Eschatological Liberties--Is it necessary within your own Local Church or Constitution?

Eschatological (end times) Liberties--Is it necessary within your own Local Church or Constitution?

As new evangelical scholars and leaders within broader groups such as the SBC, Gospel Coalition and T4G continue to promote a Reformed View of scriptures and ecclesiology,  eschatology can't be avoid as part of the interpretive package.  You need information to train and defend your local churches from the reemergence of the Amillennial end-times view point.  The above mentioned organizations have positions papers on a multitude of doctrinal positions.  I intend in time to list out my concerns for their strong anti-dispensational position (and resultant anti-premillennialism) which appears in multiple of their documents. 

Start to also note the unceasing pleas (or even demands) that eschatology not be part of your local church constitution or even needed for church membership.  Ironic that these same individuals who for years accused others of legalism (especially Fundamentalists) have now defined not tolerating their own eschatology as being sinful.  So far every quote I can find in relation to the claim of eschatology and sinfulness (in relation to church membership) has come from an amillennialist (Robert Schreiner being the exception, who changed his view to premillennialist).  This is not just can churches work together but you are sinning to not let them join your church.  

These same groups or churches look past failing or re-definitions of inerrancy in their churches, pulpits, and seminaries. They look past a growing charismatic influence in these same institutions. They look past sharing preaching platforms and signing documents with liberals and apostates.  In time is also may be sinful to be a dispensationalist.  You can be assured what is popular or cool gains influence (especially their music).

If your church holds to the Westminster Confession or London Baptist Confession, without allowing for some disagreement, then you must be an Amillennialist (maybe you could sneak by as Post-mil but I doubt it). So would it be a sin for me to join a church that requires adherence to either of these historical documents with both Reformed views of Ecclesiology (church) and Eschatology (end times)?  Anyone see a double standard here?  I don't see many Premillennial churches wanting an Amillennial pastor, elder or Sunday school teacher.
Membership included.  

If not then you will arbitrarily have to allow for disagreements with these historical documents.  If not then it would be dishonest for me to join and not be able to disagree.  Could I still preach there or teach Sunday school?  Or is membership in their local church the only focus (without reference to a verbal ministry)?  My guess is though it is still currently cool and trendy to be Reformed and a continued influence of Gospel Coalition and T4G writers will not help any.  You definitely can't be a practicing dispensationalist and adhere with a clear conscience to either confession.  

But don't dare be dogmatic on Christ's kingdom or how time will end.  You can be guaranteed that its only a matter of time (if not already) it will be viewed as sinful to speak against apostasy, church discipline, and modern-day charismatic practices (as MacArthur on this last one).  It is already viewed as judgmental or even racist to evaluate music and culture.  Then again the more you adhere to the new evangelical spirit the less lines you will draw.  I invite you to objectively check the beliefs and practices of the primary preachers, teachers, and writers for these organizations.

Anyone see a double standard here?  So don't feel ashamed if your church is dispensational and premillennial.    

Enjoy your day.  Walk with Christ.  Comments as always encouraged.

SBC, NPR and Biblical Authority

SBC, NPR and Biblical Authority

What do these have in common?

Well NPR (National Pagan "Public" Radio) just did a radio spot on a recent Gospel-based event in Louisville, KY.  The main individual quoted was SBC president Al Mohler (just for those who need clarification what this event was).

I feel as though for those who heard or didn't hear this radio spot that a few comments are needed.

First, the SBC does not represent Christianity.  It is one denomination within a broader Christian umbrella.  Do I personally agree with the vast majority of what the SBC teaches doctrinally?  Yes, of course it is traditional historic Christian beliefs.

Second, NPR missed the boat.  If you heard the spot it was basically saying the SBC is outdated Christianity out of touch with the moral changes in unbelieving society (think bathroom issues, gender roles, etc...).  They also referenced another church here in the area that left the SBC some 20-25 years ago (over some of these same issues).

Third, biblical authority has to be emphasized above denominational labels.  This authority determines what we belief and how we live.  As far as what we belief goes, the SBC has a great deal of this right (think: orthodoxy).  I disagree with the Reformed Calvinistic slant a great deal of these new cool kids have embraced (both in book, preaching, and lifestyle).

NPR could have spent the whole article focusing on the selective nature of social issues within "conservative" Christianity or the SBC.  They could have addressed why only some sins are addressed when it comes to voting and supposed "conscience" issues--but that will never happen.
They could have talked about the cool-kid evangelical card carrying label just leave out the debated issues for academic respectability--you know literal creation, charismatic gifts, etc...--but that will never happen.  Only an informed insider will know of the inconsistency of belief and practice even within confessing evangelicalism.

Perhaps we need some articles on the following (to help NPR understand the SBC or even evangelicals in general):

How about the following: (rabbit trail)

Why evangelicals can vote with a clear conscience for Mitt Romney (a Mormon) but can't vote for Trump?

Why evangelicals can vote for John McCain (think policies he held to when running against G.W. Bush), but still can't vote for Trump?

We could add other past (Republicans) who were anything but great choices but were still voted in with clear consciences.

Anyway back from the rabbit trail.  The other "baptist" church sited in opposition to the SBC was basically an egalitarian and not complimentarian church in gender roles.  It also had a more inclusive view of other social issues.  Biblical authority was selectively rejected.  The SBC does the same thing just like many other Christian denominations and local churches.

Not meant to solve the issues.

But at least don't hold up the SBC as though it represents Christianity.

Thoughts and comments encouraged.