Covenantal Theology & Dispensational Theology

For Starters

In short, these two theologies are “big picture” theologies. Each focuses on the overall story of the Scriptures as it unfolds with their differences being in how each approach views Scripture’s narrative with different angles &/or foci.

It is often stated that Covenant Theology focuses on the continuity of all Scripture whereas Dispensational focuses on the discontinuity of the unfolding of all Scripture.

These statements are true but they do not give you much detail. The truly difficult part is where to go from that description, however, as neither theology has been static over the years. Dispensational theology use to be broken down into far more periods of time or “dispensations” than what most would do today.

In addition to the above, there are additional hurdles like forks in theology and flat out divergences such as between reformed baptist (who are typically credo-baptist like the dispensational types – so now you have cross-over) and the Presbyterians who are paedo-baptist (infant baptizers). I bring this up because this is an example of one of those “forks” as it is a difference in their covenant theology that brings them to different conclusions about baptism.

Dispensationalists would include many baptist congregations as well as those that consider themselves nondenominational but it also includes many Pentecostals as well. They would agree with much of the overarching story of Scripture and of eschatology but diverge on the topic of Pentecost and the cessation of gifts.

I think you begin to get at least a glimpse of some of the challenges in trying to decipher out what is purely covenantal theology and what is purely dispensational theology simply by this description but there do remain certain trends – namely in eschatology.

Eschatology

I have already mentioned the continuity versus discontinuity difference but another common element of difference tends to be eschatology. Now, I know I mentioned it in an example only a moment ago but this is going to get more specific.

Historically speaking, I have come across examples of individuals and groups who held to many of the various eschatological views held in history while still being under the Covenant Theology umbrella. With that being said, it is much more common (I find) for the typical member under this umbrella to be some form of amillennialist. There continue to be prominent leaders who may take a different form of premillennialism from that of the Dispensationalist and there are also those who continue to be postmillennial. Even so, amillennial certainly would appear to be most prominent.

Again, even with that said there can be quite a bit of variety still as being amillennialist merely means there is agreement in that there is to be no millennial kingdom on Earth before the end of all things.

The biggest component to the Covenant Theology camp is to the development and progression of covenants in the Scriptures and how they are part of God’s overall plan of redemption. Dispensationalism does not necessarily ignore the existence of the covenants, in fact it recognizes their existence, but it is far more focused on God’s seemingly changing interaction with His people in redemptive history. Covenants were often a marker of this change and Israel central in it all.

Getting back to particular end times views, the Dispensational Theology umbrella is pretty well exclusively a futurist eschatology and, thereby, is premillennial with a millennial kingdom reign on Earth by Christ (though the belief did not always have Christ ruling over this kingdom) in the future. There are differences among them as to the timing of the rapture (pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation, post-tribulation) but they are rather convinced of a complete removal of all true believers from this world before Christ returns. Much of everything will be centered around Jerusalem in Israel and include the Israeli people. It is this theological umbrella in particular that makes the strongest claims for supporting the Jews and Israel to this day.

I realize this may all seem a bit vague but at other times more specific. As I have suggested, these theologies are frameworks that incorporate the entirety of Scripture and have developed over time. As such, not everyone in a given approach has even held the exact same view throughout its respective history. There continues to be variations to this day. In addition, some emphasize certain texts over others which leads to further differences in interpretation. This article was never meant to explain it all but to stand as a sort of introduction to some of the differences between the two theologies. At different points in my life, I have held to some form of each which you can find out more about that in the links below.


If all of this gets you to wondering what I may think or where I may stand, you can see for yourself on my “Simply Me” page where I’ve got multiple articles linked on various topics includes ones such as eschatology.

About Me – On Politics

If you don’t know, this is a post that helps you the reader to become more acquainted with where I – the author of this site – stand on various topics and theological points. Keep reading to see where I stand on today’s topic.


Keeping Things Simple

I have agonized over this one as there is so much I could say and so much ground I could cover but I have instead opted to keep this as simple and to the point as possible.

