Why eschatology is important to me..

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

Some years after being away from any Christian church, I sought out a church. I decided to go to a church affiliated with the Assemblies of God. They said that they were non-denominational, and yet (de-nom: of name) if you got a name, then you got a denomination?
The church was charismatic-Pentecostal.

I encountered some problems, when being taught about the bible at a class. I did not agree with their opinions and beliefs on the topic regarding biblical fundamentalism - that was reported back, as I had questioned their doctrines.
So, I was beginning to think that the church was fundamentalist and dispensationalist. So, I checked on their statement of belief (creed) on the church website, and discovered that part of their creed, was dispensationalist eschatology - that Jesus is going to return and rule the world from Jerusalem, presumably for 1000 years (derived from Revelation) - I don't believe that -
Jesus says that the world will end at his return:

Matthew 13:
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
Matthew 24:
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Jesus says nothing about a 1000 years millennium or ruling the earth from Jerusalem. If the elect are gathered together by angels - then they are taken out from the world - as the world is going to end. The tares are taken out at the same time:
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity - 42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Jesus speaking in plain Aramaic so that everyone can understand. No obfuscation or argument.

So I thought - if I don't accept their creed, I aught to leave that church, in case my staying causes more problems - so I left. And then I thought that I should look up churches and their creeds, and I discovered that the Anglican church accepts the apostles creed - the simple creed of the church fathers, and not the Nicene creed which was later. The Nicene creed adds that we should accept the Law of Moses as still valid -
I believe that the Law is written on the hearts of the Israel of God, intuitively - we don't need 613 laws, as we can intuitively discern the law, (good and evil) if we are Christians, as said by Jeremiah 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

As Luther said - every man should be his own priest; to rightly divide the word, for ourselves, and not be expected to conform to a church teaching, just because they believe what they believe.
Big mistake - to place erroneous eschatology as part of a church creed. Do the Pentecostals/charismatics rightly divide the word? Why do they claim to be fundamentalists, and yet have women pastors? - (I have nothing against women pastors or priests).
And the Anglican church has many problems - they no longer believe in creation, so they have departed from the apostles creed. And for some reason, they never reformed infant baptism. But at least I won't be hounded out of the church, for not agreeing with dodgy and heretical doctrines.
Millennialism was strongly opposed by the early church fathers.
Millennialism - Wikipedia

 

[Christian Gedge]

Big mistake - to place erroneous eschatology as part of a church creed. Do the Pentecostals/charismatics rightly divide the word?

Does anyone get everything right all the time? Many Pentecostal churches lean toward dispensational theology, but the only denomination I know of to actually enshrine it into their statement of faith is the Calvary Churches.

I was saved in the Assemblies of God and still have friends there. I go to an Open Brethren Assembly now and (horror of horrors) their founder was the one who dreamed up dispensationalism in the first place. But we have to fellowship somewhere. As long as you are not abused for holding a traditional eschatology, you'll be OK in any good church that is faithful to the Apostles Creed.

 

[BABerean2]

Does anyone get everything right all the time? Many Pentecostal churches lean toward dispensational theology, but the only denomination I know of to actually enshrine it into their statement of faith is the Calvary Churches.

I was saved in the Assemblies of God and still have friends there. I go to an Open Brethren Assembly now and (horror of horrors) their founder was the one who dreamed up dispensationalism in the first place. But we have to fellowship somewhere. As long as you are not abused for holding a traditional eschatology, you'll be OK in any good church that is faithful to the Apostles Creed.

If I remember correctly, Darby's group was the exclusive Brethren.

I believe the open Brethren were led by George Mueller and others who rejected Darby's Two Peoples of God doctrine.

Mueller said he had to make a choice between Darby and his Bible, and decided to choose his Bible.


PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418

.

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

Does anyone get everything right all the time? Many Pentecostal churches lean toward dispensational theology, but the only denomination I know of to actually enshrine it into their statement of faith is the Calvary Churches.

I was saved in the Assemblies of God and still have friends there. I go to an Open Brethren Assembly now and (horror of horrors) their founder was the one who dreamed up dispensationalism in the first place. But we have to fellowship somewhere. As long as you are not abused for holding a traditional eschatology, you'll be OK in any good church that is faithful to the Apostles Creed.

