The Statement of Faith Revision

Dear Brothers in Christ,
In regards to changes within the EFCA, we as missionaries returning on home assignment after 4 years in Africa, were surprised to find our home church “Reformed”. Then, as if that wasn’t enough of a surprise, we also find out the EFCA wants to “refresh” its statement of faith. Why does it need to be “refreshed” after all these years? I suspect there are some hidden agendas here. Does Trinity want to remove Dispensational teaching?

Since hermeneutics has been relegated to “minor”, even though it was specifically stated as a “major” in years past, does not bode well for the EFCA movement in general. I am not sure who is teaching what in our Sunday school classes now. My concern is that our children will become more and more confused as to what is being taught in our churches. Let’s think about their futures as well.

Although we still have many godly people supporting us in our church, we are not quite sure where the leadership of the EFCA is taking us. If anyone is looking to partner with a displaced biblical/dispensational missionary family in the Nebraska region, please let us know!

EFCA Refugee in South Dakota,
Mark Outson

Since my remarks have been confined to a separate blog, I will blog with myself!

When we joined our church in 1995, we went through the membership class using “Welcome to the Family!” dated 1992, and revised 1994. Starting on page 7, under “Distinctives of the EFCA”, it seems to me in numerous places that the current 12 doctrinal points were “essentials” or “majors”, and not just minor issues.

Here are some quotes from some of the Distinctives:
1. - Membership requires commitment to doctrine as expressed in our Statement of Faith.
2. - But we believe there is strength in diversity and that it is important to preserve the distinctives of various organizations.
3. - Being “evangelical” means that we have deep convictions that doctrine and life-style are based on the authority of God’s Word.
5. - We believe it is essential to have solid biblical content in our doctrinal understanding of faith… [emphasis mine]

It appears to me, from the above statements, that everything in the Statement of Faith is important, that is important to preserve the distinctives of various organizations, have deep convictions about [our] doctrine, and essential to have solid biblical content in our doctrine.

The term “imminent” is important, as that is part of our motivation for the Great Commission. The question given on page 35, “In what ways should the second coming of Christ affect the personal life and service of the believer?”, explains why this term is important. Verses given are: I Thes. 5:4-8, II Peter 3:1-10, Mat. 24:42, Titus 2:12-13, I John 2:28, and I John 3:2-3.

Mark Outson
Sioux Falls, SD

You are on the wrong path!

Not with your concerns, but with where you are placing them.

You need to go to the "topics" bar at the top of the page. This will scroll open to two choices. Pick the "discussions" choice.

Here you will discover the blogging realm of the revision to the SOF of the EFCA. OK?

Hey get in there and blogg away. I for one apreciate your candor and biblical opinion from a missionaries view point.

Stayin On Course Heb 12:1-3

Pastor CJ Addis
Kings EFC

I would like to know if the revised statement of faith will be up for a first vote at this Summer's conference. I have heard varying reports that it will or will not. Can you tell me how much advance notice we will receive as to whether it will or will not be voted upon this Summer?

I believe that the Leadership of the EFCA is heading in the right direction. Not many, but some of us who love the EFCA church are calvinistic and reformed in our theology.I think this change would allow many of us who love our Lord to feel more included.
Dan Cattanach, Marshfield, WI.

I just attended the Central District Conference and heard many opinions on the proposed revision. I thought many statements were good, but many were overstated. For instance, one pastor said that he had a problem letting in people with different "end times" views, because one in particular, RC Sproul, has at differnt times claimed the doctrine of premillenialism as unbiblical and this particular pastor who shared did not want to be in fellowship with someone like Sproul. Well, I am in fellowship in the EFCA with several people who I think have "unbiblical" doctrines. I think Wesleyan-Arminianism is unbiblical, I think the baptism of infants is unbiblical, and I think certain views of the rapture are unbiblical but I am overjoyed to be a part of an association of churches who is all about God's Word and the proclamation of the Lordship of Christ. I choose to overlook the "minors" (which I say premill view is, like Wesleyanism) and focus on the majors. I hope we are not so focused on the theological particulars that made up the 1950 merger and realize the face evangelicalism is much different today. I would gladly associate with RC Sproul, JI Packer and many others who are currently unable to fellowship in the EFCA.

