Rowan Atkinson (I Mean Rowan Williams) Steps in It and Other Ineresting Stuff from Around the Web
Wednesday, July 16, 2008 at 03:27PM 
The more Archbishop Williams speaks, the deeper the hole he digs for himself. His latest comment is unbelievable. "Christian doctrine offends Muslims." Really??? I had no idea. His solution? "An alliance of the two faiths for the common good." Amazing. There are not words to respond to this drivel. I'm sure Muslims would just love to make an "alliance" with a church which ordains gay and female bishops. BTW--This is the same Archbishop who says the UK must accept the reality of Sharia law. Click here: Archbishop of Canterbury: Christian doctrine is offensive to Muslims | Mail Online
The Evangelical Free Church (EFCA) in which I was raised, has tweaked their doctrinal statement. My former pastor, now an official in the EFCA (and a man who was a great pastor to me when I was becoming Reformed) once called the Free Church doctrinal statement "the Apostle's Creed rewritten by Norwegian farmers." In any case, the new statement closes some doctrinal loopholes (probably preventing future doctrinal issues) but retains its premillennialism. Click here: It's Not Broke, So Fix It | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction
Just a thought . . . If the EFCA can re-write their doctrinal statement to deal with current doctrinal controversies, perhaps it is time for the NAPARC churches to consider a new confession of faith for North American Reformed and Presbyterian Churches? I'd love to see a new Reformed/Presbyterian ecumenical confession which unites our churches, but it won't happen in my lifetime.
The creator of the G. I. Joe figures has a new venture--Bible action figures. You can get David, Jonah, Samson and other accessories. Click here: G.I. Joe creator finds Bible rich in action figures -- OrlandoSentinel.com. If he really wants to make a few bucks, he can utilize Delilah, Jezebel and the Moabite women to create a biblical equivalent of Barbie. I'd also like to see a line of "Televangelist" action figures. Think of what you could do with a Benny Hinn action figure . . .
Surely, the G. I. Joe inventor can't do better than the guy who came up with a Job action figure complete with sores (Click here: Riddleblog - The Latest Post - Incredibly Tacky Biblical Action Figures).
Reader Comments (13)
Amen!
"but it won't happen in my lifetime."
You're probably right. I'm 32, do I have a chance to see it?
As a side note, I've been thinking about the term "liberalism." I think that "modernism" would be better so that we could avoid any misunderstandings with people who just think of liberalism in terms of politics. Does anyone agree? I could be wrong, I just know the word has been used in the past.
I meant to write "rejection of inerrancy" and not "rejection of heresy" in the first paragraph of my previous post. Rejection of heresy is good.
Re the EFCA's new SoF. I followed it as it happened as best I could. The pre-mil-ism requirement is disappointing, but I'm not likely ever to be an EFCA preacher. I suspect our last pastor (who refused to preach eschatology to itching ears) wasn't a premil, and I know for a fact that at least one of our (former) elders isn't. Actual adherence to it is going to vary from congregation to congregation (which is more worrisome WRT things like open theism, than eschatology).
A Todd Bentley figure. A Paula White figure. Endless possibilities.
I also believe it's unfortunate that the latest revision of the EFCA's Statement of Faith still excludes the amillennial view.
I think it's even more unfortunate, however, that the cheap shot "Amillennialism will lead to liberalism and a denial of inerrancy!" --a rather common remark I used to hear repeatedly from many classic dispensationalists-- would evidently be cause for excluding the amillennial view. (I wonder what B. B. Warfield, a champion of biblical inerrancy ... AND ... one who, with amillennialists, held that the millennium of Rev. 20 precedes the return of Christ, would think of such a statement!)
Although the EFCA clearly does not want to alienate any who hold to a premillennial view (which I can understand and appreciate), I think there's a perfectly simple way of including within its ranks those who uphold the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture AND who also happen to hold to an "amil new heaven/new earth" model.
Yes, it's very simple: Continue to strongly uphold inspiration/inerrancy (as EFCA does) AND also strongly insist on the truth that Jesus will indeed establish His kingdom upon the earth (whether in a future millennium, per premillennialism ... or in the age to come, per amillennialism) by simply saying something like: "We believe in the literal return of Christ, and in the kingdom He will establish upon the earth at the time of His return."
Wouldn't this work?
Of course there are other eschatological matters deserving of inclusion in a Statement of Faith (such as the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, etc.). But my point is that BOTH premillennialists AND amillennialists agree that Jesus will return, and they also agree that He will reign upon the earth.
The amillennial view that the promises made to Abraham and his descendants re: kingdom, land and blessing will be fulfilled in the better country and city known as the new heaven and earth and the new Jerusalem (per Heb. 11:8-10,13-16; cf. also Heb. 12:22; 13:14; II Pet. 3:13) neither denies nor diminishes such promises one whit! (In my opinion, Vern Poythress is correct: the amil view, seeing such promises fulfilled in a perfect and eternal new heaven and earth, rather than in an imperfect and temporal millennium, does these promises even better!)
So if the EFCA really wanted to promote unity among all of God's people, and to uphold inspiration and inerrancy, and (rightly) to maintain its position on the return and earthly reign of Christ, the solution is really pretty simple.
If you were starting from scratch, probably. But in comparison to the older statement of faith of which this is a revision, those committed to premil-ism will see this language as "going squishy". Creeping liberalism with a watered down social gospel just a few years away.
"The amillennial view that the promises made to Abraham and his descendants re: kingdom, land and blessing will be fulfilled in the better country and city known as the new heaven and earth and the new Jerusalem"
Obvious and orthodox to us. "Antisemitic" amillenialism to the dispensationalists.
I appreciate your remarks.
I'm just wondering, though, if (as the years go by) what we believe might ultimately be more acceptable within the Christian community in general. Perhaps the older, classic dispensationalism won't dominate (i.e., have a stranglehold over) the thinking of so many at some point.
I guess what I'm thinking is that many classic Ds have moved even beyond a revised D (Walvoord, Ryrie, Pentecost) to either a progressive D (Bock, Blaising) or even to a historic premil (Ladd) view ... and I'm betting that at least some progressive Ds and historic premils wouldn't have some of the same "You're anti Israel; you're a liberal about to deny inerrancy!" attitudes.
Any thoughts?
The progressives might have ascendancy in the seminaries, but classic dispensationalism is alive and well out in the churches. For many of those that hold to it, the assumptions have a very powerful hold on their minds, to the point that some of them, holding to dispensationalism consistently, will blithely say things that have a huge impact on the gospel itself. Usually it's related to gymnastics their radical Israel-church distinction requires. "Yeah, sure, Jews get in by works in the millennium. Yeah, sure, Jews get to be an earthly, reproductive people of God in the new heavens and earth." I've heard or read both of these, and more. The saving grace here is that most people aren't consistent.
In my own personal case I haven't held the "standard evangelical model" since I read Warfield's article "Antichrist" about 30 years ago and I stopped trying to force Hal Lindsay's model onto the Bible. But I was pretty unformed in my notions until I started listening to a "hard" dispensationalist, and realized I needed to read up on this stuff.
"I'm just wondering, though, if (as the years go by) what we believe might ultimately be more acceptable within the Christian community in general."
Yeah, I think so. It's mostly the dispensationalists that don't like us. I've noticed they tend to be quite touchy. I think they're feeling the heat.
In the meantime, be up front, argue graciously and well and know when to shut up and let something go. If something comes up that impacts the gospel, I'd say it pretty much has to be responded to.
BTW, since Moses upholds the snake in the desert during battle, would that put him FOR or AGAINST Cobra Commander and his hordes? :)