Let me be clear about a few things:

  1. I am not a Democrat (US).
  2. I am not a Republican (US).
  3. I believe loyalty to a political party contributes to factionalism and thereby division in the country – especially as of late in the US.
  4. I regularly participate in elections despite what you may think after reading 1 – 3.

I may lean one way or another as commonly described to one party or another on an individual issue or another but this can truly be said of anyone.

Even with all that said, I do not place any of my ultimate hope or trust in governmental systems as they have so often erred and followed the ways of personal glorification, power, and general worldliness.

My ultimate hope is in Christ and Him alone!

It is through Christ, through studying God’s Word, through being continually transformed to be more and more like the Son that we can be more like the God-reflecting people we ought to be and thereby the sort of citizens we ultimately ought to be. It all starts with our relationship with God! It all starts with Christ!

I could go on and on about a need for limited government or explain how the separation of church and state is supposed to work or even where I am at on the current political climate – but all these things are part of a system that will one day pass away. Our relationship with the one true God does not pass away whether we are in this life, heaven, or the new world with Christ as king.

I choose to focus on the eternal and simply do the best that I can with the rest, the temporal, knowing full well that God is in control and working all things according to His purposes.


Note: I do these posts not because I think I’m somehow superior in my views or anything absurd like that but out of a desire to be up-front and honest with my readers as to where I stand. Otherwise, you’d be left to figure things out by reading between the lines and/or guessing.

About Me – On Scripture

If you don’t know, this is a post that helps you the reader to become more acquainted with where I – the author of this site – stand on various topics and theological points. Keep reading to see where I stand on today’s topic.


Sola Scriptura . . . enough said!

Ok, ok. That probably needs clarification but I have to admit I am very tempted to leave it right there.

One of the key doctrines that came out of the Reformation that created Protestantism was Sola Scriptura. It was alongside 4 others of what are known as the 5 Solas.

Sola Scriptura means scripture alone. It means in matters of the Christian faith we turn to the Scriptures, the Bible as the ultimate authority. We do not turn to a pope, a council, or any human authority but the Word of God.

This automatically means some things.

The Scriptures are authoritative.

The Scriptures are from God.

It automatically says something about the Scripture’s inspiration – that it is from God. This thereby also says something about each writer involved in the creation of the Scriptures – namely that they were believers divinely made us of by God.

Of the 5 Solas, this is the one that is most important in my mind. Why is that? Simple. Through studying the Scriptures and holding it as the place to go for all things of the faith, you will inevitably find the other 4 solas and everything important to being a follower of Christ.


Note: I do these posts not because I think I’m somehow superior in my views or anything absurd like that but out of a desire to be up-front and honest with my readers as to where I stand. Otherwise, you’d be left to figure things out by reading between the lines and/or guessing.

About Me – On Spiritual Gifts

If you don’t know, this is a post that helps you the reader to become more acquainted with where I – the author of this site – stand on various topics and theological points. Keep reading to see where I stand on today’s topic.


Spiritual gifts can be all sorts of things.

Spiritual gifts can also change over the course of one’s life. There’s nothing guarunteeing they’ll be kept life-long.

Now, the term “spiritual gift” hasn’t been used uniformly over time. Some use this term to describe only those sort of gifts as seen at Pentecost in the book of Acts whereas others take a broader meaning for the term.

As you might guess from how I started this post, I take the broader meaning. In it, I would include any gift/skill uniquely qualified for aiding the Church and spreading the gospel.

I would also count myself among those commonly called cessationists in regards to the Pentecostal sort of gifts. Why is that? Here are some reasons (not an exhaustive list):

  1. What you see in Acts is a particular event upon the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that does not repeat elsewhere in the Scriptures. It would make sense that if this were a more common event, the Apostles would have had more to say and direct on the matter in the epistles.
  2. A key component in that event was that everyone could hear what was said in their own tongue. This is commonly not the case in modern-day “events”.
  3. Modern-day “tongues” have been repeatedly shown by those who truly know the language claimed and linguists alike to be little more than babble.
  4. The vast majority of miraculous events described by some in our time are more easily explained by God’s providence – His regular working through the means of his creation.

