How does a baptist avoid dispensationalism and such?

[Osage Bluestem]

Imagine for a minute that Baptists were right about baptism and you were going to find a Baptist Church to join, but you were an amillennial five point calvinist. How would you avoid the many errors that have sprung up in Baptist circles over the years such as dispensationalism, pre-milleniall escatology, arminian influences, and, music focused worship?

Is there a method to finding a good baptist church within the SBC? I've noticed there aren't many Reformed Baptist Churches in existence, and it seems like most Independent Fundamentalist Baptist's are dispensational. So how do you guys do it?

 

[Andres]

this might be a good place to start.

 

[raekwon]

Is there a method to finding a good baptist church within the SBC?

Founders Ministries | Founders-Friendly Churches

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Why is it that the Baptist Churches have these issues widespread? Is it because of the lack of a unified body? As I understand it they are all automomous. The SBC seems to have rules but they are quite loose.

 

[MLCOPE2]

How would you avoid the many errors that have sprung up in Baptist circles over the years such as dispensationalism, pre-milleniall escatology, arminian influences, and, music focused worship?

Read your Bible.

 

[nasa30]

I agree with Rae. The Founders is a great place. We have had many folks that moved into town that found us on the Founders site. They keep a great list.

 

[Curt]

Start your own - or take one over and bring them along.

 

[KMK]

How would you avoid the many errors that have sprung up in Baptist circles over the years such as dispensationalism, pre-milleniall escatology, arminian influences, and, music focused worship?

The same way you avoid the many errors that have sprung up in Presbyterian circles: look for subscription to one of the Reformed confessions.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Start your own - or take one over and bring them along.

Take one over!? What do you mean by that? I've never heard that suggested before.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Is the OT about Jesus Christ? Exclusively? And did the OT saints know that?

Yes, Yes, and Yes.

To the degree that any church does not have a consistent "yes" answer to those questions, they will depart from Reformed theology. I would say that the failure to read the OT as a "Christian" book has led many baptist churches (and to be fair, even presbyterian churches) to embrace dispensationalism.

However, I do think that there is an essential "two-foci" quality to baptist hermeneutics, that has helped to push more of them into that "camp" you described. I say that with baptist family, baptist friends on this board and elsewhere; so I mean nothing demeaning by my analysis. Even by "covenantal-baptists," there is a self-conscious approach to dividing the Bible at the Testamental-break. That divide is felt even in the case of Abraham's covenant (as has been argued on our board)--Abraham is said to have been engaged in a DUAL-covenant: one purely spiritual and promisory, the other earthly and fleshly, tied to the land and to genetics (for the purpose of separating Messiah's lineage).

You may recall that under CISchofield's "classic" dispensationalism, it was taught that Israel was "saved" by law-keeping (still taught by the Hagees of this era). That this strange, abberant message (unheard of in the Christian era before 200 years ago, and frankly disavowed by the likes of Spurgeon in its less-developed JNDarby form) was quickly adopted by vast swathes of Baptists, to my mind exposes the inherent affinity to be found in that view, if the OT is proclaiming an essentially worldly religious expression (including earthly expectations for Messiah, etc.). Hence, the "great parenthesis" of the church (rather than the lesser "parenthesis" of the legal-glory-covenant of the OT theocracy). If the Bible is even partially a story about Man, then we have a two-foci book. In truth, it is only about Man (the supporting characters) when they are united to Christ.

The baptist view has the effect, I say, of certainly qualifying the OT as primarily an "old" revelation, for a previous time, filled with concrete and specific blessings, etc., that were appropriated for and reinterpreted spiritually by the NT age.

I would argue, on the contrary, that the spiritual expectations for Christ were essential to the very nature of the OT covenant relations, that there is only one covenant God makes with Abraham, that the physical aspects of the OT age were integral to the instructional nature of OT conditions, that there was no just carnal expectations for Israel under Moses, etc. OT religion is essentially indistinguishable from NT religion. The practices of it may and do appear different; however when biblical religion even of the OT is explained according to the true nature of the things involved, there is no qualitative difference between Old and New.


I half-expect my baptist brothers here to say "But no, we are indeed Christ-centered," and I want to preempt that by saying: Yes, I know and I thank God you are. And certainly, those of us in the other camp have our own, but perhaps different "tendencies" to which our respective theology pulls us. But it seems to me futile not to acknowledge that a dual-track, earthly/heavenly principle so emphasized in baptist circles, as that which may well have contributed to the loss of a whole category of churches.

