# Biggest threat to the Church today?



## arapahoepark

What do you think is the biggest threat to the church today? ( I would assume that it comes form inside the church, or the church itself not doing anything.

in my opinion I think that today it's the fact that the church has a view of a sentimental love God, one that doesn't punish sin and it has lead to cultural Antinomianism


----------



## rbcbob

arap said:


> I think that today it's the fact that *the church* has a view of a sentimental love God, one that doesn't punish sin and it has lead to cultural Antinomianism



It might help if you clarified how broadly or narrowly you are using "church" in your question.

Also, having read your information page, would you please list as your confessional subscription the WCF if indeed that is what you believe. Thanks


----------



## Moireach

arap said:


> What do you think is the biggest threat to the church today? ( I would assume that it comes form inside the church, or the church itself not doing anything.
> 
> in my opinion I think that today it's the fact that the church has a view of a sentimental love God, one that doesn't punish sin and it has lead to cultural Antinomianism



The same as before, the Roman Catholic church.


----------



## JohnGill

arap said:


> What do you think is the biggest threat to the church today? ( I would assume that it comes form inside the church, or the church itself not doing anything.
> 
> in my opinion I think that today it's the fact that the church has a view of a sentimental love God, one that doesn't punish sin and it has lead to cultural Antinomianism



I would say implicit atheism of church members. I see it go in two different directions, man-made laws to determine how righteous a church member is and tolerance and even acceptance of the world without critical thinking as evidence by those who accept female pastors, any variant of evolutionism, acceptance of a non-supernatural and evolving view of scripture, fornication, adultery, and sodomy as trivial, et al. I see this as coming from the late 19th early 20th century rationalism that Christians tried to use to deal with the attacks of evolution and atheists at the time.


----------



## Peairtach

The Beast and the False Prophet, introduced in Revelation 13, represent the twin major dangers which the Church has faced down the centuries, which put pressure on her to compromise and become the Whore, Babylon.

These twin dangers are overt persecution and false teaching.


----------



## jwithnell

Serpent to Eve: "Did God really say ...." That women can't be elders; that homosexuality is wrong; that .... fill in the blank. Reject the authority of God's word and you've rejected God and his authority over his church. Everything else follows this issue off the cliff.

I saw that many of the "conservative" Presbyterian churches are leaving the PCUSA and establishing a denomination that affirms The Book of Confessions, 1967 (the point at which the WCF, 1905, was no longer viewed as the confessional standard, but is merely one of many). So they've moved the clock back 45 years, but have still not embraced the all-demanding truth and authority of the scriptures. So where do you think they'll be in a few decades?


----------



## Jeff Burns

From within? Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.


----------



## Romans922

Inerrancy and Sufficiency of Scripture.


----------



## Edward

Cultural accommodation.


----------



## Rich Koster

Generally speaking, I think satanic dogma is our biggest threat. Many have listed some of the elements in previous posts. We also have the issue of verbal agreement with truth, but functioning in a manner that doesn't align with what we speak, and thinking that we are. Sort of a confessional delusion???


----------



## a mere housewife

I don't know about the church at large but certainly it seems my own challenge in this culture is to live for another world and not for this one. Thinking especially of what Richard brought up, it seems like worldliness (not in a fundamentalistic sense, for I think fundamentalism is largely so rooted in a reaction to the world that it scarcely qualifies for other worldliness) must be a danger for the church where there is not persecution? (Whereas false teaching is a danger all around?)


----------



## jwithnell

> my own challenge in this culture is to live for another world and not for this one


 Well said!


----------



## toddpedlar

The desire to go to great lengths to be attractive to a worldly culture and, associated with this, a practical (if not actual) Arminianism in bearing witness concerning Christ.


----------



## fredtgreco

I believe the threat is very similar to that just before the Reformation:

from inside - a loss of inerrancy and the distinct nature of the Church

from outside - Islam (the devil's main counterfeit)


----------



## kvanlaan

The insinuation of popular culture into the church and the church's willingness to embrace it. Is amity with the world no more enmity with God?

The idea that we can live with one foot in the City of God and one foot in the City of Man and be right with God.

Also "it's not a salvation issue". Huge breaches in the city walls from that one particular item.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

The Holy Scriptures are put aside as well as Biblical Authority. The Individual is more important than the whole. 
I honestly believe that the Decalogue and the disrespect of authority is a bad problem. Listen to God. 

