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 So would it be a sin for me to join a church that requires adherence to either of these historical documents with both Reformed views of Ecclesiology (church) and Eschatology (end times)?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.

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.