Should Churches have to Prove their Faith Statement with Scripture?

[GEN2REV]

Today the vast majority of churches provide Statements of Faith that include many beliefs that are not found in Scripture.

Should there be a mandate among Christian Church organizations that churches need to prove their beliefs with Scripture or not be allowed to call themselves Christian churches?

 

[GEN2REV]

That is an interesting question. Im a presbyterian, so we use our Confessions and catechisms. But i get that not all denom’s are confessional/creed based churches. Do you have an example of a church statement that you disagree with? I need a comparison.

I don't want to get too caught up in the specific beliefs so much as the obligation for churches to show definitive proof texts in Scripture to make their case for what they claim to believe.

I'll give two 'for instance'es from real churches that I will not identify.

One church's Mission/Faith Statement said "We are the leaven."

Now, there may be one tiny verse somewhere in Scripture that uses leaven in a not negative light, but most would agree that leaven in the Bible represents something bad. Sin or something negative among Christians.

Another church professes their Pre-Mil stance and offers this verse for their justification:
2 Thessalonians 2:1-3

Now, a lot of us here have discussed/debated this doctrine to death and not once have I seen anybody try to use this verse for justification of Pre-Mil. I don't even know how they imagine that supports the concept of a 1,000 period of time after Christ's return.

Regardless of the details of which beliefs are legit or not, the point is that I think churches should be as honest and forthcoming, using Scripture to demonstrate why they believe and teach what they do, as possible.

Otherwise, aren't they being misleading and deceptive?

In those cases, they should not be allowed to label themselves Christian churches if the doctrines they teach do not stand up to the scrutiny of the very Bible they are claiming to represent.

They are of a different faith.

 

[GEN2REV]

I get what you’re saying, but you got JW running around claiming to be the only true christian denomination.

I would say a lotta denoms make that claim. Not the least of which is the Catholic church.

If a person attends an OPC church

OPC?

But lets not kid ourselves, most go to a particular church because of tradition (they grew up going there) or they pick the church closest to them. Most people i have found dont do a lot of research first.

Agreed and agreed.

That's probably the exact reason so many have flimsy Statements of Faith. Nobody is holding them to any standard; nor even reading them for that matter.

In that same vein, the Christians who actually do care about it, and those who ask difficult Biblical questions in today's churches, are ostracized and often asked to leave - which is a real indication of where we are in Biblical history and, in my opinion, displays evidence of the falling away having already fully come to pass.

As I have stated many times, the falling away is not the dynamic of masses of Christians leaving the church in droves (though that is the case of the most genuine and Bible-learned), but that of the churches separating from the True Faith of Scripture - falling away from sound Biblical doctrine; and those who are staying within the churches are the fallen away.

 

[Wrangler]

that churches need to prove their beliefs with Scripture

To whom do you suggest they prove their Statements of Faith?

God does not offer proof but faith as the pathway to salvation.

Take a relatively minor doctrinal issue, OSAS. IMO, there are verses in support and contradict. As @Taken has said today in several posts, one's belief does not affect another.

And if I may, my pastor differentiates belief from faith. Anyone can say they believe anything. Faith is believe in action. Again, how to prove ones faith by action? What objective measure is acceptable?

How many man-hours were logged into charity divided by congregation size?
How much $ was donated divided by congregation size?
​

 

[lforrest]

I think it needs not be required, because some more liberal denominations may not hold the bible to be absolute truth. Or they may have some extrabiblical revelation that is core to their beliefs.

Not that any of such denominations are credible in my opinion, but they exist as exceptions.

 

[lforrest]

if they dont believe the Bible to be absolute truth, shouldnt they be denied calling themselves a christian church? Aint nobody got time for heretics.

Who's going to stop them? If they answer to no one but themselves.

 

[Episkopos]

Today the vast majority of churches provide Statements of Faith that include many beliefs that are not found in Scripture.

Should there be a mandate among Christian Church organizations that churches need to prove their beliefs with Scripture or not be allowed to call themselves Christian churches?