Moreover, is it not integral to the baptist-independent mindset that the "corporate" qualities of OT religion militate against finding in Israel and the OT more than a handful of true parallels to the New age? This seems to me just a natural extension of a "radical newness" view of the New Covenant.

JMacArthur has publicly stated that as a New Covenant minister, he has not been interested in preaching much of the Old Testament (not that he has entirely neglected it). WKaiser published a book entitled, "The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts," regarding the apostolic appropriation of the OT material. If the OT saints weren't "Christians," then these approaches make perfect sense.

Perhaps there's more that could be said, but the question is wide-ranging, and already we are doing little more than speculating. But we are faced with the fact that the baptist-world has been significantly affected by this departure, even from their roots in the English Reformation. Our churches departed as well, but the "why" in our case has everything to do with pragmatism, with lust for earthly respectability, for liberalism--all the while (or for a long time) maintaining the old Confessions, and their formally articulated doctrines.

Perhaps, also, so far as the question of Arminianism is concerned: with a public disdain for creeds among much of the baptist-world, it is not surprising to me that the faith of one generation cannot be substantially passed on to the next. So there is plenty of room for the natural Pelagian in us all to come through. And, without 60% of the Bible (OT) proclaiming God who in his nature is possessed without any embarrassment of the kind of sovereign authority and will that the "absolute monarchs" of the east (like Nebuchadnezzar or Pharaoh) could only attempt--is it any wonder if a Marcionite "God of love because of Jesus" is the operating assumption of branches of the church that unthinkingly oppose the NT revelation to the OT "God of wrath and judgment"?

Food for thought.

 

[Curt]

Start your own - or take one over and bring them along.

Take one over!? What do you mean by that? I've never heard that suggested before.

When I candidated for the church I now pastor, I hid nothing about my theology and, for some reason, they were fine with that. They were very Dispensational. Now, I didn't mean "take over by force," or "be sneaky." But as it has worked out, the congregation, now six years later, is reformed. A friend of mine, a part of our reformed fellowship, also just became pastor of a Dispensational congregation. Again, there was no hidden agenda or falsifying of theology. I expect that he will preach from a Reformed perspective and things will change - or they'll run him off, as my congregation tried to do with me.

 

[Rich Koster]

In this age of internet, many congregations post their statement of faith on line.

Here's another resource: Reformed Baptist Church Directory

 

[DMcFadden]

Remember that a goodly number of the original Baptists were, have been, and are amillennial. Some of the strongest defenders of amillennialism have been Baptists.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

First off Bruce your cause and effect is just an opinion of yours.

But it seems to me futile not to acknowledge that a dual-track, earthly/heavenly principle so emphasized in baptist circles, as that which may well have contributed to the loss of a whole category of churches.

Since there is one Covenantal track from Adam and Eve called the Covenant of Grace the Old is just as preached from in the circles I know of. Concerning the dual tract you seem to be avoiding the way God relates with the Elect and Non Elect. For instance the way God related to Ishmael and Isaac, Jacob and Esau. Abraham pleaded for and on behalf of Ishmael in Genesis 17, but God said he was not a member of the Everlasting Covenant. That in no way makes the passage less Christo Centric.

In all due respect Bruce making the jump and assumption you have concerning your cause and effect analysis, we could make the same jump to realizing that maybe paedo's over spiritualizing the whole and not recognizing the whole in parts has lead many to have confidence when they should have none. And that has led to much of the liberalism, and the Federal Vision, and New Paul Perspective. For the most part those are Presbyterian fights and not Reformed Baptist fights. BTW, I know Presbyterians who make the same distinctions we Reformed Baptists make.

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/hodge-abrahamic-covenants-479/
Charles Hodge wrote...
It is to be remembered that there were two covenants made with Abraham. By the one, his natural descendants through Isaac were constituted a commonwealth, an external, visible community. By the other, his spiritual descendants were constituted a church. The parties to the former covenant were God and the nation; to the other, God and His true people. The promises of the national covenant were national blessings; the promises of the spiritual covenant (i.e., the covenant of grace), were spiritual blessings, reconciliation, holiness, and eternal life. The conditions of the one covenant were circumcision and obedience to the law; the condition of the latter was, is, and ever has been, faith in the Messiah as the Seed of the woman, the Son of God, the Savior of the world. There cannot be a greater mistake than to confound the national covenant with the covenant of grace, and the commonwealth founded on the one with the church founded on the other.