BTW, I agree with Kevin. Salvation is not just about justification. Victor Paul Wierwille of the Way International and other life forms would have been correct if it was just about Justice maybe. But he has a wrong view of Christ and salvation. Overstatement? Maybe. Lutheran? No! Deception is a problem. 

Victor Paul Wierwille

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/5th-commandment-affections-our-children-668/ 

We have forgotten to honour that which is historical and Parental. That is a big problem. We don't listen to our parents.


----------



## KSon

Romans922 said:


> Inerrancy and Sufficiency of Scripture.



Ding-Ding-Ding-Ding


----------



## rookie

I personally see a few things, relativism (it's all relative), emotionalism (it's not fair), and a lack of theological study. These of course added to the many previous posts.


----------



## J. Dean

KSon said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inerrancy and Sufficiency of Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ding-Ding-Ding-Ding
Click to expand...

I third this one. Read about the Down-Grade Controversy in England; Robert Shindler (a friend of Charles Spurgeon's) came to this same conclusion after reading through the histories of liberalized churches and movements.

I would add that, after the authority/sufficiency of Scripture (from which a great many errors stem), the other errors are Antinomianism and Legalism-and both are alive and well today in the church in both brazen and subtle forms.


----------



## Philip

I would argue that the single biggest threat today is an inadequate Christology which leads to an inadequate view of Scripture.


----------



## toddpedlar

Philip said:


> I would argue that the single biggest threat today is an inadequate Christology which leads to an inadequate view of Scripture.



Hmm... seems cause and effect that you posit are reversed... but certainly an inadequate Christology is common today.


----------



## jwright82

Evangelicalism.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Unrepentant sin.


----------



## Theogenes

I think it's irrationalism.....The Trinity Foundation - The Trinity Manifesto -A Program for our Time


----------



## Philip

toddpedlar said:


> Hmm... seems cause and effect that you posit are reversed... but certainly an inadequate Christology is common today.



Are you suggesting that Scripture gives Christ His authority? We receive Scripture as Scripture on the authority of Christ through the Spirit.


----------



## Romans922

Philip said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm... seems cause and effect that you posit are reversed... but certainly an inadequate Christology is common today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that Scripture gives Christ His authority? We receive Scripture as Scripture on the authority of Christ through the Spirit.
Click to expand...


I think what Todd is saying is that we only know/hear about Christ from Scripture. So an improper view of Scripture leads to bad Christology. If we have a proper doctrine of Scripture we will come to a proper view of Christology. 

For example look at the Confession, the divines didn't start with Christology or Theology proper, they started with Scripture because Scripture is that which reveals Christ to us.


----------



## Philip

Romans922 said:


> If we have a proper doctrine of Scripture we will come to a proper view of Christology.



Jehovah's Witnesses believe in inerrancy. Where does Scripture get its authority from? The whole question of authority assumes a Trinitarian theological framework. JWs believe in inerrancy on a faulty foundation. You cannot have inerrancy without Christ.


----------



## Romans922

You are ignoring what I stated. JWs do not have a proper doctrine of Scripture, because they do not believe in the inerrancy of the truly inspired Word of God. They make their own scriptures.



> 1. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.
> 2. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these:
> *Of the Old Testament:*
> 
> GenesisII ChroniclesDanielExodusEzraHoseaLeviticusNehemiahJoelNumbersEstherAmosDeuteronomyJobObadiahJoshuaPsalmsJonahJudgesProverbsMicahRuthEcclesiastesNahumI SamuelThe Song of SongsHabakkukII SamuelIsaiahZephaniahI KingsJeremiahHaggaiII KingsLamentationsZechariahI ChroniclesEzekielMalachi
> *Of the New Testament:*
> 
> The Gospels GalatiansThe Epistle according to Ephesians of James Matthew PhilippiansThe first and Mark Colossians second Epistles Luke Thessalonians I of Peter John Thessalonians IIThe first, second,The Acts of the to Timothy I and third Epistles Apostles to Timothy II of JohnPaul's Epistles to TitusThe Epistle to the Romans to Philemon of Jude Corinthians IThe Epistle toThe Revelation Corinthians II the Hebrews of John
> All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.
> 3. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.
> 4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.
> 5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
> 6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
> 7. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
> 8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.
> 9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
> 10. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.