People are allowed to deviate from the biblical admonitions in something we call...freedom of expression. People are free to draw the wrong conclusions. Making up creeds is itself a deviation from the biblical admonition to privately interpret the Bible according to our beliefs and preferences. Any church organization that does this makes themselves into a decoy church....a counterfeit that is trying to look as real as possible...but not according to the truth.

 

[GEN2REV]

my mother said she didnt even know churches had a statement of faith.

Yeah, most people don't.

 

[GEN2REV]

I think it needs not be required, because some more liberal denominations may not hold the bible to be absolute truth. Or they may have some extrabiblical revelation that is core to their beliefs.

Not that any of such denominations are credible in my opinion, but they exist as exceptions.

I think this is actually exactly the point.

Do you think those churches should be allowed to call themselves Christian churches if they don't adhere to the Christian Bible?

I mean what standard is there for a church to claim to be Christian if not the very book that defines Christianity?

 

[GEN2REV]

To whom do you suggest they prove their Statements of Faith?

How bout their members, or those considering being members?

As @Taken has said today in several posts, one's belief does not affect another.

You can't possibly buy that.

What do you think the term 'workers of iniquity' means?

What do you think Jesus is talking about when He says "be salt and light"?

If you don't believe somebody's belief/faith effects those around them, I don't even know where we go from here in a discussion.

 

[GEN2REV]

Who's going to stop them? If they answer to no one but themselves.

I loosely suggested in the OP some Christian Church Organization, but really that comes after we decide if it should be done.

It's just a hypothetical discussion, but it should be a legit topic among churches.

 

[GEN2REV]

And this is why false conversion is such an epidemic in the US. Its sad really.

Yes, anybody who misrepresents God, especially in a seemingly organized way, does massive damage to God's kingdom.

Matthew 11:12

 

[Behold]

Should there be a mandate among Christian Church organizations that churches need to prove their beliefs with Scripture or not be allowed to call themselves Christian churches?

Mainline Protestant Denom's all have a statement of faith that explains why they believe what they believe.
You can find it online, regarding many of them.

The CC, has lots of this "Faith Statement" stuff also.

 

[Wrangler]

What do you think Jesus is talking about when He says "be salt and light"?

If you don't believe somebody's belief/faith effects those around them, I don't even know where we go from here in a discussion.

You don't know because you're too theoretical. There is no doctrinal purity test for salvation. It's about action not a list of beliefs that can be "proven." See Matthew 7:21.

 

[Angelina]

Today the vast majority of churches provide Statements of Faith that include many beliefs that are not found in Scripture.

Should there be a mandate among Christian Church organizations that churches need to prove their beliefs with Scripture or not be allowed to call themselves Christian churches?

There are specific mandates that most churches agree with and then there is usually some things that churches believe in as their theology. As long as they have the main things as part of their belief system as believers in Christ, I don't think that there is an issue there. For instance, if I were looking for a church body to be a part of, I would be looking for the common beliefs that most churches agree on. If they have doctrines included that I personally do not agree with, I will move on and find another church. "Christian churches" follow Christ. If that ain't happening in a body of believers. you wont see me fellowshipping there. JM2c.

 

[Philip James]

Today the vast majority of churches provide Statements of Faith that include many beliefs that are not found in Scripture.

Should there be a mandate among Christian Church organizations that churches need to prove their beliefs with Scripture or not be allowed to call themselves Christian churches?

Who would enforce such a mandate? Who would adjudicate?

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Christ is risen!
Alleluia!

 

[GEN2REV]

Who would enforce such a mandate? Who would adjudicate?

If Christians began to hold their churches up to the Light of Scripture, it would make a difference in how churches do things eventually.

Unfortunately, this is mostly hypothetical because churches today are more about being social clubs and entertaining. They mix in a lotta pop psychology into their sermons and hope to attract as many people from the general world as possible.

That's because they are money-driven. Not Truth-driven.

 

[Bob Estey]

Today the vast majority of churches provide Statements of Faith that include many beliefs that are not found in Scripture.

Should there be a mandate among Christian Church organizations that churches need to prove their beliefs with Scripture or not be allowed to call themselves Christian churches?

What troubles me is that I don't know who it is that would create and enforce the mandate. Liberals would quote one set of scriptures, and conservatives another.