What is the most important issue facing the Church today.

[Patriot]

Ultimately, it falls to the individual to read and interpret Scripture with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Icthus]

But who is the policeman? Who is supposed to make the call when two groups hold opposing and contradictory dogmas - trivial or otherwise?

Policemen and judges sort out who is guilty or not guilty.
Who are, on Earth, our policemen and judges?

The spoken and written teachings of the majority of main line Protestant churches is that the Holy Spirit, God Himself, plays this role. He is believed to play this role in the Community of Gather and Scatter Believers.

It is also the belief of most scholars that the sorting out of these issues takes life times.

You will find similar thoughts in the Catholic church as well. You will also find far more latitude of belief in the Catholic church. Most people do not realize the vast differences of doctrine in Catholics across the world.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

The spoken and written teachings of the majority of main line Protestant churches is that the Holy Spirit, God Himself, plays this role. He is believed to play this role in the Community of Gather and Scatter Believers.

I agree. But since God doesn't just come down and say "This is the truth" all the time - and even if He did, people could question Him, just as the Jews did Jesus - most of the time it's left to us imperfect humans to figure out what God has said and what He has not.

In other words, there is a very important human component to Divine Revelation. Any man may say he heard something from the Holy Spirit. But how do you know the Holy Spirit really did speak to him?

Solve this question and I assure you there'll be no more division in Christianity. (By division, I mean doctrinal division - and thereby division in what we consider to be true and false - not cultural.)

You will find similar thoughts in the Catholic church as well. You will also find far more latitude of belief in the Catholic church. Most people do not realize the vast differences of doctrine in Catholics across the world.

If you're referring to the Catholic laity who are at odds with official Catholic teaching, their opinions do not override that of the bishops.

But regardless, you need at least some doctrine that you can all agree on. I mean, we all agree Jesus is the Son of God, He died and rose from the dead, and the Bible is the inspired word of God. I'm glad we all agree at least on that. But what about those who don't? How do you demonstrate to them concretely that your interpretation is correct and theirs is not?

You can't do it by claiming "the holy Spirit inspired" you, because they can claim just the same. I've seen a Mormon and an atheist who claimed there is no God based on Psalm 14:1 do it in each others' faces.

You've got to have some tangible authority - a referee - to make the final call when it's deadlocked like that.

It is also the belief of most scholars that the sorting out of these issues takes life times.

This is true. Nevertheless, it's one of many important issues needing solving.

 

[Tek7@Work]

So if I'm understanding this correctly, you're suggesting Protestant denominations come together and draft an official document or documents on all points of essential doctrine (e.g. Jesus Christ is the son of God, Christ's resurrection, salvation through faith by grace in Christ alone, etc.) they can agree on?

An interesting thought, to be sure.

EDIT: The trouble lies in denominations agreeing on what is essential doctrine.

 

[Wolfeman]

Qualifications for a pastor. It's spelled out pretty clearly in the Bible yet you still have denominations ordaining women and other non qualified individuals. If something as simple as the position of a pastor which is clearly spelled out in the Bible can't be agreed upon, How do you expect to agree on items with less concrete guidelines?

As long as satan continues to spread his lies there will never be peace and unity. Even Jesus said he came to cause division. Finally, the Bible clearly tells us that the ways of a fool are right in their own eyes. No matter how correct you feel you are about a particular position, understand that someone who holds the exact opposite feels they are as correct as you do.

 

[Icthus]

Qualifications for a pastor. It's spelled out pretty clearly in the Bible yet you still have denominations ordaining women and other non qualified individuals. If something as simple as the position of a pastor which is clearly spelled out in the Bible can't be agreed upon, How do you expect to agree on items with less concrete guidelines?

This made me LOL. Mostly because the word pastor never occurs in the New Testament, much less the role defined in the New Testament passages. So to say the Bible is clear on it is humorous to me.

 

[Abba San]

Thank you, Icthus - you beat me to it.

 

[Wolfeman]

Then I'd have to say pompous arrogance and inability to understand the most basic passages of scripture would be the most important issues facing the Church today.

 

[Icthus]

Then I'd have to say pompous arrogance and inability to understand the most basic passages of scripture would be the most important issues facing the Church today.

Nice.

FYI- Abba and I are both currently lead pastors. Each of us serving in very difficult areas in the United States- Northern California and NYC. We both have over 20 years of experience.

This is not a place for the discussion nor is it a place for name calling.

If you have issues don't use a public forum. Either he or I will have the conversation with you via PM- as the most basic Biblical passages instruct us to do. Mt 18:15.

 

[Lloren]

This thread is devolving rapidly. I'd say Icthus to refrain from laughing at others beliefs. The Bible has clear passages about what leaders should look like and laughing at others beliefs isn't among them.

We are here to encourage each other at whatever level of faith you are at. If we can't do that, we'll close it up this thread.