----------



## Philip

I think, though, that if you look carefully, you'll see that the beginning of a rejection of inerrancy is always a rejection of good Christology and that the beginning of a good doctrine of Scripture is in a proper recognition of who Christ is. You cannot have a proper doctrine of Scripture without a proper doctrine of Jesus Christ (which also entails a proper Trinitarian theology): the Word of God revealed through the infallible and inerrant Words of God in Scripture. We can know God only because of Jesus Christ: the old testament saints knew God by faith in the promises of God which were realized in Jesus Christ. The Scriptures are infallible and inerrant because they perfectly reveal Christ, who points back to them.


----------



## Grimmson

I think the biggest threat facing the church is actually seminaries because they are educating the future leaders of the church. It is through that as the means in which liberalism, along side of other issues, will damage the church. We already see women elders, homosexuality, Inerrancy and Sufficiency of Scripture, relativism and critical views of creation being promoted in liberal seminaries. Men are getting into massive debt for a theological education, which in turn will affect their ability to minister to God’s people. And not to mention the separation of education and pastoral training through discipleship training from a pastor or group of local elders in a local church to an organization that may not have church or denominational oversight. This is not to mention the depression of students that maybe a result of instructors communicating poor objectives and refusal to provide personal assistance for clarification and direction. And such instructors are not held accountable for their own wickedness towards the student. Seminaries may not necessarily care for communicating the truth of God, and instead focuses on trying to bring more students then they can teach to themselves because they want money, prestige, or both. And thus not Christ centered, gospel centered, and church centered educated that provides for the students needs. And by not abiding by the needs of the church and the student, violate a basic covenant of works and is thus stealing from the students who money could help the local church; instead of being a servant of the church. The future of churches reflects now the education of what pastors are expected to believe in the church and from there these pastors teach what they learned in seminary. And those producing the issues mentioned above.


----------



## DMcFadden

I echo the concern about moralistic therapeutic deism. Without inerrancy, our "best minds" in the academy seem intent on "improving" on the plain and simple meaning of the Bible. People like Enns are typical in Reformed circles of what I saw repeatedly in broad evangelicalism for the last half century. Secularly trained academics are all too often embarrassed by the Bible and just can't seem to help themselves in coming up with "helpful" ways of removing those sources of embarrassment. 

And, what do you get when you give the Bible a buzz cut? Efforts to find God via moralism, rationalism, or mystiticism and a pulpit dominated by moralistic therapeutic deism.


----------



## toddpedlar

Philip said:


> I think, though, that if you look carefully, you'll see that the beginning of a rejection of inerrancy is always a rejection of good Christology and that the beginning of a good doctrine of Scripture is in a proper recognition of who Christ is. You cannot have a proper doctrine of Scripture without a proper doctrine of Jesus Christ (which also entails a proper Trinitarian theology): the Word of God revealed through the infallible and inerrant Words of God in Scripture. We can know God only because of Jesus Christ: the old testament saints knew God by faith in the promises of God which were realized in Jesus Christ. The Scriptures are infallible and inerrant because they perfectly reveal Christ, who points back to them.



The cart is still before the horse, Philip. The point that I and Pastor Barnes are trying to make is that we have NO Christology without Scripture. One's view of Scripture colors one's Christology, and without Scripture revealing Christ, there would be no such thing as a Christology at all. Where does one get any doctrine of Christ without Scripture? 

Rejection of Good Christology can ONLY come if you fail in your doctrine of the revealed Word. That is, if you have an appropriate view of Scripture, you'll have an appropriate Christology... if you do NOT, or if you reject it, you will NOT. Christology cannot be divorced from Scripture, and it is NOT logically prior in any sense. 

Todd

ps - I also can't understand your point about Scripture being infallible and inerrant BECAUSE they do something (like reveal Christ perfectly). They are inerrant and infallible as inherent qualities they possess... not because of the particulars of what they reveal.


----------



## Philip

toddpedlar said:


> Rejection of Good Christology can ONLY come if you fail in your doctrine of the revealed Word.



And rejection of the doctrine of the revealed word can only come if you fail in your Christology.



toddpedlar said:


> One's view of Scripture colors one's Christology, and without Scripture revealing Christ, there would be no such thing as a Christology at all. Where does one get any doctrine of Christ without Scripture?



Where does one get a doctrine of Scripture without a doctrine of Christ? Without Christ, there is no Scripture. Scripture's authority comes from its inspiration which is made possible by the work of Christ. There is no revelation without incarnation.



toddpedlar said:


> Christology cannot be divorced from Scripture, and it is NOT logically prior in any sense.