thanks
matt proctor (boone, ia)

Matt,

I was disappointed to hear that methods of Bible interpretation seem to be a "minor", or “theological particulars” now days. Being involved with Bible translation as a missionary, I truly believe biblical exegesis and hermeneutics are not trivial matters. That includes eschatology too. The men of the EFCA who came before the "everything is cool" generation, thought it was important too.

I am also curious as to what your statement "the face of evangelicalism is much different now" means. A trend I have noticed in the Church since our return to the States is that there is no truth, and everything is relative. Please bear with me; I guess I have been living a sheltered and unenlightened existence while in Africa.

Secure in Christ,
Mark Outson
Sioux Falls, SD

Mark,

this is why I love the EFCA. I am glad we can disagree and be in cohoots with each other within a corporate body called the EFCA.

Mark, would you be willing to have a phone conversation? I feel blogging really does not allow 2 people to really understand one another. I want to hear where you are coming from, how missions work in Africa is affecing your thoughts, and your other desires for the EFCA.

I do not want us to misinterpret one another's words and that's the futility of blogs like this. I feel a little hurt by some of your responses b/c you seem to have misinterpreted my thoughts and made some false assumptions, but I want to dialogue over these issues to just see if you were trying to cause me to think.

I don't feel comfortable sharing thoughts that are much more complicated and developed than can fit in a 3 paragraph blog comment, but I would love to have a conversation and then each of us could blog on what we thought the other person was saying or something like that.

I love you brother and I love the comradery in the EFCA. I just wish we would allow others of similar passion for God's Word (but with differing theological conclusions) into our body we call the EFCA. It's the dealing of differences that make friendships (and church bodies) stronger. Watered down agreement for the sake of avoiding controversy is a dangerous thing. True fellowship comes through understanding, encouraging, listening, and ultimately bearing with one another.

Feel free to email me your info and I'll get a hold of you. proctorm@efcboone.com

Brother Matt,

Just wanted to reply so folks know we are "Blogging" in a spirit of "as iron sharpens iron" love. On those lines, I apologize if I offended you. Thing we all need to keep in the front of our mind is that the Word of God is precious, and thus I want to strive to be as close to the Truth as possible – I know you must feel the same way. Let me see if I can clarify my position for any and all who may “stumble” across our blog.

Having been given the privilege of being involved in a small way in bringing God’s word to life in a language that has never been written before makes this issue ultra important to me. How we interpret God’s word should be a humbling and exacting experience. I would not want to expose the young babes in Christ we work with to various teachings, which brings about confusion. We have enough confusion is this world as it is. Hence, doctrinal distinctions are something we must live with. It doesn’t mean we can’t fellowship on a larger level with those who hold to different ones. In Africa, we work with Reformed and Arminian missions on some issues where we can be helpful to each other.

Since I have been out of touch with the church in America for 4 years, I have found some changes that have disturbed me a lot. Some of that comes from changes in my home church that bring me into conflict with my Mission’s SoF. Since the EFCA seems to want to move in a similar direction, I really feel like I am being pushed out or marginalized. Another area is that biblical truth and inerrancy seem to be becoming “passé”. I heard about the “guy” who came to speak at the district meeting last week, and quite frankly he said some pretty disturbing things that only confirm my fears for the EFCA. I won’t pretend to know by who, or why this particular person was invited to speak, only some of what he said. If that is what “refreshing” the SoF means, then as Ron pointed out, the EFCA is leaving me, not the other way around.

