The Value of the Septuagint : Series on English Translation Only position continued

The Septuagint

Series Part One           Series Part Two 
        
First, this ones a little more academic.  When the New Testament writers penned out the scriptures through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what did they quote for authority in their sermons and argumentation?  Good answer: the Old Testament.  But not quite accurate enough.  The Old Testament Masoretic Text or the Septuagint?  A good Greek text lays these out.  If the Masoretic text, how good of a translation is it?  On the other hand, if they quoted repeatedly from the Septuagint, how good of a translation is it?  Think and research this before you answer.  

Application: if the first century apostles and Jesus himself quoted from a translation that was not word for word or rather dynamic in translation, what does that say for translations in English?  Often even when people agree with the position of the translators preface of the KJV, they still arbitrarily restrict themselves to certain English translations.  I would guess it is a result of a strong Fundamental position on both inerrancy and plenary (verbal) inspiration.  Simple logic to help people understand this:  If every word matters then an English translation that "best" or "most accurately" represents the original wording is most desirable.  This also takes into account changing vocabulary, spelling, etc.... This is a choice made, either by doctrine, associations or simple preference.

I would suggest this conversation is only heightened if someone denies the existence of the Septuagint.  Yes there are actually people who teach that the Septuagint does not exist (despite the fact there are actually physical manuscripts in existence).  History itself shows these claims our completely outside historic fundamental Christianity (this is yet another reason to quote history in every article to show how outside of historic Christianity a one English only position is).  I intend to produce a future article addressing NT quotations that make no sense, have no OT counterpart, and have no reasoning without an underlying Greek OT text.  

I think one reason many (or if not most) one English translation advocates deny a Septuagint is because of its rather loose translation in places and its inclusion of the Apocrypha.  Of course by this logic (line of reasoning) they must also reject their own KJV because it also included the Apocrypha.  I am currently looking at a facsimile copy of the KJV 1611 and it includes the Apocrypha.  I would suggest this is guilt by association inconsistently applied.

To begin there are roughly 350 direct quotations of the Old Testament by New Testament authors.  Nearly 20% of these come from the Septuagint (LXX).  One thing for certain provided through a Greek translation of the OT was that the common Greek speaking person could read it (that is, if they couldn't read Hebrew).

From here I will survey the NT texts in which the Septuagint is quoted. The task is simple: compare the NT Greek text to the OT Greek text of the Septuagint.  By comparison, if the Hebrew OT text was quoted then how would the NT quotation read (that is if quoted word for word and not paraphrased).

Historical voices on the translation issue

"Now though some translations may exceed others in Propriety, and significant rendering of the Originals; yet they generally, (even the most imperfect that we know of), express and hold forth so much the Mind, Will, and Counsel of God, as is sufficient...to acquaint a Man with the Mysteries of Salvation, to work in him a true Faith, and bring him to live godly, righteously, and soberly in this World, and to Salvation in the next"
(Benjamin Keach, Tropologia: A Key to Open Scripture Metaphors to which are prefixed Arguments to prove the Divine Authority of the Holy Bible, p. xxi; Quotation format borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC ).

"I design first to set down the text itself, for the most part, in the common English translation, which is, in general (so far as I can judge) abundantly the best that I have seen.  Yet I do not say it is incapable of being brought, in several places, nearer to the original.  Neither will I affirm that the Greek copies from which this translation was made, as always the most correct.  And therefore I shall take the liberty, as occasion may require, to make here and there a small alteration" 
(John Wesley, Notes on the Whole Bible-The New Testament, pp. 3-4; Quotation format borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

The KJV Translators Preface: The KJV 1611 One English Only Position Continued

The KJV 1611 Translators Preface

Series Part Two          Series Part One

This one is rather interesting.  Much damage has been done by Bible publishers for not including this translators preface in their English translations.  I highly recommend a Cambridge edition that includes the translator's preface.  You can google it if needed to read a copy.  It is rather interesting for modern users of an English translation to take a position on this particular English translation which even the translators themselves did not hold to.  I challenge anyone to read a modern copy of the translator's preface.  The simple process of educating yourself on what they actually taught and practiced should bear insightful.

