A Glimpse back in history at the Goals for New Evangelicalism (Did it happen?)

A Glimpse back in history at the Goals for New Evangelicalism (Did it happen?)

They claimed to be true to orthodox Christian beliefs.  That's easy: just redefine orthodox with the lowest common denominators.  Here are four reasons they gave for their necessity as a movement.  These points are taken from the article entitled, "New Evangelicalism" in The Dictionary of Theological Terms by Alan Cairns (pp. 257-249).

First, "they wished to place an emphasis on scholarship."  This includes heavy interaction and quotations from outright unbelievers, neo-orthodoxy and liberals.  Remember the phrase in an attempt to reach out to the scholastic world, "I'll call you a Christian, if you'll call me a scholar."  Think lowest common denominator beliefs in the Evangelical Theological Society.

Second, "new evangelicals wished to abandon the old confrontational spirit of earlier days."  This eventually created outright cooperation with liberals and Roman Catholics.  ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) is just another product of this line of thinking fleshed out.  It would surprise you the well-known names who signed the document.  Liberals are Christians.  Roman Catholics are Christians.  So they say.

Third, "new evangelicals wished to be more open to modern scientific theory."  Think evolution doesn't matter.  This is the new basic mantra across the lines of big name evangelical groups, seminaries, and coalitions.  They have the Reformed Calvinistic soteriology talk down but they praise the unbelieving scientists.  When Bible is placed against science, the new evangelicals chose the biased views of unbelieving scientists.  But they are not worried, you need Jesus not a literal fall and Adam.

Fourth, "new evangelicals wished to become more involved than old evangelicals had been in addressing the problems of society."  Think: social justice everywhere.  New mission: social justice gospel and evangelism.  Racism, capitalism, poverty, etc....  These are the new focuses in a social justice kingdom on earth.

What damage have these misplaced goals and means brought upon Christ's church?  What steps have Fundamentalists made in these same four directions?  Be careful before you answer.  Look at what schools remain and who has closed their doors.  What changes have been made?  What walls no longer exist?  Concerned?  What schools will be left when my children a college-aged?

Think.  Preach Christ alone (this 500th Reformation year).  Comments encouraged.

So are the police racist? Opinion of a concealed carry owner who still believes the 2nd Amendment

So are the police racist?  Opinion of a concealed carry owner who still believes the 2nd Amendment applies to me.

The police protect me.  If they are in danger I will gladly help them.  I have many friends in law enforcement.

So are police racist?  That would depend on how you define the term?  It also would depend on whether you are the family member of someone shot by police.  Also on how you define racism.  Technically there is one human race, all made in God's image.

Sadly, the big city near me is again have a trial for a police officer who shot and killed another person in the line of duty.  The police officer was white and the man shot was black.  Just as a reminder, I don not like either evolutionary based designation for individuals.  We have one creator who made all mankind in his image.  Anyway back to the farm.

Check out this video.  What do the actual facts show in relation the the ad hominem verbal thrashes by the liberals toward our public servants.  Why can't liberals just tell the truth.  Answer:  It would destroy all their name calling and social justice rhetoric.

Don't expect the liberal media like (Foxnews and CNN) to report on this one.  Sorry, Foxnews this last election as voided my respect for them and who they hire.

Enjoy!

Evangelical Study Bibles: A Last Evaluation and Warning concerning evolutionary compromise

Evangelical Study Bibles: A Last Evaluation and Warning concerning evolutionary compromise (simply: why they don't believe in a literal 24-hour, six day creation week and a young earth)

This small three part series has investigated the introductory notes and verse comments found with several well-known evangelical study Bibles.  By way of review we have previously covered the following list of study Bibles: The MacArthur Study Bible, The Reformation Heritage Study Bible, The Zondervan Study Bible (KJV Edition), the Ryrie Study Bible, the ESV Study Bible and lastly the Reformation Study Bible.

As has been shown there is a dramatic pull or push (which ever is worse) within new evangelical circles to present nearly every possible position on the creation account of Genesis chapter one.  Whether motivated by a broader audience appeal from particular publishing houses or simply a desire to be a respected scholar within the new evangelical sphere is besides the point.  What matters is that people read these study notes from these well-known and influential writers and walk away believing it doesn't matter.  In essence, these modern new evangelical "scholars" have redefined historical doctrine and made it of secondary importance.  Worse case (in this new way of thinking) it has not effected the content of the gospel (which in the end is all they want you to believe is important).  I would challenge you to produce a list of theological journal articles which actually support and defend a literal 24-hour, six-day view of the creation account found in Genesis One.  If and when you are actually able to produce a list take note of the journal and the date when it was published.  New evangelicalism does a very good job keeping these articles from appearing in print.

Today in this last episode concerning the view of creation found within study Bibles we shall review three remaining sources: the NET Bible, the Apologetics Study Bible and lastly the Archaeological Study Bible.