As I mentioned in another blog area, I believe strongly that a church should have a unified teaching on major points of doctrine that brings about the least amount of confusion for all believers, but especially our children. In my book, this includes eschatology. I truly believe God has entrusted the biblical upbringing of my children to me, as their father. I desire to be accountable to that mandate. If a pastor is teaching the 5-points of Calvinism/Covenant theology in S.S. and another teacher the 5-points Arminianism, or Dispensationalism, I don’t think that is helpful. This is why strong convictions, bring about distinctions in churches.

I can’t wait to get to heaven so we can remove all these theological labels and just worship God the way He intended! Then we will all be Biblicists…Oh what a joyous day that will be! Until then, let us recognize these distinctions are necessary. His blessings upon you as you seek His perfect will.

By His Grace Alone,
Mark Outson

I am very encouraged by the changes I have read in the statement of faith. While I have loved the EFCA, it has always seemed strange to me that a denomination which claimed a desire to only major in the majors maintained a premillennial stance in their statement of faith. I am saying this as one who is premillennial! From my perspective, there seemed to be an inherent contradiction between the desire to only contain the major doctrines in the statement of faith and the presence of premillennial language. The EFCA has historically remained "neutral" on issues such as mode of baptism, Lord's Supper, and Calvinism/Arminianism. I could never understand how a denomination that would not take positions on these issues, made a point to take a position on something like the exact nature of the millennium! The new wording allows those with varying millennial views to fellowship with us while, at the same time, allowing those who are dispensational to remain well with the bounds of the wording of the statement of faith. It seems to be the best of both worlds to me. Blessings upon everyone!

Nathan Hogan
La Mesa, CA

Hey everyone! I am new to this site. I am a relatively new member of the EFCA here in New Mexico. I am a layperson who definately feels a call towards ordained ministry.
First, let me say that the revision of the sof blew me away! It was both biblical and beautiful. It captured the true heart of evangelicalism. Even though I myself am premillennial(for the time being, that is. It is one doctrine I have not studied that much), I was always bummed out that the sof included a premillennial stance. It did not seem consistent with the EFCA distinctives. I would gladly be in fellowship with the likes of R.C. Sproul, etc. Why would we make that a dividing line, when the majority of those in church history NEVER made that a major issue? It is curious to me. Everyone seems to have their "pet" doctrine(at one time I was a "rabid" calvinist!, thankfully I recovered. LOL). But this does not seem to capture the spirit of evangelicalism. Let's major on the majors! One vote for the revision here.

God's peace,
Travis

While I have many difficulties with the entire process of the SOF revision, let me address of couple of major concerns.

First on integrity "fudging" issue: If a member of our churches came to us and said that he no longer believed in one of the clearly defined essential doctrines of our faith, would we pretend that it doesn't matter? Even more, would we re-define our essentials just to be more accomodating or attractive to someone outside the church? I don't think so. I'm sorry, but the fact is that "essentials" are still essentials -- whether people like and agree with them or not. And should someone no longer agree with the essentials, integrity (both personal and institutional) requires that we admit it and deal with the potential consequences.

I fault both the individuals who have not been fully open and honest in dealing with their differences and the denomination for not enforcing adherence to essentials that were already clearly defined. All of this turmoil that is now dividing the denomination is both unnecessary and unbiblical. Should the denomination want to change those essentials for any reason, there was a legitimate process for making those changes... a process in which we are now engaged. But let's be perfectly honest all the way around... this "fudging" has been taking place for years on both the local and national levels. Trinity has been tolerating (if not embracing) amill' teachings in its various forms for decades. This is no surprise to anyone closely associated with the university or divinity school. Does anyone really think that we're re-defining the essentials to widen the table for more guests? Of course not, we're simply re-writing the guestlist to name who's already sitting at the table. Isn't there something wrong here when (before the SOF has been changed!), as a pastor I cannot hire the average graduate of our own college because he cannot sign our pre-mill' doctrinal statement?