When Christ came “the commonwealth” was abolished, and there was nothing put in its place. The Church remained. There was no external covenant, nor promises of external blessings, on condition of external rites and subjection. There was a spiritual society with spiritual promises, on the condition of faith in Christ. In no part of the New Testament is any other condition of membership in the Church prescribed than that contained in the answer of Philip to the eunuch who desired baptism: “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” (Acts viii. 37)
Charles Hodge, Church Polity (New York: Scribner, 1878), 66-67.

These are just some quotes on my blog that might be applicable here also.

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/sinai-mixed-dispensation-439/

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/decalogue-covenant-works-covenant-grace-432/

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/new-covenant-really-new-315/

As to how we avoid the problems mentioned in the Original Post, I would recommend that we as Churches adhere to our confessional standards and not allow other strange doctrines creep in. John Darby was a disgruntled man who despised authority and the Church. He was influenced by the thinking of a woman who introduced him into the dispensational thought. C. I. Scoffield put those thoughts into a Bible right up along side the text. That was the greatest influence upon the American Church and it has all but destroyed it in my opinion. It has a false view of the person and work of Christ. And it has promoted it and infected the Church too long. And actually John Darby was an Anglican if I remember correctly. This system even was promoted by Paedo's. It wasn't just a Baptist thing. Chafer was a Paedo. Dr. J. Vernon McGee was a paedo. So it isn't just a Baptist thing. It sprung up from other areas of the Church. If anything I believe a Premil leaning has led into this more than a Baptist understanding of the Covenants.

 

[Marrow Man]

One caveat, Randy: a would assert that it was 19th century Revivalism and liberalism that all but destroyed (or at least corrupted) much of Christian religion and provided the infertile ground in which dispensationalism took root.

 

[Herald]

Bruce,

While you attempt to defuse a Covenantal Baptist retort to your assertions with a well-placed caveat:

I half-expect my baptist brothers here to say "But no, we are indeed Christ-centered," and I want to preempt that by saying: Yes, I know and I thank God you are. And certainly, those of us in the other camp have our own, but perhaps different "tendencies" to which our respective theology pulls us. But it seems to me futile not to acknowledge that a dual-track, earthly/heavenly principle so emphasized in baptist circles, as that which may well have contributed to the loss of a whole category of churches.

your comments deserve careful scrutiny.

Baptists come in all stripes. There are the mainline dispensational Baptists, of which they make up the majority. That's the group that I came out of. Even within that group you have splinters. Missionary Baptists, GARB, Free Will, the list can get pretty long. Then there are the MacArthur and DTS (Dallas Theological) Baptists. I know MacArthur is not a Baptist by name, but he has a pronounced influence in Baptist circles. These Baptists may be PD adherents; trying to widen that gap between Scofield/Chaffer and modern scholarship. Next are the Calvinistic Baptists. They may be unaffiliated, or part of the Founders Movement or FIRE. They teach the doctrines of grace, but may hold onto the dispensational hermeneutic. Enter in the true Covenantal (Reformed) Baptist. It's within this group that I have found a cohesiveness between the Old and New Testaments. I see the bible, as you put it, as "one Christian book." I depart with Presbyterians over the temporal nature of the New Covenant, but that doesn't negate how I view the Old Testament. The promises to Abraham were spiritual from conception. But while the blood shed during circumcision was a picture of the sacrifice of Christ, it was never meant to save apart from faith. The Covenantal Baptist understands the spiritual promises made to Abraham were realized in Christ. To be sure, they were realized in Christ during the time of Abraham, inasmuch as the promise made to Abraham was as sure as God Himself. But the promise of the Messiah could never be realized in the Old Covenant. The discontinuity between Covenants wasn't so much a destruction of the Old as much it was a passing of the baton. The same race was being run, but the baton passed between two different runners. The baton is the connection between the Abrahamic Covenant and the coming of the Messiah. But whereas runners in a race are two different individuals, the Covenants are also different; one fulfilling it's purpose, and the other being new.

