- When they state what they think it is, you won't find any believers accepting that definition either.
Yes, that is mainly true, but there are outliers among those whom profess to be Christians, whom at times do seem to shut out far too much else, including but not limited to -- the testimonies of others, including from persons throughout Church history.
Yet many of the teachers and preachers whom I myself have encountered do not limit themselves to "bible" only, even when or if they call themselves a "bible church", resulting in myself encountering a great amount of agreement among a wide array of other-than-Roman Catholic churches, and pastors.
Of all of those whom could be looked upon, or declare themselves to be "bible believing" churches, and pastors also, there are those whom; eschew much of any sort of ongoing "revelation" (being wary of the many frauds down through the centuries whom have claimed mysticism & Gnosis), and those whom go too much to the other extreme (relying on "inspiration"), while there are also those whom often enough do appear to myself to be in something of a goldilocks zone of 'just right', or close enough for government work, as that saying goes.;^')
The critics we face here, exclude the middle, thinking only those of their own ecclesiastical community stand a snowball's chance of finding that "middle", the not too hot, and not too cold, warm enough to not be lukewarm, though not so hot to scream as if their hair was on fire.
Speaking of which (and Big Hair, you know who I'm talking about) too much all in one place can be hazardous?
Applying s.s, all Tradition, teaching & experience of others --- is not set fully aside, but instead weighed and measured comparatively, by the Scriptures themselves.
The ceaseless efforts by some here against that principle (if I fairly enough described it, myself --- there is better and more complete wording for how the principle should function) are in effort to assert sola ecclesia instead, while claiming "they" are still in the middle of "just right", yet measuring that by nothing other than their own selves. How convenient...
In the early Church, when there were thorny controversies, and none could claim singular 'authority' over another, the way we can examine the records now as for who was wrong, and who was more correct in comparison --- is judged, is determined by --- what else other than the Scriptures themselves? ...for that is how the majority more often than not reached majority consensus in the first place.
Not only is the guiding principle of s.s (among a gathering of principles to be put into application) in the Scripture, but was utilized by the early Church also (!). I mean, how plain does it have to be?
If one needs convoluted, read-between-the-lines edgewise sort of interpretations, layered one upon another, and cannot otherwise find whatever it is which is being doctrinally constructed, or justified after the fact -- and runs into too much Scripture which refutes the doctrinal position (which can flow from mere "custom", not to be confused with more well-founded Tradition), and early church customs & traditions also do not provide enough support for doctrinal positions -- something is wrong with the doctrines, particularly when one is asserting that ALL of the doctrine was as passed down by the Apostles.
One RC trick is to assert that they alone can "discover" or have new revelation, with one of those discoveries having been the accumulated theological baggage associated with the papacy itself.
One of the FRomans here continues to speak of others positions as "wrong from the beginning" thus poisoned fruit --- so nothing which follows can be any good, yet cannot seem to turn their own standards of judgement and measurement towards their own ecclesiastical community. But then you've noticed that sort of restful-heart action, I'm sure. ;^')
The Great Commission empowered the Church to preach the Gospel. Not something else, nor extend that authority yet further, and force persons to kiss other persons feet because of the Gospel. (washing others feet is another story...)
It's how we all judge church assemblies. Are they preaching the Word of God? Are they preaching Him crucified for the sins of many? Is it preached that the sacrifice of Christ enough to restore us to place of relationship with the Almighty God, the Creator? Is it stressed that He will respond to those whom call upon His name? Are the persons there being positively fed, and grow? Do they practice the Gospel, treating friends and strangers both --- peacefully, as much as possible? (there is a time for not sitting around passively taking abuse and injury, just as there is a time to put up with a great deal).
- Turn turn turn The Byrds
Thank you for your reply, and your continuing patience with myself and others.