Second: A very practical question for the denominational leadership... I venture to guess that several of our E-Free churches using the 12-point SOF as their doctrinal official statement also have constitutional provisions that will not allow that section of the constitution/by-laws to be changed. Ours does! Our constitution clearly reads that Article 2 (the doctines "as set forth in the preceding Articles of Faith") cannot be eliminated nor essentially altered as to its content." The original concept of "refreshing" might have passed the prohibition to not alter essential content. But this new "revision" won't come close.

If the denomination changes its SOF, what will be the ramifications for any church that, by law, cannot change its SOF/doctinal section without first shutting down to re-open with the new SOF? And should the new SOF be adopted, must we put some kind of clause in our new constitution that states this can't be changed unless the denomination thinks that we need to accomodate to another group in another 50 years from now?

Personally, I graduated from an interdenominational Bible college with a big-tent approach to denominational doctrines but required absolute adherence to its defined essentials. I can still live under a big tent. But I believe that the denomination has already defined its essentials; that it should have decided about re-defining them BEFORE the guest list was ammended; that integrity requires us to accept whatever consequences come from a change in beliefs; and that, whether intended or unintended, this whole process will bring very painful consequences for churches that, by law, cannot change their doctrinal statements should this thing follow the course of revision.

Steve Miller
South Holland, IL

I welcome the changes to the EFCA doctrinal statement. The new statement is gospel-centered, Christ-centered, and Bible-centered. It maximizes what is essential to Christianity and minimizes those elements which have divided true believers over the years. The new statement invites all true believers, who hold the essentials dear, to church fellowship and creates the opportunity to experience John 17. I understand that the greater challenge is that we will all need to experience much more grace and mercy to genuinely welcome those who love the same Lord but who differ on non-essentials.

After having been through the SOF presentation at the Midwinter Ministerial, and then again a month later at our district, I would have to say that my principal concern is that we find a way to affirm the promise-keeping character of God. The key weakness of amillennialism is that it so thoroughly transfers the promises of God from Abraham's seed to the church, that it calls into question the integrity of God's promise. Our assurance of salvation, our very salvation itself, rests upon the character of God and the integrity of His promises. I think I could live with the removal of the specific affirmation of premillennialism, if in its place was a clear affirmation that God says what He means and means what He says.

I think I have one other reservation. The EFCA leadership and the Spiritual Heritage Committee seem to want the Statement of Faith to be something on the order of the Nicene Creed, Apostles Creed and Chalcedonian Definition, something that all true born-again believers can affirm, nothing more, nothing less. If we were a parachurch organization, I would applaud such a purging of distinctives. However, we are a family of churches. We like the language of a movement more than the vocabulary of denominationalism, but we are what we are, an association of churches. I believe that such an association needs distinctives in order to have and maintain an identity. I would favor the publishing of a Statement of Distinctives, to be adopted with the Statement of Faith. Let the Statement of Faith be our standard for membership, but let the Statement of Distinctives be an additional requirement for the ordination of Pastors and tenuring of TEDS Faculty. By doing so, we open the door to our churches, yet ensure that we have a means of establishing and maintaining an identity.

Sincerely,

Steve Palm

This has been an interesting read. I re-read AT Olson's section on this in This We Believe. At the time it was written, He was pretty dogmatic. I see a change in the statement as being a major cause of disunity within the body of the EFCA. So while we may have a bigger umbrella for outsiders we will definitely be experiencing a major storm within. Steve Miller is right in his assessment about the local churches that have the current EFCA SoF as their local church SoF. Some will come along with the changes but others will hold fast so there will be at least two EFCA Statements of Faith. Pray for unity on this because a 60 - 40 vote won't help the cause of Christ.

DC

Yo Der Hey,

I have just come back from a meeting (EFCA West) with two of the principles for changes in the SOF and 50+ pastors. They did a good job (on both side) presenting their positions in grace and with conviction.

I am still asking the question “Are we really trying to make the EFCA a home big enough for all evangelicals?” Some would argue that to be evangelical we need to rethink the Trinity and God’s omniscience (These folks are not EFCA people but they find our stances offensive).