An even better place to see many of the reasons I would side with cessationists on the topic (and on those related items), can be found in John MacArthur’s book Strange Fire. The book goes far beyond simply what I’ve discussed here but addresses this topic as well. I would also direct people to YouTube where there are hours of John’s thoughtful responses to critiques on the book.


Note: I do these posts not because I think I’m somehow superior in my views or anything absurd like that but out of a desire to be up-front and honest with my readers as to where I stand. Otherwise, you’d be left to figure things out by reading between the lines and/or guessing.

About Me – On Christ

If you don’t know, this is a post that helps you the reader to become more acquainted with where I – the author of this site – stand on various topics and theological points. Keep reading to see where I stand on today’s topic.


These days people like to claim all sorts of things about Christ. Never mind what the Scriptures have to say about Him!

Still, there are others who claim – like many of the heretics of old – that their view of Christ is Scriptural but it is only upon truly investigating that you find they’ve added or taken away from the accounts.

If you have read any of the other posts in the About Me, you would know that much of where I stand on things follows the lines of “conservative”, “reformed”, and “orthodox”. Here will be no different.

In fact, I’ll be borrowing at points from the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith so here we go!

  1. Jesus Christ is the Son of God
    1. “Christ” is not a last name but a title of being the Messiah
  2. Jesus is the Son of Man. He was born of woman in order to save mankind.
  3. He has two distinct natures yet one being. He is not some sort of third “what”.
  4. He is a person of the Trinity.
  5. He is eternal. Even when His mortal body was killed, death could not hold Him and He rose from the grave.
  6. Jesus was begotten, not made. He has always been.
  7. He is one with the Father as part of the Trinity. He is God.
  8. Jesus Christ is our savior.

For a more in-depth look, here’s chapter 8 of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith titled “Of Christ the mediator”:

It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, according to the covenant made between them both, to be the mediator between God and man; the prophet, priest, and king; head and savior of the church, the heir of all things, and judge of the world; unto whom He did from all eternity give a people to be His seed and to be by Him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.

The Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Father’s glory, of one substance and equal with Him who made the world, who upholds and governs all things He has made, did, when the fullness of time was complete, take upon Him man’s nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities of it, yet without sin; being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy Spirit coming down upon her: and the power of the Most High overshadowing her; and so was made of a woman of the tribe of Judah, of the seed of Abraham and David according to the Scriptures; so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion; which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man.

The Lord Jesus, in His human nature thus united to the divine, in the person of the Son, was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure, having in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell, to the end that being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, He might be throughly furnished to execute the office of mediator and surety; which office He took not upon himself, but was thereunto called by His Father; who also put all power and judgement in His hand, and gave Him commandment to execute the same.

This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake, which that He might discharge He was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfill it, and underwent the punishment due to us, which we should have born and suffered, being made sin and a curse for us; enduring most grievous sorrows in His soul, and most painful sufferings in His body; was crucified, and died, and remained in the state of the dead, yet saw no corruption: on the third day He arose from the dead with the same body in which He suffered, with which He also ascended into heaven, and there sits at the right hand of His Father making intercession, and shall return to judge men and angels at the end of the world.

The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit once offered up to God, has fully satisfied the justice of God, procured reconciliation, and purchased an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father has given unto Him.

Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ until after His incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit thereof were communicated to the elect in all ages, successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein He was revealed, and signified to be the seed which should bruise the serpent’s head; and the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, being the same yesterday, and today and for ever.

Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture, attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.

To all those for whom Christ has obtained eternal redemption, He does certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same, making intercession for them; uniting them to Himself by His Spirit, revealing to them, in and by His Word, the mystery of salvation, persuading them to believe and obey, governing their hearts by His Word and Spirit, and overcoming all their enemies by His almighty power and wisdom, in such manner and ways as are most consonant to His wonderful and unsearchable dispensation; and all of free and absolute grace, without any condition foreseen in them to procure it.

This office of mediator between God and man is proper only to Christ, who is the prophet, priest, and king of the church of God; and may not be either in whole, or any part thereof, transferred from Him to any other.