Of course it is: the Father is revealed by the Son through the Spirit. From our perspective, yes we understand the Scriptures as revealing Christ, but then we're talking about the subjective order of knowing.


----------



## davenporter

jwright82 said:


> Evangelicalism.



Interesting... would you mind elaborating?


----------



## Beau Michel

Decisionism in place of conversion,the "carnal Christian" heresy, that is filling "Evangelical" churches with false converts. Also a lack of real solid Bible study.


----------



## Supersillymanable

Consumerism.


----------



## Rich Koster

Oh, I forgot to mention our electronic threat: TBN (and the like). They splatter the globe with hooey, hokum, hogwash and heresy.


----------



## py3ak

This thread itself points towards what is certainly one of the greatest dangers: our lack of unanimity. We have divisions and discords, and those are bad; but perhaps even more fundamentally we have disagreements. We can't agree on what God has said, on what God requires, or even on what our greatest danger is. We don't glorify God with one mind and one mouth; we don't love the same things, mind the same things, or join in one accord. In the US, at any rate, it seems that the church is very much a house divided.


----------



## Apologist4Him

I think the heart of most threats comes down to human autonomy in all it's forms, from within the Church and from without. In our daily spiritual warfare it is a continual temptation for all of us (some more than others), our flesh desires independence from God and His authority, while the Spirit would have us in humble submission to God....in every area of life. I hope I never forget Dr. Bahnsen's series of lectures on the "myth of neutrality". I remember the first time I listened to the first lecture and what an impact it had on me. It really got me to thinking about what it means for Jesus to be Lord over all of my life, but at the same time I often see areas where I struggle with submitting to God's authority....and I am a Reformed Christian! I've posted at great length on "Christian Forums" and it amazes me how many and how fierce the "Christian" opposition is to Biblical inerrancy...I believe the heart of the issue is of authority (along with methodology) , and the desires of the flesh to resist authority. The Roman Catholic issue is also one of misplaced authority. What it boils down to is autonomous man does not want to submit to God and His Word, it would cramp his style, be politically incorrect, and very likely demand lifestyle changes...which is repentance. Fortunately the solution to man's problems has not changed, the gospel of Jesus Christ is still the power of God to salvation, and the regeneration of souls by the power of God alone is the answer.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Philip said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm... seems cause and effect that you posit are reversed... but certainly an inadequate Christology is common today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that Scripture gives Christ His authority? We receive Scripture as Scripture on the authority of Christ through the Spirit.
Click to expand...


I have a question here. Can it be both ways? God does place a high priority on His Word. He puts it on a level equal with him If I remember correctly.


----------



## J. Dean

py3ak said:


> This thread itself points towards what is certainly one of the greatest dangers: our lack of unanimity. We have divisions and discords, and those are bad; but perhaps even more fundamentally we have disagreements. We can't agree on what God has said, on what God requires, or even on what our greatest danger is. We don't glorify God with one mind and one mouth; we don't love the same things, mind the same things, or join in one accord. In the US, at any rate, it seems that the church is very much a house divided.


But we will never fully have that in a perfect sense, Ruben; not this side of eternity at least. That's not an excuse not to try, but good Christian brothers and sisters will disagree on theological matters (albeit in secondary ones). 

As Francis Schaeffer once said, _nobody's_ theology is perfect. That comes with the territory of being fallen creatures.


----------



## Afterthought

py3ak said:


> This thread itself points towards what is certainly one of the greatest dangers: our lack of unanimity. We have divisions and discords, and those are bad; but perhaps even more fundamentally we have disagreements. We can't agree on what God has said, on what God requires, or even on what our greatest danger is. We don't glorify God with one mind and one mouth; we don't love the same things, mind the same things, or join in one accord. In the US, at any rate, it seems that the church is very much a house divided.


For what it's worth, I was actually thinking something similar. The recent textual threads show that we can't even agree on what text the Word of God has been preserved in. In my (limited) experience, the lack of unanimity is also potentially harmful (at the very least, very discouraging and confusing) to new believers.