Of course, I know we won't agree on the discontinuity of the Covenants. I didn't bring the issue up in order to debate it. I want to defend the position that Reformed Baptists fervently hold to the Word of God being one revelation, all of which is centered on Christ.

 

[Skyler]

"How does a baptist avoid dispensationalism and such?"

That depends on the Baptist. Some Baptists throw caution to the wind and attack it head on.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

One caveat, Randy: a would assert that it was 19th century Revivalism and liberalism that all but destroyed (or at least corrupted) much of Christian religion and provided the infertile ground in which dispensationalism took root.

Yes, I agree with you on that Pastor Phillips. The Downgrade Controversy, Latitudinarian thought, and the constant attack on the Inspiration of Scripture caused some pretty strong responses which went to far in some cases. People just wanted to get back to the bible so to speak and missed the mark sometimes.

 

[Marrow Man]

Agreed, Randy. Like so many things, there were lots of factors at work here, not just one or two. And it serves us well to be aware of these dangers so that we do not repeat them. I could add that Charles Finney was a Presbyterian minister who never should have been ordained in the first place. if we don't do our due diligence, it gets quite messy and ruins entire future generations.

 

[jason d]

...How would you avoid the many errors that have sprung up in Baptist circles over the years such as dispensationalism, pre-milleniall escatology, arminian influences, and, music focused worship?...

This is not unique to credos, how did paedos avoid this in the past, since these started with paedos... didn't they?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

...How would you avoid the many errors that have sprung up in Baptist circles over the years such as dispensationalism, pre-milleniall escatology, arminian influences, and, music focused worship?...

This is not unique to credos, how did paedos avoid this in the past, since these started with paedos... didn't they?

It was a concern of mine because I see that so many Baptist Churches these days have this issue. Also I am on the fence regarding baptism and I plan to take a few months to study it. If I come out of this crucible a credo then it is possible that I might want to join a baptist church but not necessarily a given, I might just stay Presbyterian. They allow credos to be members just not elders. I remain paedo right now, but I'm just thinking ahead and wanted to address this concern of mine regarding baptist churches. I don't want to leave just one error for a slew of others.

 

[jason d]

gottcha, oh, but to answer the question I would just check out their statement of faith. then check out associations of churches (Baptist that is) that are not dispeys, pelagian, ect... like the following:
Church Directory
Reformed Baptist Church Directory
FIRE: Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals
Founders Ministries | Founders-Friendly Churches
(links via Covenantal Baptist | Particular | Calvinistic | Reformed | Baptist)

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Randy, Bill:
Part of me just wishes I left the thread be, since if I said almost anything it was bound to ruffle feathers.

Has anyone else in the thread attempted any explanation of the phenomenon noted, other than to say, "They should have stuck to a confession"? And it simply isn't the case that the SAME issue has created the SAME deviations in our churches.

If someone would like to create a different thread, asking a different question, on why they think p-b churches bought, en mass, into X (you'll have to come up with something)--then I have no problem trying to analyze that question. But if I just say, "well the reason is because they stopped having or holding to a confession," that's not really facing the question. At best it is simply a statement that the confession paper-position teaches contrary.

Well, we already knew that. That wasn't the question.

What percentage of baptist churches are dispensational? How many of them read the Bible as a single book? Don't these issues go together? Do you honestly think there is NO connection between separating the OT from the NT as fundamentally irrelevant to the church age, and the popularization of a new interpretation of it?

Is there no other suggestion here, other than "they stopped caring about their confession"? What about the confession would naturally keep them from going down this path, pray tell?

My attempt tries to connect a "stance" on Scripture to a particular result. Obviously, simply losing or ignoring one's confession does not alone take a certain brand of church wholesale into dispensationalism. So, simply pointing to that fact doesn't offer any explanation.


Two additional points:
1) Charles Hodge's position as presented doesn't represent the tradition in which he writes. If his position is idiosyncratic, then it can't be hauled out as some kind of "representative" position of this tradition. In the excerpt, he sounds as though he is putting forth God's covenant with Abraham as pointedly parallel to Moses' covenant. He "reads-back" into Abraham the unique features of the Mosaic administration. Unfortunately, in so doing he runs afoul of Apostle Paul's analysis, who juxtaposes Abraham's covenant and Moses' in key particulars.