This number and order of offices is necessary; for in respect of our ignorance, we stand in need of His prophetical office; and in respect of our alienation from God, and imperfection of the best of our services, we need His priestly office to reconcile us and present us acceptable unto God; and in respect to our averseness and utter inability to return to God, and for our rescue and security from our spiritual adversaries, we need His kingly office to convince, subdue, draw, uphold, deliver, and preserve us to His heavenly kingdom.

If You would like to see this chapter with the included Scripture references, click the following link to see the1689confession.com which will include them.


Note: I do these posts not because I think I’m somehow superior in my views or anything absurd like that but out of a desire to be up-front and honest with my readers as to where I stand. Otherwise, you’d be left to figure things out by reading between the lines and/or guessing.

About Me – On Creation

If you don’t know, this is a post that helps you the reader to become more acquainted with where I – the author of this site – stand on various topics and theological points. Keep reading to see where I stand on this topic.


All of creation is unquestioningly that, a creation, not a product of mere chance. God was clearly involved in the creation of everything – the universe, everything in it, humans too.

Now, I’ve spoken at some length on this topic under the “ologies and key terms” series. I deal with Creationism there in 4 parts but I’d recommend starting with the Introduction (Part 1).

Those articles give a great place to start on the topic but they do not truly tell you where I belong – where I stand.

I am certainly a creationist and I side more closely with the young-earth group. With that said, I am not anti-evolution. Let me explain.

In its simplest definition, evolution means change. There is an overabundance of evidence that organisms do in fact change over generations. However, much of the observed changes are deleterious in nature. In other words, evolution by loss of genetic information, not the addition of new. Evolutionary evidence thereby can explain speciation – as there is enough evidence for such drift. However, we haven’t truly been around long enough for evolution to be the deriving force of all the different types of life. Not to mention the fact that that sort of thinking is an assumption as it hasn’t and isn’t directly observed on such a macro level. I can certainly see how people would arrive at the conclusion but if most genetic changes (mutations) are deleterious, it doesn’t do well to explain new genetic innovations. Much more could be said here but I’ll leave it there for now.

I do know and have friends among the old-earth creationist camp (all of which are of the Framework hypothesis variety). Their position is interesting to me but I’m not convinced by it. That’s not saying my own is exactly air-tight though. Nevertheless, I see them as fellow believers that largely differ on time-frame, the extent of evolution’s part, and ultimately how to interpret the creation week. However, they hold much of the rest of Scriptures exactly the same as I do (same Christ, same Trinity, etc.).

Another position that often comes out in this topic is theistic evolution. In my youth, I had held this position. If you are not familiar with it, it effectively tries to hold as true both the Scriptures and everything naturalistic science claims. As you might imagine, this simply doesn’t work as you have to compromise somewhere – especially as naturalism is rather atheistic. These days this position doesn’t garner as much support as it once did though you will see some still use the term to describe their position. It has become a sort of “no man’s land” or catch-all term and I’d advise either asking further questions of the person who claims it to see where they actually stand or treat them as one who is still trying to figure things out.


Note: I do these posts not because I think I’m somehow superior in my views or anything absurd like that but out of a desire to be up-front and honest with my readers as to where I stand. Otherwise, you’d be left to figure things out by reading between the lines and/or guessing.

About Me – On Eschatology (End Times)

If you don’t know, this is a post that helps you the reader to become more acquainted with where I – the author of this site – stand on various topics and theological points. Keep reading to see where I stand on today’s topic.


Intro & Timeline

I think this is best done by giving a timeline as to where I’ve been on the topic:

  • ??? – God’s coming about sometime
  • Vague Premillennialism
  • Dispensational Premillennialism (Dispensationalism) & Pre-tribulation Rapture
  • Progressive Dispensationalism & Post-tribulation Rapture
  • Covenant Theology + Classic Premillennialism
  • Covenant Theology + ???

There are many in the covenantal camp today who would be amillennial. I would not consider myself against such a view though I’m not fond of the term “amillennial”.

Rapture

I am also still favorable toward a classic premillennialism which has a “rapture” right before Christ’s return.