 

[Wolfeman]

I'd say the main problem facing the Church today is that it's forgotten who it supposed to be serving and has turned to serving itself. It has spent too much time bringing the world into it in order to try and attract the world that it's no longer different from the world. It's no longer a light to the world.

 

[Icthus]

This thread is devolving rapidly. I'd say Icthus to refrain from laughing at others beliefs. The Bible has clear passages about what leaders should look like and laughing at others beliefs isn't among them.

We are here to encourage each other at whatever level of faith you are at. If we can't do that, we'll close it up this thread.

To clarify, I was not laughing at his belief. I laughed because this is a complicated issue. If it were not so the church would not be having discussion about it over a two thousand years.

I do apologize openly to any that were offended. My laughter was never at Wolf personally, his beliefs, or his faith.

I have no problems with those that believe only a man should serve. You are completely free in Christ to teach, believe and follow the practice.

I personally see it as a very complex issue involving every Christian to examine the scriptures completely and thoroughly.

 

[Abba San]

This thread is devolving rapidly. I'd say Icthus to refrain from laughing at others beliefs. The Bible has clear passages about what leaders should look like and laughing at others beliefs isn't among them.

We are here to encourage each other at whatever level of faith you are at. If we can't do that, we'll close it up this thread.

Thanks, Lloren - I would agree with you - we have gotten off track here. This is not a place for name-calling. We share our thoughts and perspectives freely.

/bump - back to the original poll and question

I think this might be a worth while discussion...

Vote and then tell us why.

No yelling or debating please....

- note the "no yelling or debating please" portion. Just your vote and your perspective. Those have been interesting.

 

[Neirai the Forgiven]

I find it very interesting that the most popular answer is "False Teaching."

To be absolutely sure, Jesus warned us about false prophets, false teachers. Paul scolded many churches for following the lies of the Judaists (who taught that Christians had to also follow Judaism to be truly saved,) and in Revelations, Jesus congratulated those churches who saw through the Nicolaitans for who they were (whoever they were.)

But, here's my amusement and thoughts:

1) "False Teaching" is seen as most important issue by many evangelicals.
2) We have thousands of denominations.

Coincidence?

Really, I feel that as long as we're paranoid about whether our brothers or sisters or estranged former co-believers are spreading real truth, we'll always have more denominations than we need.

That said, I'm not suggesting we go find our nearest Unified Church of Gods, Demons, and Elect* and give them a group hug.

I think it's a worthy point for discussion, though.
*Not a real church. I hope.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

So if I'm understanding this correctly, you're suggesting Protestant denominations come together and draft an official document or documents on all points of essential doctrine (e.g. Jesus Christ is the son of God, Christ's resurrection, salvation through faith by grace in Christ alone, etc.) they can agree on?

An interesting thought, to be sure.

EDIT: The trouble lies in denominations agreeing on what is essential doctrine.

Very interesting, considering they have no central authority.

If all 30,000+ Protestant churches - from Lutherans to Mormons to Unitarian Universalists and Calvinists - can all come together and, doctrinally, become anything even comparable to the monolith of Catholicism, I'll become a Protestant.

But I don't think it will ever happen, for one very good reason: all Protestants believe in sola scriptura - that is, that the highest authority in Christendom is the Bible, and no bishop, pastor, or Pope can contradict it.

There is definitely truth in this statement, and all Christians - including Catholics, Mormons and JWs - agree the Bible should not be contradicted. But there is a problem with this: it's not possible to contradict the Bible because the Bible cannot speak for itself. You can't put a book on the stand in a court and let it testify for itself. Someone must read it, and emphasise certain parts in certain ways - that is, interpret it.

So the question then becomes: which interpretation is correct? That is, who is the correct interpreter?

More specifically: who can lay claim to having been authorised by Jesus to interpret the Bible?

 

[Patriot]

Very interesting, considering they have no central authority.

Christ is the head (central authority) of the Church. (Ephesians 1:22, 5:23, Colossians 1:18)

If all 30,000+ Protestant churches - from Lutherans to Mormons to Unitarian Universalists and Calvinists - can all come together and, doctrinally, become anything even comparable to the monolith of Catholicism, I'll become a Protestant.

But I don't think it will ever happen, for one very good reason: all Protestants believe in sola scriptura - that is, that the highest authority in Christendom is the Bible, and no bishop, pastor, or Pope can contradict it.

Doctrinally, we don't agree with many of Catholic teachings. Partly because Catholicism relies on more than Sola Scriptura.

God is the highest authority. Since the Bible is God inspired, it bears the same authority.

Edit: The fact that you included Unitarian Universalists and Mormons in the range of Protestantism which should come together to help consolidate doctrine concerns me. Do you consider them to be true believers, or do you consider us to be cultists?