As far as armenianism and calvinism we are currently not a home for the zealots on either side. It is true that God ‘s will in salvation is supreme, yet we do have a choice. Every believer is elect and they all were called to make a decision. How this works out exactly is God’s (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) job. So there is room; and to over work it is the arrogance of theologians wishing to excerpt control or experience a sense of authority in an area that is not for us or for them. I am not so much a Calvinist, as I am an Augustinian in regards to man’s inability towards righteousness. In the end every person who is saved, is elect.

In eschatology there is room for views with in evangelicalism. But within a biblical church organization centered on congregationalism there are some natural restrictions. John Stott and RC Sproul are not seeking to become ministers or members in the EFCA. We do partner with them in the ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) and in missionary work. Fellowship is not restricted for anyone with other evangelicals. But within the local body we have many restrictions for members and ministers.

As far as the millennial question; consider the different types of church governance of differing denominations and then compare their views on eschatology. The more reformed, the more authoritarian the organization. Amill’s are for the most part Episcopalian or Presbyterian in governance. Is there a connection? Yep, you betcha. It all comes down to the hermeneutic that gives teaching on Israel and the Church.

As for imminency, that is the rubber meets the road issue. Is this a major teaching of Christ? How about the Apostles? When did it fall into disfavor and why? Why was this so important to the Free Church movement and not to the ruling Amill churches and states (to include Roman Catholicism)? Or was it?

Do some historical homework. No one was bothered by the premill camp because the ruling church/state groups found the Bible to be best understood through the official church statements (in the local vernacular or in Latin). The Word in the common language, but the interpretation was still by order of the state church. Anything causing someone to question the ruling of the church as a partner with the state was seen as heretical and as a threat to the states authority. An imminent return took away the holy union of church and state to rule a Christian state and turn towards a Christianized world awaiting Christ’s return to a fit household of faith. Imminency became the average man’s hope and a threat to the state church of the reformers and Roman Catholics.

I would encourage my brothers who are premill and seem to hold that view in low esteem to consider all the other areas of theology that are tied to that conviction. I keep hearing folks say “I’m premill but…” Have you really come to your viewpoint through study and conviction or is it more a “pop culture” value? Sorta premill light. Is Jesus really going to fulfill the covenant promises to Israel? Is that happening today? Are the Palestinians the oppressed are or are the Jewish immigrants to the covenant land the oppressed? How should we proceed? Is the church ushering in the Messianic Kingdom or is it a separate entity with Jewish believers? Is it fair for Jewish believers to receive a greater blessing than the gentiles in the millk?

I have a great connection to the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) evangelical Presbyterian Church and the Orthodox Presbyterians. I have done pulpit fill-in with each. But they would not have me as a pastor, nor would I want to be. In fact I was saved under the ministry of a PCA body. It seems we are so concerned about a fictitious need. I however have a pastor friend that is not ordained and serves in an EFCA body who is at the point of conviction that will cause him to seek ministry in another denomination. His choice centers on two issues 1) our definition of inerrancy and 2) eschatology. In particularly imminence. I love him dearly, but I do think he does need a different body to minister in.

There is not an evangelical body that does not try to have a clear statement on eschatology. However we are intentionally trying to word our eschatology in a less clear way on purpose. In fact a pretrib/premill minister does have a problem with “fully bringing in the rule of Christ” or however the statement goes. I do not, with my eschatology hold to any form of the messianic kingdom on earth today. This statement would exclude me. The language of an expectant attitude of Christ’s return in needlessly obscure. Imminence is a core teaching of the Messiah and the Apostles. I think it is a major. One must some how get around it and construct a system to make imminency mean something other than “at any moment”. But those people can still be evangelicals. However I do not think historically they are Evangelical Free.

There also seems to be some bit of recunstructionism/covenant issue bubbling up. The idea of our SOF adding in “seeking justice” smacks of this. What king of justice being handed out and by whom? When we say “God’s gospel”, are we in some way referring to God’s eternal covenant of Salvation? I would rather substitute “God’s gospel” with “God’s rule of faith”. Try that out for size. It’s just an opinion and suggestion.