----------



## py3ak

J. Dean said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread itself points towards what is certainly one of the greatest dangers: our lack of unanimity. We have divisions and discords, and those are bad; but perhaps even more fundamentally we have disagreements. We can't agree on what God has said, on what God requires, or even on what our greatest danger is. We don't glorify God with one mind and one mouth; we don't love the same things, mind the same things, or join in one accord. In the US, at any rate, it seems that the church is very much a house divided.
> 
> 
> 
> But we will never fully have that in a perfect sense, Ruben; not this side of eternity at least. That's not an excuse not to try, but good Christian brothers and sisters will disagree on theological matters (albeit in secondary ones).
> 
> As Francis Schaeffer once said, _nobody's_ theology is perfect. That comes with the territory of being fallen creatures.
Click to expand...


Perfect harmony is not to be expected; but agreement on essentials, unanimity in the message we bear to the world, at the least a desire for coherence in doctrine and practice no longer seem to characterize us. Take, for instance, the big fight in the early church over the date for celebrating easter. It was unfortunate in many respects, but think about this: they fought over it because they wanted to be united, they thought that they should be consistent in what they did and when they did it. I suspect that many, perhaps even most of us, lack even the ambition to be unanimous in doctrine and united in practice.


----------



## Marrow Man

Rbcbob's church hosted a luncheon for pastors today. The speaker was from Scotland. During the Q&A, he was asked about the factor or factors which led to the decline of biblical Christianity in Scotland. With little or no hesitation he said it was a lack of confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture. He said that Scotland has many pastors who say they believe the Scriptures, but chase after the last trends and gimmicks instead of following Scripture. He said that Scotland had become "a nation of pragmatists." He might as well have been talking about the U.S. from the way he described it.

He referenced this quote from J.I. Packer: "The outside observer sees us as staggering from gimmick to gimmick and stunt to stunt like so many drunks in a fog, not knowing at all where we are or which way we should be going. "


----------



## Philip

I think we might all agree, then, that the danger is that we don't preach Christ. That we abandon the preaching of the incarnate Son for moralism, for gimmicks, for tilting at our own pet theological windmills. What we must always do is to come back to the preaching of Christ as He is revealed to us in the Holy Inspired Scriptures.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

I can understand your dismay, Ruben, at the apparent theological anarchy reflected in these answers.

I think, however, the kind of analysis and insight needed to answer well precisely what ails us ecclesiastically eludes most people and always has. My point: I think it's a far harder question, requiring a David Wells and those of that sort to help us work through and see more clearly what afflicts us. The web in particular gives us the illusion that all of us are competent to answer a tough question like this when we're not: such a question requires a mastery of all the theological disciplines to begin to address it with accuracy and insight; few have such mastery. I think most of what has been said here has gotten at it in some measure, but no short answers get at the whole diagnosis.

Having said all that, I am rather shocked that no one has clearly stated in a short answer what I think has always, beginning at the Fall, been our problem (though most of what folks have said involves this, without saying the word specifically): *UNBELIEF*. What afflicts us is unbelief and faith (knowledge, assent, and trust) is the cure. 

*I believe; help my unbelief.*

Peace,
Alan


----------



## jwright82

davenporter said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evangelicalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting... would you mind elaborating?
Click to expand...


A lot of the current problems in the church can be listed. Female officers, denying inerrancy, moral compromise, lack of honoring the Sabbath, etc. These all developed not in a vacuum but in Evangelicalism. It was the evangelical goal to be a lowest common denominator type movement that was forced to make compromises. Any time you make size more important than truth you will compromise with errors. Now I believe that there are many different arguments that we can disagree over and not be in the wrong.

So I don’t want to give the impression that we need theological perfection, although we should shoot for that, in our doctrine. We are finite sinful creatures so we will never have perfect harmony. That is why we should always have confessional accountability. I think that is was Scott1 in another who said something like “I have the confession of faith and the book of church order, what else do I need”. I was really impressed by that. I took him to mean that all these controversies can be settled by uniting around these two documents. But it still leaves room for legitimate disagreement in certain areas. But all the problems in Evangelicalism can be settled with these two documents. 

That is one of the many reasons why I enjoy this website. It is the model for orthodox Reformed ecumenicalism. There is no shortage of loving disagreement but we all unite under the confession. We submit to them and hence the bible itself.


----------



## py3ak

I was thinking last night that it was probably fairly simply to identify general problems that always plague the church, but that defining the one that in this time leaves us most particularly vulnerable is a lot more difficult. And I imagine it's possible that there's an irreducible complexity to our vulnerabilities as well, so that at many points (barring, perhaps, _sin_) no single, simple answer could be given.