There is definitely truth in this statement, and all Christians - including Catholics, Mormons and JWs - agree the Bible should not be contradicted. But there is a problem with this: it's not possible to contradict the Bible because the Bible cannot speak for itself. You can't put a book on the stand in a court and let it testify for itself. Someone must read it, and emphasise certain parts in certain ways - that is, interpret it.

The Bible is written word. Written word, same as spoken word can be contradicted. Your premise is flawed.

So the question then becomes: which interpretation is correct? That is, who is the correct interpreter?

More specifically: who can lay claim to having been authorised by Jesus to interpret the Bible?

The Holy Spirit is the correct interpreter.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

Christ is the head (central authority) of the Church. (Ephesians 1:22, 5:23, Colossians 1:18)

I agree. But who speaks for Christ here on Earth since He is in Heaven at the right hand of God the Father now?

Edit: The fact that you included Unitarian Universalists and Mormons in the range of Protestantism which should come together to help consolidate doctrine concerns me. Do you consider them to be true believers, or do you consider us to be cultists?

The Catholic Church does NOT consider LDS, OPs, JWs, etc. to be Christians. And rightly so. They are vessels strange to us. They preach a Gospel foreign to us, of gods we do not know.

But Protestant Christians are not so much foreign gospels as they are fragments of the Catholic Gospel overemphasised. You preach not a bad gospel, but an incomplete one. That's how I see it.

But I, personally, not officially as a Catholic, consider both you Christians and the OPs, JWs, LDS, etc to be Protestants because you all follow "the Bible alone", as you say.

The Bible is written word. Written word, same as spoken word can be contradicted. Your premise is flawed.

Yes, but Protestants don't claim to contradict it. All Protestants, Christian or otherwise, claim they have the Gospel, and no one else does (or else they would not believe what they believe). Each teacher - Calvin, Zwingli, Luther, Wesley, Eddy, White, Smith, and all the founders of churches - claims they have Christ's Gospel to the exclusion of all others.

No Protestant church, therefore, knowingly and willingly contradicts the Bible. (Or they would not, by definition, be Protestant!) But every Protestant church, therefore, contradicts every other Protestant church in some matter or another.

Therefore, while it is possible to contradict the Bible, can we all agree that not one of us actually wants to do that, and not one of us is actually trying to do that? I know the Catholic Church does not try nor wish to contradict the Bible. And I believe no Protestant tries nor wishes to contradict it, either.

It's our interpretations which we claim contradict each other.

The Holy Spirit is the correct interpreter.

Agreed. But how do you know you have Him? How do you know your interpretation is His?

I'll give you an idea: what's one reason Christ selected the Twelve Apostles? And why did He teach only them some things?

Why did Paul make such a big thing about being an Apostle?

God is the highest authority. Since the Bible is God inspired, it bears the same authority.

I agree that God is the highest authority, and His word is high above all others. I also agree the Bible is inspired by God, though written by human writers. I think we both agree on these things.

But it was 20 years before Paul wrote even his first letter. It was 100 years before John's Revelations were written.

How was the Gospel, then, preached before it was written down?

By speech. It was spoken. And it was kept in the heads of the Apostles, who had learned from Jesus, and taught to their successors, like Paul. So that when one taught, anyone could ask "Where did you learn this from?" and one could answer: "From an Apostle".

Don't you see? It is not the Bible that has the authority of itself. The Bible has authority because of the men who wrote it - the Apostles!

 

[Stc95]

Just a friendly reminder to go out of your way to appear civil. Tone, pitch, sarcasm is all lost on the internet.

I am very much enjoying this thread.

 

[Odale]

I chose several things:

Politics - The Church and the state are separate entities in the U.S., I believe the Church can teach and act as it wants, but should not force beliefs on everyone simply because that particular Church (whether it's Catholic, Methodist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Baptist, etc) believes it is correct. The original reason we have the separation between the Church and the state in the U.S. is not to protect Christians from Muslims, or Jews from Buddhists, or Wiccans from Sikhs - it was constructed to keep Christians safe from Christians! You practice whatever you choose to believe, and I will practice what I choose to believe.

I didn't choose False Teaching because I missed it... but:

False Teaching - I know a lot of people here on the forums are [seemingly] hard line Christians who wouldn't think twice about what the Bible says about a certain topic. I have an issue with Christians in general enforcing some sins but not others. I am talking about using the Lord's name in vain (Leviticus 19:12), homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22), hair cuts (Leviticus 19:27), clothing (Leviticus 19:19), eating habits (Leviticus 19:26), tatoos (Leviticus 19:28), etc. Only one of the aforementioned rules is almost always enforced and the others are overlooked, despite them being all within a few verses of each other. I am not insinuating that we all stop getting our hair cut, or that all of us need to change our eating habits. What I am saying is that we should show people that these are Christian laws (they're in the Bible, after all...) and let people live their life as they see fit. We are not charged with acting as God's moral police; we are, however, charged with living our lives in a Christ-like manner.