Speaking of Reformed. I do not think the reformers were reformed enough. In fact, the reformed movement is often defending practices and doctrines that are tradition and philosophical more than theologically biblical. I do not know why we seek to be shackled by an incomplete reformation. They certainly are not eager to accept us into their local/denominational circles. And this is just Okie dockie with me.

Besides, I will see them at our out reach events or hymn sings or any other endeavors. If some one says they are Baptist I introduce them to a Baptist. If they say Presbyterian then…well you get the idea. As long as we agree on the content of faith, in this arena we can partner. Evangelical partnership for the whole body of Christ, Yee Haw! That’s good stuff and that is appropriate.

By the way, it was these same reformed evangelical fellowships that made the EFCA necessary. Our eschatology has been the point of attack that drove many out of the reformed denominations (Lewis Sperry Chafer) fellowship. Remember the roots of the EFC. We were forced out of the reformed circles.

But don’t infiltrate the EFCA to make us reformed or covenant. We already have the Swedish Covenant Church. Let people seek appropriate church fellowships. Internationally it may be different because of the options, but we are the EFCA.

In conclusion (Da-dida-dida), I find it interesting and a bit disturbing to hear how this process was intentionally shelved until AT Olson and his homies were removed from this terrestrial ball for enough time to make them footnotes, so as to not have them answer these issues directly or cause them concern. It is easy to quote dead guys. I am sure that this is couched in concern and respect, but it sounds a lot different to the senior members of my church who have fond respect and admiration for him and his contemporaries.

So the discourse continues

Stayin On Course

Pastor CJ Addis
Kings EFC, Hanford CA

Pardon me, but those who write about the need to only have "essentials" should re-read the revised SOF. Surely you know that it, too, contains non-essential doctrines (though I ask, "non-essential" to whom or to what?).

Do you want to get rid of the non-essentials contained in the new SOF? No, many of you have testified here to how much you like the new SOF. If that is so, then don't claim to be for an essentials-only approach. Since the new SOF has non-essentials, and you like the new SOF, then that means you don't believe in an essentials-only approach.

By what right does anyone today claim to speak for the EFCA founders, that pre-millennialism is inconsistent with the founding principles of the EFCA? Are we blind? Since it was put into the SOF by the EFCA's founders, it's obvious they never saw anything inconsistent about having it in there.

The argument that pre-millennialism is "inconsistent" with the EFCA principles can't be taken seriously. Do people forget that we still have in our hands what the original founders wanted? No one can come along 50 years later and sensibly claim that the founders were violating their own values. It's like claiming that James Madison would want us to get rid of the 2nd Amendment because keeping it violates his founding principles.

Is the PCA sinning when it refuses to ordain one of our guys? I don't think we want to make such a harsh judgment. We don't condemn them for holding distinctives, do we? No; actually, I believe many of those pressing for the new SOF are Reformed, and want the EFCA to become even more Reformed. Anyway, if the PCA doesn't sin when they refrain from ordaining someone who doesn't subscribe to their distinctives, then we're not sinning when we refuse to ordain one of their guys.

Fellowship is not broken when ordination is denied, since ordination isn't fellowship.

The real sin is churches crafting their own personal, private SOFs -- edited to their liking -- while at the same time claiming to be EFCA churches. I just learned over the weekend of some EFCA church in my own district having done this.

Lastly: Dual SOFs ("grandfathering") was recommended at our district conference as the answer to those churches that constitutionally can't adopt a new SOF, or churches that will refuse to accept the new one regardless of how the vote goes. I think it's a terrible idea. Grandfathering only works with minor differences, pertaining to bureacratic matters, and on the assumption that the old will die out.

These aren't minor differences, they deal with the doctrinal DNA of the movement, and anyone who thinks the old will fail while the new prevails is being unjustifiably optimistic. We wouldn't have dual SOFs, we'll have dueling SOFs. This current project is already splitting the denomination; dual SOFs would further a complete split.