So what exactly was the position of the translators of the KJV? Since most people will never purchase a KJV containing the original Translators preface I will list out by category pertinent categories and quotations take from the original preface.  Again, you can find a simple free copy on www.google.com and read it for yourself (in its entirety).  

Since multiple English translations already existed, what did they think of producing new translations,

"It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks: and if there be any hole left for cavil to enter, (and cavil, if it does not find a hole, will make one) it is sure to be miscontrued, and in danger to be condemned."

What did the translators believe about multiple Bible translations in English (or any other language), 

"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

What did the translators believe about word for word translations and modern translations,

"For is the kingdom of God to become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?"

"Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point."

"...it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence..." 

"There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother or neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places."

"doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?"

"For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption."

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded." 

"They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other." 

"...we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way."

What did the translators believe about English translations without errors or English translations that are beyond the reach of correction,

"Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Translations so oft; wherein truly they deal hardly, and strangely with us. For to whomever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?"

"But the difference that appeareth between our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves be without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they be fit men to throw stones at us: O tandem maior parcas insane minori: they that are less sound themselves, out not to object infirmities to others."

Finally, what did the translators believe about the need to have English translations in the modern tongue and vocabulary of the people, not in an archaic language from the past,

Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which is deep) without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, "Read this, I pray thee," he was fain to make this answer, "I cannot, for it is sealed."

"But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar."

Quotes from History on Translations,

"The holy Scriptures viz. the Originalls Hebrew & Greek are given by Divine Inspiration & in their first donation were without error most perfect and therefore Canonical...no translation can possibly express all the matter of the holy originalls, nor a thousand things in the Grammar, Rhetoric, & character of the tongue."
(The Works of John Smyth, fellow of Christ's College, ed. W.T. Whitley, vol. I, pp. 279-280; Quotation format borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

"Translations contain the word of God, and are the word of God, perfectly or imperfectly, according as they express the words, sense, and meaning of those originals.  To advance any, all translations concurring, into an equality with the originals, ... much more to propose and use them as means of castigating, amending, altering any thing in them, gathering various lections by them, is to set up an altar of our own by the altar of God, and to make equal the wisdom, care, skill and diligence of men, with the wisdom, care, and providence of God himself "
(Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scripture, in Works of John Owns, vol. XVI, p. 357; Quotation format borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

So as you can tell a modern movement that claims God chose both the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts was not held by the translators themselves.  In addition, claiming that God will only use (or has only chosen or blessed) one English translation is not correct now nor was it believed by the translators of the King James Version.

We must still address where doctrine, history, and charity meet.
Read. Be educated.  Comments as always encouraged.

The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship (FBFI) and English Translations, Discernment, and Christian Charity

The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship (FBFI) and the Modern One English Only Position

This organization or fellowship of Fundamental Baptists meets multiple times each year (according to region and otherwise).  They also produce a magazine entitled "Frontline" several times each year. Back in 1995, and subsequently they have produced statements concerning the English Only Position.  I personally know probably over a hundred members of this fellowship and have been a member of multiple of their churches.

Series Part One

Below in its complete form is a copy of their statement as written in the year 1995.  This statement is just as true today as it was over twenty years ago when it was written.  (The Bold headings are my own take away summary statements and should not be misinterpreted as to represent the original authors of the FBFI positional document).  You have the original statement to draw your own conclusions.

Christians should hold to their own position on English translations with love, a clear conscience, and a well-informed historical perspective (especially within practicing Fundamentalist local churches).

"In light of the considerable discussion among fundamentalists about the issue of manuscripts and textual theories, no particular belief about the best textual theory should be elevated to the place of becoming a core fundamentalist belief.  Fundamentalists may hold the doctrine of inspiration with equal strength without embracing the same belief about textual criticism."

Christians should compare their English translation of choice with the original languages (whatever your choice of manuscripts may be).

"Additionally, proper evaluation of the doctrinal integrity of any particular English translation can only be done by examining its faithfulness to the original languages, not by comparing it to another English translation.  While the process of comparing it with other translations may be profitable for matters of clarity and readability, this process cannot pass as the test of doctrinal accuracy since it is illegitimate to check one copy by another; one must compare the copy to the original."

