do nothing, a variation of Christ’s criticism of the Pharisees’ empty faith.

Those who distort Scripture to suit their latter day theology have to dismiss, discount, or warp this passage to do so.

They are, after all, “either/or” Christians.

Catholics are “both/and” Christians, and see Scripture as a whole.

We prefer the box set to the “greatest hits” approach to the Bible, in other words.


By their fruits they are known. Bible study which produces or propagates heresy is a bad thing. In fact, as St. Augustine noted, ’ heresies have not arisen except when the good Scriptures were not well understood, and what was not well understood in them was rashly and boldly asserted.’ Through Luther, although Calvin seems to have been the first to announce monobiblicism clearly, the Bible became the arm of the Protestant revolt. A dumb and difficult book was substituted for the living voice of the Church, in order that each one should be able to make for himself the religion which suited his feelings. And the Bible open before every literate man and woman to interpret for themselves was the attractive bait used to win adherents. Not the solid rock of truth but the shifting sand of private interpretation is the foundation on which Protestantism was built.

1 Timothy 2:4 - The clearest anti-Calvinistic text in the NT.


Just to clarify, I believe you’re using “dumb” above as “mute”, not as “stupid”, right?


Heh heh heh! :stuck_out_tongue: Ain’t that the question!

Excluding cults from consideration, the bottom line from the Protestant perspective is that humans do not now and never will know the complete Truth this side of heaven. No person can be certain that his interpretation of the Bible is 100% accurate. So, it doesn’t matter if you’re a Lutheran or a Baptist or an XYZ or an ABC. They are all “Bible believing churches.” Theoretically Catholic Churches are included, but Protestants usually pretend that Catholics don’t exist. Even granting that the Catholics have the “Truth” that eludes Protestants (and I think it’s a fair conclusion) it would be wrong to say Protestants don’t have “Bible churches.” The Bible is their entire source of faith, so in a very literal sense all Protestant flavors as well as the Catholic Church, both, are “Bible churches.” And the Orthodox too – we shouldn’t exclude them.

More narrowly however, “Bible churches” are a denomination unto themselves. It’s another name for “non-denominational church,” and such church will either be Baptist or mildly Pentecostal in its traditions and teachings. Chuck Swindoll, the former president of Dallas Theological Seminary, pastors a “Bible church” in Texas.

That’s the Protestant perspective. On the other side the Catholics’ claim to having an objective measuring rod for declaring truth is pretty good and should be given serious consideration. Unfortunately few Protestants ever bother to look into it.


Which bible version???:D…Sorry, someone would have said it if I didn’t…


Over the years I have met more than a few folks looking for “a Bible believing” church and what I have observed is that such a church is pretty strictly a matter of individual discernment. Those churches usually exist only in the very subjective judgement of each individual.
One person’s “Bible believing church” is rarely the same as anyone else’s. The minute they disagree with something the minister preaches, many of them are off hunting for a “true” “Bible believing” church.:shrug:


Exactly! Interpretation of words . . . interpretation of words!



The Quakers and the Salvation Army do not baptize at all while Presbyterians baptized infants but do not believe it is regenerative. Finally, there are some non-denoms who will simply do whatever the parents want (baptize, present, whatever) because doctrine isn’t really all that important any way.


They may all be Bible believing churches (although with the state the UMC and the Catholic churches are in, I’d be alittle skeptical).

I’m a strong believer in credobaptism, as I believe that’s what the Bible teaches. However, it isn’t one of those doctrines defined in scripture as an essential, so I wouldn’t quibble over it.

I’m much more concerned that the man and his children are born again and I believe that, once that takes place, the baptism issue will straighten itself out.

On the other hand, it’s also important to note that “Bible believing” doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re correct. After all, Mormons claim they believe the Bible and even Catholics would admit that they’re not correct.


That’s very true.
This begs the quesstion, how does one know that their interpretation is the correcet one, and it begs an even bigger question, how did Christianity even get the bible in the first place.

I have yet to see an evangelical honestly answer these questions in light of the facts of history.


For me the Church is its members. To be “Bible-believing” people must first surely read the Bible as a complete book (or set of books). And it does sadden me that many Catholics do not make reading the bible part of their daily life. As a community I don’t think Catholics can yet claim to be Bible-believing because, as yet, many are not even Bible-reading. This is a protestant practice that our Church could learn from (and often does; it’s good to see One-Year Catholic Bibles now appearing).


What state is the Catholic Church in?

Essential doctrine? Where is that list in the Bible of essential and non-essential doctrines? The front? The back?

Amen…unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Is Interpretation of Scripture supposed to be by ones personal judgement?


I would like to see Pastor Jim’s answer to this question:


In regard to it’s submission to the Bible, it’s a mess.

Essential doctrine? Where is that list in the Bible of essential and non-essential doctrines? The front? The back?

Come, now. You’re too modest! As a Catholic, of course you already know the verses that define such things as the nature of God, the nature of man, the means of salvation, etc, as essentials.

Amen…unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Agreed. Be born again and then when and where to be baptised with work itself out.

Is Interpretation of Scripture supposed to be by ones personal judgement?

Well, the Bible does tell us to study the scriptures and rightly divide the word of truth.


Because of Dan-Boy’s personal attacks against me in two other threads, he’s on my ignore list and I won’t be responding to his questions.


So where does it say in Scripture to have Scripture as Authority alone?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.