I put rapture in quotes as I believe there to be more evidence, both in Scripture and history, to support the idea that the rapture is not a removal from the world at Christ’s return. Instead, the event encompasses believers being caught up in the clouds upon Christ’s return as part of a grand ushering in of His return much as would happen historically when the rulers and soldiers would have happen to them when they returned to the city after warfare. Of course, the main difference being the activity this time being vertical rather than horizontal and it involves the King of Kings rather than earthly ones.

To give a little more clarity, it was typically for leaders and soldiers upon their return home to be greeted by the people before coming into the city and the people would usher them into the city in what would become like a grand parade of welcoming home. It is this sort of activity that I believe is going on at what we call the rapture as the King of Kings is returning to earth and the description speaks of being caught up in the clouds but it doesn’t speak of going beyond that.

I would have to say I’m much more entrenched into this idea of the “rapture” than I am of any particular millennial view. To be clear, I do approach things from covenantal theology – though not New Covenant theology. I am not post-millennial and I am not pre-tribulational premillennial. I do remain open to premil and amil views though. Even with that said, I would not automatically brand someone with those views that I do not agree as heretical, simply inconsistent (or wrong).

Other Items

The following are a few other items on my views related to eschatology in no particular order. These I am quite certain but I’ll admit there’s more I continue to work out.

  1. 1 Thessalonians 5:2 makes it very clear that the day an hour is and will be unknown to us. It is a fruitless activity for us to attempt to nail-down what is in God’s timing.
  2. The first three chapters of Revelation are historical. They give account of very real concerns to churches that once existed. The advice contained there is timeless and useful for instruction today as well. There is no hidden meaning there or symbolism about some specific church age or another. That portion of Revelation, though timeless largely, is past tense – or, in other words, events of the past.
  3. The events we see described throughout the middle of Revelation through the trumpets, seals, etc., and even elsewhere in Scripture about the last days, do occur even now – this much is clear. Even so, there do seem to be some unique events that I do not believe have occurred yet – like the stars falling from the sky.

As I’ve indicated, I do not have it all worked out and have every intention to continued to study this topic. I do question those who act as if they’ve had it all figured out for decades though as eschatology is a truly cross-integrative area of theology. The more I study the more it is impressed upon me that one’s eschatology must include the full counsel of the Scriptures. This means you cannot form your eschatological image purely off of one book of the Bible but must view the entire Bible as a single unit. That is a rather large undertaking which is why I am seeking out those who have gone before me and have done exactly that.


Note: I do these posts not because I think I’m somehow superior in my views or anything absurd like that but out of a desire to be up-front and honest with my readers as to where I stand. Otherwise, you’d be left to figure things out by reading between the lines and/or guessing.

Antinomianism

Dictionary.com

antinomian

noun

  • a person who maintains that Christians are freed from the moral law by virtue of grace as set forth in the gospel.

Etymonline.com (antinomian)

“one who maintains that, by the dispensation of grace, the moral law is not binding on Christians,” 1640s, from Medieval Latin Antinomi, name given to a sect of this sort that arose in Germany in 1535, from Greek anti “opposite, against” (see anti-) + nomos “rule, law,” from PIE root *nem- “assign, allot; take.” As an adjective from 1640s.

Discussion/Explanation

The definitions above do a great job of getting to the point of the term – despite them being more focused on individuals who hold this view (the ism).

Antinomianism is one of the pitfall beliefs out there as it effectively rejects entire sections of the Old Testament and what it has to say about how we order our lives. Some fall into this line of thinking out of ignorance but others do it deliberately


See more like this post in “ologies & key terms“.

About Me – On Skepticism

If you don’t know, this is a post that helps you the reader to become more acquainted with where I – the author of this site – stand on various topics and theological points. Keep reading to see where I stand on this topic.


This may sound like a strange choice for a site dealing with Christian beliefs to some, but it is important one because of my personal heavy science background.

Skepticism isn’t truly about simply being skeptical – though people will treat the word in such a fashion.

If you look up skepticism at dictionary.com, you’ll get the following:

  • noun
  • (1) skeptical attitude or temper; doubt. (2) doubt or unbelief with regard to a religion, especially Christianity. (3) (initial capital letter) the doctrines or opinions of philosophical Skeptics; universal doubt.

Many know the first definition but not necessarily the later two.