Bottom line: you can't find Hodge's idiosyncratic read of Abraham being presented by mainstream covenant theologians for the past 200 years. But what's more pertinent, since we DON'T believe and teach that position, saying that "You guys have a two-covenant view of Abraham too" is not only a false reading of the tradition, it reinforces the original point that I made: the drift into dispensationalism TOOK PLACE where an Abrahamic two-covenant view WAS present.

Maybe these facts are unrelated. I'm willing to have the cause-effect challenged, to have a post-hoc fallacy exposed. I'm not so wedded to my opinions, I can't be corrected.

Likewise, pointing to Darby, a p-b whose odd views were NOT accepted in his anglican church, nor in the main accepted in presbyterian or reformed circles DOESN'T explain ANYTHING as to why it DID take root where it did. Pointing to Chafers or McGees absolutely doesn't even begin to offer any sort of REPLY to the question posed up top.

If I find a baptistic fellow who started a cult, that doesn't make his position on baptism relevant to why he managed to get control of a 500 member church in Podunk.

2) If I may try to illustrate the difference between a covenant presbyterian and covenant baptist view of the OT, here goes:

As a presbyterian, I understand that my father is Abraham. Yes, I know you do too. And, Moses is my father, and Elkanah, and Joshua, and Noah, and David, and Daniel; Sarah is my mother, and Abigail, and Hephzibah, etc. Gad and Naphtali are my brothers, Nathan is my cousin--all in a religious sense, these people are my kin. Is this how you view the people of God in the Old Testament?

George Washington is my grandfather. Ben Franklin is my uncle. Thomas Jefferson is my father. As a citizen of USA, these men are the fathers of my country, and my fathers. Now, somewhere back there I have a "Scotsman" for a father. And Englishmen, and Germans; and my kids have some Hungarian for a father. But there's this thing called the Atlantic ocean, and crossing of it. There is NO WAY that I can say that Kaiser Wilhelm or Charlemagne, or William the Conqueror is, or William Wallace (!) is one of my fathers in a civil sense.

I would say that when it comes to a religious understanding of our relations to the Old Testament, the difference between the baptist and the presbyterian is: for me, the watershed event of Christ is like the American Revolution, with 200 years of American history before that, and 200 years since.

As I see it, the baptist understanding of Christ's transformative moment is like crossing the Atlantic. The OT figures are like William Wallace--they are your heritage, true and praise God for it! But... the Atlantic has been crossed. We did not study European history in grade school (or African, or Asian) as "the history of my people." Not the way we studied the last 400 years on this continent.

The African immigrant who takes the oath of allegiance--George Washington just became his father, and now he's my cousin. Together we now have a common heritage. His children (and grandchildren, etc.) should learn this country's colonial history as their history. This is their adopted birthright. But they should not learn the history of the UK, or of Africa, either one, as "their people's history" in the same way.


I'm not sure why this difference between us should not be acknowledged. We DO feel differently about those OT characters. Its the difference that can be illustrated by my affinity with a colonial like Jonathan Edwards, and my affinity with Robert the Bruce. The Atlantic Ocean lies between them, and no love of Scotland will make me a Scotsman.

My identification with Abraham is one that DEMANDS that I mark my child as he marked his. Genesis 17 pronounces a covenant curse (externally) on my child if I DARE to divide the way I treat my child from the way Abraham was commanded to treat his.

You don't think that way. It doesn't embarrass you in the least to say so. So, what's wrong with us just acknowledging that fact? It is a difference between us that COULD have something to do with buying, or not-buying a certain theological error. For either of us.

 

[VictorBravo]

Bruce, I have to say that is a wonderful and thought-provoking analogy. I love it. As with all analogies, it will break down somewhere, but I think you have nailed the fundamental differences and similarities between us.

Which reinforces my conviction that our differences on Baptism stem from perspective, and that perspective is always worth inspecting.

 

[MW]

When Christ came “the commonwealth” was abolished, and there was nothing put in its place.

Bruce is certainly correct to question Hodge's consistency with the Presbyterian tradition at this point. From a biblical perspective, Ephesians 2 unequivocally states that Gentiles become "fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God." 1 Peter 2 refers to believers as a holy nation. To say that "the commonwealth" was a distinct covenant and was ultimately abolished is contrary to the express teaching of Scripture. The New Testament represents Gentiles as being incorporated into the covenanted commonwealth so as to make one church in Christ.