Alan D. Strange said:


> I can understand your dismay, Ruben, at the apparent theological anarchy reflected in these answers.
> 
> I think, however, the kind of analysis and insight needed to answer well precisely what ails us ecclesiastically eludes most people and always has. My point: I think it's a far harder question, requiring a David Wells and those of that sort to help us work through and see more clearly what afflicts us. The web in particular gives us the illusion that all of us are competent to answer a tough question like this when we're not: such a question requires a mastery of all the theological disciplines to begin to address it with accuracy and insight; few have such mastery. I think most of what has been said here has gotten at it in some measure, but no short answers get at the whole diagnosis.
> 
> Having said all that, I am rather shocked that no one has clearly stated in a short answer what I think has always, beginning at the Fall, been our problem (though most of what folks have said involves this, without saying the word specifically): *UNBELIEF*. What afflicts us is unbelief and faith (knowledge, assent, and trust) is the cure.
> 
> *I believe; help my unbelief.*
> 
> Peace,
> Alan


----------



## Matthew Willard Lankford

All of the imaginary ideas and images that are purportedly of Christ is a great threat to the church; this idolatry is so prevalent among those who profess to be Christians. It turns people away from the biblical revelation of Christ to idols which God hates (Exodus 20:4).

Another great danger are unfaithful shepherds and ravenous wolves:

"What is the great danger in the Christian Church today? [...] The danger to the Church today, whatever the denomination, from within, is the person who wears the 'cloth of Christ', the person who wears the white collar, or the cross, and who stands behind the sacred desk and who is unfaithful to the Word of God. That is the ultimate danger to the Church: the corrupt and apostate shepherds, who infest our theological seminaries and our colleges and fill our pulpits across the United States and Canada, who know not God, do not believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ and will stand in the way of anybody that wants to preach it."-Walter Martin, _The Cult of Liberal Theology_, circa 1987

In 2006 James M. Hamilton Jr. gave a similar answer to the question in his article "The Greatest Danger Facing the Church" (The Greatest Danger Facing the Church | For His Renown)


----------



## davenporter

jwright82 said:


> A lot of the current problems in the church can be listed. Female officers, denying inerrancy, moral compromise, lack of honoring the Sabbath, etc. These all developed not in a vacuum but in Evangelicalism. It was the evangelical goal to be a lowest common denominator type movement that was forced to make compromises. Any time you make size more important than truth you will compromise with errors. Now I believe that there are many different arguments that we can disagree over and not be in the wrong.
> 
> So I don’t want to give the impression that we need theological perfection, although we should shoot for that, in our doctrine. We are finite sinful creatures so we will never have perfect harmony. That is why we should always have confessional accountability. I think that is was Scott1 in another who said something like “I have the confession of faith and the book of church order, what else do I need”. I was really impressed by that. I took him to mean that all these controversies can be settled by uniting around these two documents. But it still leaves room for legitimate disagreement in certain areas. But all the problems in Evangelicalism can be settled with these two documents.
> 
> That is one of the many reasons why I enjoy this website. It is the model for orthodox Reformed ecumenicalism. There is no shortage of loving disagreement but we all unite under the confession. We submit to them and hence the bible itself.



Good points, I think you're certainly right about the problems, and I suppose I have to admit that in terms of general evangelicalism, you're right. I just read John MacArthur's The Gospel According to Jesus Christ for seminary, which dealt with the evangelical problem of a rejection of Lordship theology -- trying to "get people through the door" instead of preaching the offensive truth of the gospel: repent and believe on Christ; for you are under God's wrath apart from Christ's atoning sacrifice and righteousness.

Seeking the lowest common denominator can also be found in the lives of individual Christians. How many secularized Christians ask the question, "How far can I go before I'm sinning" as opposed to a mindset pursuing the utmost holiness that God can work in them.

Thanks for the response.


----------



## Rangerus

Had an old black preacher friend tell me that "man runs a church like a business. Once it becomes like a business then it is a "Machine." Every decision is made to support "The Machine." We bring in people to operate "The Machine." Within the walls of the Church there are power struggles over running "The Machine." The Church is no longer Christ centered and Biblically sound, but operates to support it self. There is much truth in what that man had to say.


----------



## reaganmarsh

I second Andrew (Romans922) on the sister issues of inerrancy and the sufficiency of Scripture. 

Inerrancy is the foundation upon which the house of Scriptural sufficiency is built (humanly speaking).