Christians should exercise great care in whatever English translation they use.  This extends to homes, local churches, and organizations.

"In a day when translations abound, fundamentalists must exercise careful discernment in both the selection and rejection of translations.  Some professing fundamentalists have wrongfully declared one translation to be the only inspired copy of God's Word in the English language and have sought to make this a test of fundamentalism."

Christians should put forth effort to study the original languages and not to rely solely on English translations.

"Since no translation can genuinely claim what only may be said of the original, inspired writings, any attempt to make a particular English translation the only acceptable translation of fundamentalism must be rejected."

(resolution passed at the 75th annual meeting at Faith Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

Below are some additional principles I have derived concerning this issue of English translations (I apply these to myself and family, not to those outside my home).

First, I have for years memorized verses, chapters, and books of the Bible using a particular English translation.  I have no necessary or compelling reason to change this daily practice.

Second, I have been blessed to have multiple years of Greek and Hebrew seminary level training.  This enables me to dive deep into my scriptural study of grammar and syntax.  I have no necessary reason to limit myself to word studies or an English translation.

Third, I completely understand local churches and institutions set their own policies for public teaching and preaching (either by the pastor, elders, or the congregation).  Therefore, in those capacities of verbal ministry, I do restrict myself to their policies concerning English translations.

Fourth, I have not (to my knowledge) ever actually taught against (from a local church pulpit or in a classroom) against the position of that particular local church on English translations.

Finally, I (and my family) understand that both (in the past and potentially in the future) we will have to leave local churches due to the nature and manner in which this English translation only position is addressed (both in teaching and demeanor).

Historical Quote from History on Translations

"We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession ... containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God....No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it....Whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolick men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit, and priviledged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?" (The Translators to the Reader, p. xix)

Read, learn, be educated.  soli deo gloria

Comments as always encouraged.

Helpful Books for Educating Yourself concerning the English Translation Only Position

Helpful Books for Educating Yourself concerning the English Translation Only Position

The longer we live in Indiana (state not relevant), the more I appreciate having a solid educational foundation from multiple conservative seminaries within Christianity.  The more I interact with this issue, the more I am concerned that people simply aren't educated in this issue.  Even worse is a refusal to be educated.  In an era of massive internet availability via the internet, books, and multimedia there should be no excuses for being uninformed.

Below is a collection of helpful texts from multiple sources addressing the English Only text position (listed in alphabetical order via author):

Barnard, Richard K. God's Word in Our Language. (Zondervan, Grand Rapids), 1989.

Beacham, Roy E. One Bible Only?: Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001).

Beale, David. A Pictorial History of Our English Bible. (BJU Press, Greenville), 1982.

Cairns, Alan. "Textual Criticism." Dictionary of Theological Terms. (Ambassador-Emerald International, Greenville, Belfast), 1998.

Carson, D. A. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978).

Comfort, Philip W. The Origin of the Bible. (Tyndale: Wheaton), 1992.

Custer, Stewart. Does Inspiration Demand Inerrancy? A Study of the Biblical Doctrine of Inspiration in the Light of Inerrancy. (The Craig Press, New Jersey), 1968.

Custer, Stewart. The Truth About the King James Version Controversy. (BJU Press, Greenville), 1981.

Jodock, Darrell. The Church's Bible. Its Contemporary Authority. (Augsburg Fortress: Minneapolis), 1989.

Ramey, Court. Why the Bible Matters. (BJU Press, Greenville), 1999.

Ramler, Kent and Randy Leedy. How Firm a Foundation. (BJU Press, Greenville), 1995.

Thomas, Robert L. How to Choose a Bible Version. Making sense of the Proliferation of Bible Translations. (Christian Focus Publications, Great Britian), 2000.

Ward, Mark. Authorized. The Use & Misuse of the King James Bible. (Bellingham: Lexham Press), 2018.

Wegner, Paul D. The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible. (Baker, Grand Rapids), 1999.

White, James R. The King James Only Controversy. Can You Trust the Modern Translations? (Bethany House Publications, Minneapolis), 1995.

Williams, James B. From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man. A Layman's Guide to How w Got Our Bibles. (Ambassador Emerald International: Greenville, Belfast), 1999.