I agree - we have to fellowship somewhere. I was saved via the non-conformist Congregational evangelist, out from Roman Catholic upbringing - which I never believed in. I still retain some Roman belief, or Lutheran rather - the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, in a spiritual way (not transubstantiation).
I tried to explain this to the congregational, that there was more than symbol involved, but they would have none of that - and so I always considered the Eucharist neglected by the various protestant churches that I tried out. But I suppose if you have never experienced spiritual power in the Eucharist, you aint gonna miss it, or know of it.
Another thing was the abandonment of any liturgy - replace everything with a sermon - not for me.
I think we have to put up with a few things that we don't agree with - using a round host seems very Mithras/Dionysus or Babylonian to me, and I'm not sure I should be partaking of communion, which isn't simple bread and wine. I think it was originally a Jewish sabbath ritual, with bread and wine - Jesus was saying to remember him through the ritual. But then if you go to the evangelical-wing of the Anglican church, you have to suffer sermons on David and Revelation.

 

[mkgal1]

the Anglican church accepts the apostles creed - the simple creed of the church fathers, and not the Nicene creed which was later. The Nicene creed adds that we should accept the Law of Moses as still valid -

What part of the Nicene Creed are you referring to (that mentions accepting the Law of Moses as still valid)?

And the Anglican church has many problems - they no longer believe in creation

Uh....I don't think this is correct. I don't believe there's any consensus on the issue (people in the Anglican church have varying ideas of the Genesis account and creation).

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

What part of the Nicene Creed are you referring to (that mentions accepting the Law of Moses as still valid)?

Uh....I don't think this is correct. I don't believe there's any consensus on the issue (people in the Anglican church have varying ideas of the Genesis account and creation).

It was reported that the Anglican church was going to apologize to Darwin - (as if he could hear that apology in his tomb) - but it might have been just one individual that was going to apologize to Darwin (I can't remember).

The Nicene creed: I thought I had read it some days ago, but I must have been mistaken.

Nicene Creed - Wikipedia

What do you think of infant baptism?

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

...

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

I couldn't find out anything from the Anglican church, on the internet, like an official statement regarding creation or Darwinism.

 

[mkgal1]

It was reported that the Anglican church was going to apologize to Darwin - (as if he could hear that apology in his tomb) - but it might have been just one individual that was going to apologize to Darwin (I can't remember).

The Nicene creed: I thought I had read it some days ago, but I must have been mistaken.

Nicene Creed - Wikipedia

I couldn't find out anything from the Anglican church, on the internet, like an official statement regarding creation or Darwinism.

I doubt you will, because as far as I know, there's not been any consensus. People of either belief are welcome.

What do you think of infant baptism?

Infant baptism isn't mentioned specifically in the creed (leaving room for any symbolic expression of baptism to be accepted). I don't think the creed is referring to any specific type of baptism, though (I could be wrong)....but emphasizing the unity of the church.

This is the creed (I don't see anything that could be close to suggesting the Law of Moses is still valid):


WE BELIEVE in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

Amen.

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

I doubt you will, because as far as I know, there's not been any consensus. People of either belief are welcome.


Infant baptism isn't mentioned specifically in the creed (leaving room for any symbolic expression of baptism to be accepted). I don't think the creed is referring to water baptism, though (I could be wrong)....but the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

This is the creed (I don't see anything that could be close to suggesting the Law of Moses is still valid):


WE BELIEVE in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

Amen.

That's the creed that we say in church - I agree with it.

 

[mkgal1]

That's the creed that we say in church - I agree with it.

Okay....are you saying you now realize The Nicene creed doesn't add that we should accept the Law of Moses as still valid?

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

Okay....are you saying you now realize The Nicene creed doesn't add that we should accept the Law of Moses as still valid?

Yep. I must have been mistake somehow.

 

[Christian Gedge]

If I remember correctly, Darby's group was the exclusive Brethren.

I believe the open Brethren were led by George Mueller and others who rejected Darby's Two Peoples of God doctrine.

Mueller said he had to make a choice between Darby and his Bible, and decided to choose his Bible.


PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418

.

I’ve just read your link. A very interesting summary of church history as it pertains to eschatology. Yes, my ‘Brethrenism’ would follow George Mueller - not Darby. But many of my friends are dispies. Fortunately, they are open to biblical presentations. I am sometimes asked to speak about it.

 

[Christian Gedge]

(Deleted - double post)