I have found myself at the center of some misunderstanding when I self-described myself as a skeptic as those individuals of the more atheistic persuasion took that to mean I meant definition #2. Other Christian friends would simply give me a look as they equated the term with atheism. What I had really meant by my statement was more of a spirit of #1 or #3.

What this means is that I do not simply take something as gospel or fact because someone in authority or who is respected says it is so. I need to see the facts. I need to see the Scriptures. I need to see how it all fits together.

Now, if that person is going to go ahead and put all that together right off the bat for me, that makes the situation much easier for me to at least understand where they are coming from – though it does not mean I’m automatically on board with their angle. It typically takes time to persuade me to anything as I need time to mull it over.

By no means am I trying to be some rebel. I simply won’t be a blind sheep.

I will tend to doubt something unless I have prior knowledge that predisposes me to accept what is being presented or until I have adequate time to form a view on the topic/situation.

The same goes for positions involving God and the Scriptures. Key things that helped me in my faith were the providential developments of history that provided a more than stable grounding for the reliability of the Scriptures, and from there giving ground to ideas like Sola Scriptura that leads me to turn to the Scriptures to seek proof for any true position involving God and His works.

What all does this mean?

To be very plain:

  • Want me to take a particular view on Pentecost/End times/Christ/etc.? Show me from Scripture to prove that I should and be thorough. Don’t forget to consider your point in light of ALL of Scripture!
  • Want me to listen to the latest science-backed craze for the environment/health/etc.? Show me from the body of evidence why I should. Present the facts, the data, not simply your interpretation of that data. Also let me see the data from similar research. Does it all fit together? Does any of it seem bogus or exaggerated? Who did the research? Is there any political bias . . . you get the idea I think.

There exists quite a bit of shallowness out there in people’s basis for what they consider to be true and not true. I aim to not be one of those people. I have a strong desire for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but.

So, yes, I’m skeptical in a lot of ways or a skeptic of sorts on a case by case basis. However, I am a Christian as well – I do no doubt Christ. Most of those describing themselves as skeptics out there would fall under definition #2 and not #3 as they make the specific claim of no God. They’re not skeptical on that point. #3 doubt whether they can even know – a sort of universal doubter.


Note: I do these posts not because I think I’m somehow superior in my views or anything absurd like that but out of a desire to be up-front and honest with my readers as to where I stand. Otherwise, you’d be left to figure things out by reading between the lines and/or guessing.

About Me – On Confessions

If you don’t know, this is a post that helps you the reader to become more acquainted with where I – the author of this site – stand on various topics and theological points. Keep reading to see where I stand on today’s topic.


In our present age, there is this common thought that one’s religion should be kept unshackled from the doctrines, dogmas, and creeds (or confessions) of the past. They think this makes them better and freer than those of the past. As such, they tend to be anti-creedal.

However, it is impossible to truly be anti-confessional. To state you have no confession or that there should be no confession is to inherently make a declarative statement that takes on the role of your confession. By merely taking a stand of any kind, you’ve confessed your position and thereby put forth your creed or confession. Therefore, it is more honest to be forward and state what you have as your confession.

Heretics historically proclaimed that they held to the Scriptures so simply stating “our creed is the Bible” isn’t enough. In fact, confessions were often written in response to historical heresies in order to have a succinct message upon where the church stood that could be referenced against such heresies. These also serve as useful teaching tools for the congregation at large.

I personally enjoy both the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed and my current church subscribes to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (also called the 2nd London Baptist Confession).

I also think quite highly of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

There are many other creeds and confessions out there and many that are useful for teaching and historical study that I have not mentioned here.

My greatest point is that confessions are important and that a church that claims it doesn’t have one or refuses to state one has thereby made its stance (confession) clear, and such a church is therefore a potentially dangerous place as it will have difficulty identifying and calling out false doctrine. Such a place is not the sort of place one should look to for growth in Christ.


Note: I do these posts not because I think I’m somehow superior in my views or anything absurd like that but out of a desire to be up-front and honest with my readers as to where I stand. Otherwise, you’d be left to figure things out by reading between the lines and/or guessing.

See more in the master list.