Williams, James B. and Randolph Shaylor. God's Word in Our Hands. The Bible Preserved for Us. (Ambassador Emerald International: Greenville, Belfast), 2003.

Multiple journals have addressed this issue and are worthy of your reading.

Enjoy.  Read, pray, memorize, and live out your Bible and grow in Christlikeness.

Comments as always encouraged.

Many Evangelical Seminaries still believe and teach dispensationalism

Many conservative Evangelical and Fundamentalist seminaries still teach and believe dispensationalism (or at least its underlying hermeneutics).  They are also not ashamed to be premillenialists.  I am not necessarily endorsing nor promoting these seminaries.  I am simply stating that these seminaries still teach and believe this underlying theological system.  You don't have to believe in covenant theology or amillennialism to be an evangelical or a biblical scholar (although there is a growing pressure to conform to these positions).

To my knowledge (please correct me if I am wrong), up to present ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) has had a Dispensationism Study Group and Clark Summit University (see below) has had a yearly Dispensationalism conference (at least up till 2014).  So even on multi-denominational and seminary levels this is still a serious issue to both believe and defend by academically trained pastors and seminary professors.  Many of these same schools produce quarterly theological journals defending these same exegetical-based positions.  

So don't walk away from these Biblically defensible positions.  There are hundreds of seminary students (future local church pastors and missionaries) who share your beliefs.  Don't get drawn into the cool and trendy positions of big name coalitions and groups.  It won't help.  In the end, you still preach the gospel.  But how the book end does determine  how you live now.  If this is your kingdom here and now then no wonder people leave these main line denominations.

I am listing in alphabetical order the positions of seminaries as I find them in printed media or online.  (The multi-changing font is because I copy/pasted them from each seminary website.  Some of them I just couldn't fix the font).

Bob Jones University

(Taken from Course Catalog for Systematic Theology)
"The application of the principles of systematic theology to the doctrines of Christ, salvation, the Church and the end times, following a biblical dispensational hermeneutic"

Central Baptist Theological Seminary

"We believe that there is a radical and essential difference between the righteous and the wicked. Those who are righteous will enter into eternal bliss with Christ and those who are wicked will be lost forever (1). We believe that the Scriptures teach that at death the spirit and soul of the believer pass into the presence of Christ and remain in conscious joy until the resurrection of the body when Christ comes for His own (2). The blessed hope of the believer is the imminent, personal, pretribulational, premillennial appearance of Christ to rapture the Church, His bride, prior to the seventieth week of Daniel (3). God's righteous judgments will then be poured out upon an unbelieving world during the seven years of tribulation (4). The climax of this fearful era will be the physical return of Jesus Christ to the earth in great glory to reestablish the Davidic kingdom (5). Israel will be saved and restored as a nation."

Clark Summit University ("formerly Baptist Bible Seminary")

"We believe the Bible supports using a grammatical, historical method of interpretation in light of the progress of revelation. Thus, we believe that the Bible is the clear, sufficient, and supreme authority for all belief, life, and ministry."

"We believe in the distinction between the nation of Israel and the Church, the Spirit-baptized Body of Christ. The Church is not the collection of all believers of all times."

"We believe that God will fulfill the biblical covenants made with the nation of Israel. Though they are now dispersed among the nations, they will be re-gathered in the land of Israel and saved as a nation at the premillennial coming of Christ to the earth. At that time, Christ will begin his Davidic rule over the world for 1,000 years and continue to reign in the eternal state."

Dallas Theological Seminary

"We believe that the dispensations are stewardships by which God administers His purpose on the earth through man under varying responsibilities. We believe that the changes in the dispensational dealings of God with man depend on changed conditions or situations in which man is successively found with relation to God, and that these changes are the result of the failures of man and the judgments of God. We believe that different administrative responsibilities of this character are manifest in the biblical record, that they span the entire history of mankind, and that each ends in the failure of man under the respective test and in an ensuing judgment from God. We believe that three of these dispensations or rules of life are the subject of extended revelation in the Scriptures, viz., the dispensation of the Mosaic Law, the present dispensation of grace, and the future dispensation of the millennial kingdom. We believe that these are distinct and are not to be intermingled or confused, as they are chronologically successive."