 

[Herald]

Part of me just wishes I left the thread be, since if I said almost anything it was bound to ruffle feathers.

My dear Bruce, my feathers weren't ruffled in the slightest. I simply wished to respond from an RB perspective. I've never taken your posts to be antagonistic or argumentative. It was just a simple matter of qualification.

Peace, brother.

 

[MW]

Not only was Charles Hodge speaking inconstently with the Presbyterian tradition, he was also contradicting himself. In his Systematic Theology (3:548, 549), he explicitly states, "The Commonwealth of Israel was the Church," and, "The Church under the New Dispensation is identical with that under the Old." In pursuing the latter thought he maintains, "It is founded on the same covenant, the covenant made with Abraham" (549).

 

[Iconoclast]

David,
You asked this:

Imagine for a minute that Baptists were right about baptism and you were going to find a Baptist Church to join, but you were an amillennial five point calvinist. How would you avoid the many errors that have sprung up in Baptist circles over the years such as dispensationalism, pre-milleniall escatology, arminian influences, and, music focused worship?

If you do not live near an ARBCA church, or Founders church you might be hard pressed to find a baptist church that was not a mix of at least two of these errors,combined together.
Overall, generally speaking a baptist who studies his bible is going to find more in common with a bible believing padeo because in my opinion the padeo if correctly instructed has been instructed about God's covenants. Many baptist churches have a fragmented view of God's redemptive purpose .
The ARBCA and Founders churches are looking back to baptists who held these biblical truths.
I listen to sermonaudio sermons all the time. One Indiana pastor had a series of messages against calvinism. I emailed him and challenged his understanding or lack of understanding on this topic. He attacked me saying how could I side with the reformers who historically attacked the anabaptists!
This kind of closing of the mind is not helpful to coming to truth.
I think Pastor Bruce B was alluding to this when he posted this:

I half-expect my baptist brothers here to say "But no, we are indeed Christ-centered," and I want to preempt that by saying: Yes, I know and I thank God you are. And certainly, those of us in the other camp have our own, but perhaps different "tendencies" to which our respective theology pulls us. But it seems to me futile not to acknowledge that a dual-track, earthly/heavenly principle so emphasized in baptist circles, as that which may well have contributed to the loss of a whole category of churches.

I agree in part to what he was speaking of. We who call ourselves "Reformed"Baptists often times are dis-owned by other baptists. Then the REFORMED padeos keep us at a distance because we differ on Church/baptism issues...and do not follow their confession exactly.
If a pastor near you held the doctrines of grace, and was still open to learning,or exploring other positions that were more confessional in nature, it might be possible for you to be an influence for good if you had a fairly strong grasp on the issues. If not you would be viewed as schismatic and a threat.
Sermonaudio will tell you of churches close to your location that are more solid than some others so maybe you could explore a few of them.
If you are in an area where no solid churches are, you might need to prayerfully consider relocating if your job situation would allow for it.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I worshiped at a Baptist Church out of state yesterday. There was a video screen and a band. There was a song that said when Jesus was on the cross he thought of me most of all, and between the song service and the preaching there was a 5 minute video that was pieced together from scenes from the Passion of the Christ. After that during the sermon the pastor said; "if you're here today and don't know Christ that don't mean you're bad." I wanted to raise my hand and say "yes it does." But, I held my tongue. The sermon was very light he told people they needed to be saved or they would go to hell but he never explained why they deserved hell or what Christ really did. There was at the end of the sermon an invitation asking people to surrender to Christ because he is waiting lovingly and patiently for everyone just to place thier faith in him. The pastor was a "Doctor" his voice sounded like Joel Osteen. It made me uneasy, worried, and a bit sad. The gospel was lightly touched on but in an incomplete way. After the service people claimed it was great and that God had been greatly glorified there that day. I don't understand.

 

[Herald]

After the service people claimed it was great and that God had been greatly glorified there that day. I don't understand.

David, what passes for the Gospel in broad evangelical churches is a travesty. It appeals to the emotional needs that people have. Rub an alligator on it's belly and you will lull it into a catatonic state. But don't be fooled; it's still an alligator. Tell people what they want to hear and they will leave with a false sense of security. They may even think that they've met God. But if that are outside of Christ, they are still vile and reprobate creatures.