First is the NET Bible from Biblical Studies Press (2006).  This is a lesser known study Bible, the notes located within it appear to be more focused on translation and exegetical concerns.  Most study Bibles do not comment on manuscripts, variants, and various other details such as case uses and grammatical sentence structure.  Concerning the NET Bible comments on 1:1, "If the first view is adopted, then we have a reference here to original creation; if the second view is taken, then Genesis itself does not account for the original creation of matter."  In relation to these two positions later on in the notes they comment, "This second view presupposes the existence of pre-existent matter."  How then do they evaluate this alternative in the notes, "The following narrative strongly favors the second view..."  Did you catch that detail?  Pre-existing matter prior to creation and this is the favored view.  Please let me know if I am wrong and misunderstood this.  I'll gladly make correction to be academically correct and honest.

Well, on to the Apologetics Study Bible.  They list in their notes on page four, "Both sides believe they have strong arguments favoring their interpretation and rebutting the other side."  Ultimately, they take no position and offer no rebuttal for any position.  They are at least willing to acknowledge theistic evolutionists have sold out to Darwin, "those who accept evolution as God's mechanism in creation."  They simply don't understand the issues at stake and allow evolutionary scientists to define what "science" is and don't question it, "Some YCs accuse OCs of compromising the Bible with evolutionary science.  Some OCs charge YCs with undermining biblical credibility by generating a false conflict between science and the Scriptures."  Can you read what they are saying about broader new evangelical scholars?  Since OCs refuse to question the unbelieving views of evolutionists, everyone who opposes their accommodating Biblical interpretations is a trouble maker.  The end of their section really sums up the views of broader evangelical's refusal to take the text at face value, "even if the correct interpretation of the creation days is not readily apparent in the present generation."

Lastly, we shall discuss the Archaeological Study Bible.  The back cover explicitly identifies it as a joint project with Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.  It's main editors are Walter C. Kaiser and Duane Garrett. We begin with comments on 1:1-31, "The length of the creative days of Genesis 1 is not specified in the Bible."  They continue after listing three views for the gloss "day", "There is no indisputable indication as to which of the three is meant in Genesis 1."  We go on, "The Bible provides no specific statement as to how long ago matter was created, when the first day or creation began or when the sixth day ended."  To their credit concerning 1:1-2 and a supposed long gap, "Hebrew syntax, leaves no room for such a view."  So at least their willing to take a stance again the gap theory but won't give any critique of the compromised views of new evangelical scholarship.

This series has come to a conclusion.  So in conclusion in evaluating study Bibles in their handling of the account of creation and accommodation to new evangelical scholarship only three stand out as the least compromised or again evolutionary theory.  These three are the MacArthur Study Bible, Ryrie Study Bible and the Reformation Heritage Study Bible.

Hope this helps some.  Again if any facts or copied quotations straight from their own notes are not accurate please let me know.  In the end, keeping reading and memorizing the scriptures.  Don't forget the notes are not given by inspiration from God.

Comments of course as always encouraged.

Historic Creeds, Confessions and a Literal Six-Day Creation

Historic Creeds and Confessions and a Literal Six-Day Creation

It appears to me that every orthodox Christian confession I can find declares a literal six-day creation (not to say the list below is all inclusive).  If not this specifically, then God directly made man and woman in his own image.  Evolution (in any form) does not appear at all.  To say so is academically dishonest.  Shame on new evangelicals who try to make evolution fit with their Bibles.  According to every standard creed and confession, this is not a secondary doctrine.

I challenge you to read the statements made by the big "Gospel-based" groups.  Their beliefs (in writing) concerning creation are not what you think.  Notice how much space is spent on defending other views of creation and not a literal creation alone.  Is this a historical position of Christianity?  If you check out the membership and speakers in these groups it will be clear why a literal creation is not necessary (or even allowable).

New Evangelicalism for years has placated to evolutionary and old earth compromise in their ranks.  It infects both their pulpits and their seminaries.  Please read the following from a recent Gospel Coalition blog (please note, that creation was not considered a secondary issue in historical church creeds),

"The length of the Genesis 1 days, the age of the earth, and animal death and predation before the fall are all secondary or tertiary matters which must be worked out in ways consistent with our first-order commitments."


I would suggest that solving society's problems, whether social, political, or any form of social justice issues starts with a teaching of Genesis, a literal Adam and Eve, and a defense for a literal creation.  As long as main stream new evangelicalism believes the Calvinistic Gospel alone will fix all our problems, they are not only not historical, but further avoiding a cure to help society's real problem with sin.  Added to this an avoidance of teaching against evolution and then making room for evangelical leaders who embrace it does Christianity a great disservice.  Worst case this is simply false teaching not addressed because pragmatism works.

The Apostles' Creed, "I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth"

The Nicene Creed. "Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible"

Belgic Confession (Article 12) "created of nothing the heaven, the earth, and all creatures as it seemed good unto Him"

Heidelberg Catechism (Lord's Day 9, Of God the Father) "who of nothing made heaven and earth, with all that is in them"

Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647 (Chapter IV, of Creation) "to create, or make of nothing, the world,...,, in the space of six days, and all very good."

London Baptist Confession. 1689 (Chapter IV, of Creation) "to create or make the world, and all things therein,...in the space of six days, and all very good."

Unfortunately history will once again be ignored.  New Evangelical churches will continue to teach their people creation doesn't matter.  Just repent and trust in Jesus.  Don't worry about creation or the age of the earth.

I will in the near future list the positions found within major study Bibles.

Hope this helps those who are confused on the Church's historical position on this issue.

Comments welcomed and encouraged.