"We believe that the period of great tribulation in the earth will be climaxed by the return of the Lord Jesus Christ to the earth as He went, in person on the clouds of heaven, and with power and great glory to introduce the millennial age, to bind Satan and place him in the abyss, to lift the curse which now rests upon the whole creation, to restore Israel to her own land and to give her the realization of God’s covenant promises, and to bring the whole world to the knowledge of God." 

Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary

"We believe in a dispensational understanding of the Bible, an approach to Scripture based on the progressive unfolding of the divine mysteries or new revelation from God which results in various dispensations or distinguishable administrations/stewardships of God’s revealed truth, such as Promise, Law, Grace, Kingdom, among others. This approach recognizes a fundamental distinction between Israel and the Church in origin, purposes, and destiny."

"We believe in the literal return of Jesus Christ that will take place in two stages. The first stage is the Rapture, or His personal, imminent, and pretribulational coming for all saints of the church age. The second stage is the Revelation or the Second Coming in Glory, which is His personal and public coming at the close of the Tribulation Period to establish the messianic, Millennial Kingdom on the earth when Israel will be restored to covenant favor with God and to her land in faith and the Church will reign with Christ for the thousand years. After the Millennium there will be a new heaven and earth wherein God will dwell eternally with His people.<sup>"

Liberty University</sup>

"It is to be understood by all through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, its meaning determined by the historical, grammatical, and literary use of the author’s language, comparing Scripture with Scripture."

"We affirm that the return of Christ for all believers is imminent. It will be followed by seven years of great tribulation, and then the coming of Christ to establish His earthly kingdom for a thousand years."

^{Maranatha Baptist University}

"The Bible faculty are committed to a dispensational hermeneutic. In every Bible course we teach and demonstrate a normal, historical, grammatical interpretation of the text of Scripture that is the foundation of dispensationalism. This hermeneutic does not preclude or exclude correct understanding of types, illustrations, apocalypses, and other genres within the basic framework of literal interpretation. It does acknowledge the progressive revelation of God’s divine plan through time. Though various stewardships of revelation are acknowledged, the unifying salvific factor for all people for all time is the necessity of responding by faith to the special revelation given. The consequence of this consistent hermeneutic is a distinction between ethnic Israel and the New Testament church. Covenants established between God and ethnic Israel will be fulfilled in the literal sense in which they were given and received. The unique relationship between Christ and His Bride, the church, is acknowledged and preserved. Throughout all of eternity, the ultimate purpose of His universal plan is that of glorifying Himself. We reject covenant theology, its hermeneutic, and the eschatology of amillennialism and post-millennialism. Furthermore, we reject the progressive concept that Christ is already reigning on the Davidic throne."

Masters Seminary

"We teach the literal, grammatical historical interpretation of Scripture which affirms the belief that the opening chapters of Genesis present creation in six literal days."

"We teach that, after the tribulation period, Christ will come to earth to occupy the throne of David and establish His messianic kingdom for a thousand years on the earth. During this time the resurrected saints will reign with Him over Israel and all the nations of the earth."

Piedmont International University

"We believe in accepting the literal teaching of the Word. “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.” Therefore, every declaration is to be taken in its primary, ordinary, literal, and its most obvious meaning unless the facts of the context and the well-defined laws of language clearly indicate the terms either to be symbolic or figurative and not literal. Whatever is not literal must be explained in the light of other passages which are literal."

"We believe, according to Scriptures, in the sure return of the Lord Jesus Christ; that this second coming will be a literal, bodily, personal return; that His coming for His bride, the Church, constitutes the “Blessed Hope” set before us, for which we should be constantly looking. We believe that His coming will be premillennial."

So don't fret, worry or be intimidated if you can't (with a clear conscience) hold to some confession written nearly 400 years ago or longer.  I would suggest in our current evangelical climate there are many loud and outspoken adherents of both Covenant Theology and Amillennialism (chances are you already have their books on your shelf).  You are not alone in your theological convictions.  If you want to memorize a catechism then make up your own.  If it needs to be dispensational great.    

Read, enjoy, and take comfort.  You are not alone in your beliefs. 

If you know of others I can add to this list please forward me their internet address.

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.