Evangelism/Relevance - I take issue with the act of cramming Biblical beliefs and Biblical judgement down someone's throat because they sin. I know that the Bible is not very forgiving when it comes to homosexuality (and I am a little surprised no one selected Gay Marriage as an issue), it is a sin (Leviticus 18:22). But telling homosexual nonbelievers (or any nonbeliever, really) "Unless you change your ways, you'll burn in hell!" likely won't urge them to ask for forgiveness. In fact, it almost always does the opposite! It is not our place to judge, that is God's job. Our job is to be good examples of Christ and to perform Christ-like works (1 Peter 2:16, 21). We are to plant the seeds within our neighbors so that they will become Christians. Our Christ-like behavior is the fuel required to grow their curiosity in our belief.

Biblical Inerrancy - I'm not really sure why I chose this one. I think it was a mistake. But, going back and reading Genghis' posts, it seems the only way to "fix" Protestantism" is to go back and work off of the earliest, yet most complete Bible that was written in Hebrew. In this way, nothing is lost in translation, and nothing is added. However, if we did this, then we would no longer have Catholicism, The Orthodox Catholic Church, and Protestantism; we would have Christianity. However, because humans can never seem to get along for extended amounts of time, we would just wind up with new factions of Christianity all over again. As far as I know, the Bible does not require any faith-based organization (read: The Catholic Church) to have someone like a pope. In fact, the Bible does not say a lot of things. Another note on Catholicism: everyone must realize that not all Popes have been free of corruption, sin, or immoral practices (indulgences, anyone?). Some popes lived a life that is more akin to the life of a U.S. politician, with special interests, people to guard, etc; yet, to Catholics the Pope is their leader and they believe him to be infallible - a notion that I find unnerving, he is human, after all.

I also chose fighting between Churches, not sure why.

Then I'd have to say pompous arrogance and inability to understand the most basic passages of scripture would be the most important issues facing the Church today.

If that was directed as Icthus, I do hope you apologized to him as he did to you. I'd hate to see you be turned into a perfect example of what you speak - 1 Peter 2:13-17.

 

[Patriot]

I agree. But who speaks for Christ here on Earth since He is in Heaven at the right hand of God the Father now?

Speaks for Him in what regard? The Bible already has His words.

But Protestant Christians are not so much foreign gospels as they are fragments of the Catholic Gospel overemphasised. You preach not a bad gospel, but an incomplete one. That's how I see it.

An incomplete gospel, in my opinion, is a bad gospel. I don't agree with you that we preach an incomplete one, however. Which parts do you believe we leave out?

Yes, but Protestants don't claim to contradict it. All Protestants, Christian or otherwise, claim they have the Gospel, and no one else does (or else they would not believe what they believe). Each teacher - Calvin, Zwingli, Luther, Wesley, Eddy, White, Smith, and all the founders of churches - claims they have Christ's Gospel to the exclusion of all others.

Not necessarily. Wesley and Calvin didn't believe they had the exclusive gospel. They both believed the core of the Gospel. They just disagreed on the mechanism of salvation which, in my opinion, was not explained fully in Scripture. The Gospel is very simple and a large portion of Protestantism agrees on the core principles (those who don't are generally regarded as cults).

But every Protestant church, therefore, contradicts every other Protestant church in some matter or another.

You left this very open and ambiguous. I could say the same thing about every Catholic church. I could say this same thing about every Believer in Christendom.

Agreed. But how do you know you have Him? How do you know your interpretation is His?

Every believer has the Spirit. If my interpretation disagrees with any part of Scripture (not just the part in question) I would seriously question it.

I'll give you an idea: what's one reason Christ selected the Twelve Apostles? And why did He teach only them some things?

Because he couldn't sit down with every believer (bound by human restrictions) and had to choose a smaller group to send out. That's one reason. I'm a terrible guesser, what was the reason you wanted me to come up with?

Why did Paul make such a big thing about being an Apostle?

I don't know, give me a reference and I'll attempt to research it.

But it was 20 years before Paul wrote even his first letter. It was 100 years before John's Revelations were written.

How was the Gospel, then, preached before it was written down?

By speech. It was spoken. And it was kept in the heads of the Apostles, who had learned from Jesus, and taught to their successors, like Paul. So that when one taught, anyone could ask "Where did you learn this from?" and one could answer: "From an Apostle".

Don't you see? It is not the Bible that has the authority of itself. The Bible has authority because of the men who wrote it - the Apostles!

I didn't claim the Bible has authority of itself. I claimed it was inspired by God and derives its authority from Him. The 12 apostles also derived their authority to preach from God. The same way I have the authority (mandate) to preach the gospel. As a matter of fact, all believers are apostles (one who is sent/messenger/ambassador).