If Scripture is not sufficient for conversion and ministry, life and godliness, then we have far greater problems to address. How we approach Scriptural sufficiency will in turn address matters of theology such as ecclesiology, complementarian vs. egalitarian issues, hermeneutical concerns voiced above, pragmatism vs. the gospel, and the centrality of Christ in all of life.


----------



## kappazei

Rangerus said:


> "man runs a church like a business. Once it becomes like a business then it is a "Machine." Every decision is made to support "The Machine." We bring in people to operate "The Machine." Within the walls of the Church there are power struggles over running "The Machine." The Church is no longer Christ centered and Biblically sound, but operates to support it self. There is much truth in what that man had to say.



I had a friend say that once a long time ago, that, "Our church is being run like a business..." but he never elabourated what he meant. The last bit here gives it sense now. "but operates to support itself." Our purpose is to fulfill the Great Commision. I think whatever it happens to be the greatest threat is aimed at derailing us from fulfilling the Great Commission. That's the Enemy's endgame against the Church. In the West, I would think the #1 threat would be our focus on seeking after material comfort.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Perfect harmony is not to be expected; but agreement on essentials, unanimity in the message we bear to the world, at the least a desire for coherence in doctrine and practice no longer seem to characterize us. Take, for instance, the big fight in the early church over the date for celebrating easter. It was unfortunate in many respects, but think about this: they fought over it because they wanted to be united, they thought that they should be consistent in what they did and when they did it. I suspect that many, perhaps even most of us, lack even the ambition to be unanimous in doctrine and united in practice.



We don't lack the intellectual ambition, but it is the implementation which throws a wrench in the works. Look at the churches that hold to the 3FU - and hold to this set of confessions to foster unity: FRC, CRC, URC, CanRef, HNRC, NRC, etc., etc. (some of these won't even sit down with each other). It is the old man that raises his ugly head (or perhaps it is just a Dutch thing, not sure - it's sin, anyway).


----------



## kappazei

Rich Koster said:


> hooey, hokum, hogwash and heresy.



Gotta love that line!


----------



## JohnGill

I amend my previous reason and change it to autonomy coupled with a lack of the fear of God.


----------



## yeutter

Rich Koster said:


> Oh, I forgot to mention our electronic threat: TBN (and the like). They splatter the globe with hooey, hokum, hogwash and heresy.


Oneness Pentecostalism is a major threat to Chirstianity.


----------



## christiana

apathy and ignorance of scripture! Ye err, not knowing the scripture or the power of God!!


----------



## arapahoepark

Wow! Quite a discussion I have started. Reading everyone's post I do think we all are, to a degree, right about these threats. Honestly, if you follow some discernment ministries on occasion they are riddled with what all has been said now that I think about it.

But definitely, I think the treating of scripture like a mere book of antiquated morals is probably the biggest....


----------



## J. Dean

jwright82 said:


> A lot of the current problems in the church can be listed. Female officers, denying inerrancy, moral compromise, lack of honoring the Sabbath, etc. These all developed not in a vacuum but in Evangelicalism. It was the evangelical goal to be a lowest common denominator type movement that was forced to make compromises. Any time you make size more important than truth you will compromise with errors. Now I believe that there are many different arguments that we can disagree over and not be in the wrong.
> 
> So I don’t want to give the impression that we need theological perfection, although we should shoot for that, in our doctrine. We are finite sinful creatures so we will never have perfect harmony. That is why we should always have confessional accountability. I think that is was Scott1 in another who said something like “I have the confession of faith and the book of church order, what else do I need”. I was really impressed by that. I took him to mean that all these controversies can be settled by uniting around these two documents. But it still leaves room for legitimate disagreement in certain areas. But all the problems in Evangelicalism can be settled with these two documents.
> 
> That is one of the many reasons why I enjoy this website. It is the model for orthodox Reformed ecumenicalism. There is no shortage of loving disagreement but we all unite under the confession. We submit to them and hence the bible itself.



I would very much agree with most of this.


----------



## thistle93

Cafeteria Christianity (what suits my taste best)
Selective Bible Authority/Interpretation (Highlight part of the Bible I like or agree with & ignore or reinterpret those things I do not like or agree with)
Unregenerate Church Membership/Inactive Members (no change in life/pew setters)


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

I'm on the tail of finishing William's Perkins work on the devil. There are a host of points he makes that I've not taken time to think through. But while being in the thrall of this, I'd have to say that the biggest threat to the church today is literally, the devil himself.


----------