Wow! Maybe some would like it if the EFCA became the FFCA(the Fundamentalists Free Church of America!) It is funny how divergent the EFCA really is. I wonder why being evangelical is not enough? Why do we need these secondary doctrines to define us? In this postmodern context, we need to focus on what unites us and be as missional as possible. Should we disqualify someone from membership because he is not pre-mil? Give me a break? This just shows how far off track we have become. I believe the leadership of the EFCA are trying to bring us back to be the church: the church seeking the lost! I commend their efforts and keep them in my prayers. Arguing about specific eschatalogy might be fun for some, but let's not forget that there are lost and dying people out there who don't care whether or not we are pre-mil. Keep the focus!

Let me provide a context for this discussion. I am a member at Blackhawk Church (3000+ attendees) in Madison, WI. I am not ordained (and do not seek to be), but I am passionately interested in experiencing the grace of Christ in my life and seeing it impact the lives of people around me. Also, I *love* the Bible.

When I joined Blackhawk, I specifically said that I do not believe in parts of the last two articles of the statement of faith. I am not a pre-millenialist, and see no evidence that this position is actually affirmed anywhere in Scripture (not even in Revelation 20). Also, I cannot imagine that God will necessarily send everyone who doesn't explicitly agree with a certain set of doctrines to hell. I am very thankful that Blackhawk invited me to become a member anyway. I have benefited from it (perhaps enormously, time will tell). There are those at Blackhawk who say that they have benefited, too.

To me, this discussion isn't about absolute truth vs. relativism/postmodernism. It's about being absolutely honest about things that are true, even when it makes some things less comfortable and clear.

I am thrilled that the EFCA is dropping pre-millenialism from its doctrinal statement. That a doctrine whose sole basis is a few verses in a book in which images, numbers, and personalities are more often than not explicitly used as symbols to make points that are sometimes simply not clear--this baffles me. Perhaps this is an important issue for pastors and theologians, but how does this affect me or my friends? In trying to work out my salvation and God's grace in my life, I can't remember when the last time I even thought about the hermeneutical implications of this or that eschatological viewpoint. Those of you who are pastors, do you not realize how little this matters to hundreds of people who are (potential) attendees and members of each your churches?

The hell question is more complicated, but I look forward to the day when the EFCA (and evangelicals in general) will drop this as an "essential" part of their faith. There simply is not enough evidence in the Bible to support a confident assertion that every "unbeliever" will face "eternal conscious punishment".

For example, the summary of the proposed SOF revision at
http://www.efca.org/about/media/sof_second_draft_revision.pdf mentions the Greek word "aionion" in a citation of what it calls "*the* crucial verse on this doctrine" (emphasis mine). The citation is from a parable ascribed to Jesus. The obvious problem with this, of course, is that Jesus probably never heard the word "aionion" in his life. He did not speak Greek. What we have in Matthew 25 is a *summary* in Greek of a *parable* (!) Jesus spoke in *Aramaic*. Also, of course, the criterion that Jesus states will be used to separate sheep from goats is clearly *not* belief in a doctrine--it is *conduct*.

The statements I made above are *true*. Does anyone not see a problem with including in a denominational statement a doctrine for which *the crucial verse* is surrounded by so much doubt?

Of course this doesn't settle the issue. I am not a universalist. I don't know what I am. But acknowledging that we do not know for sure what we cannot know for sure is not relativism--it is humility and honesty, something that Jesus calls us to if he calls us at all.

So this is a question that perhaps should affect this discussion: Does the EFCA want someone like me among them? I hope so. There are many of us. We are evangelicals. We cannot go to Southern Baptist or Calvinist or "liberal" churches. Where can we go?

My best guess is that EFCA probably should have a place for me. (Perhaps after this blog, it will not...) But I can't tell. Which is why, among other reasons, I am taking a break from attending church on Sundays right now.

Brethren,
For what its worth, as having served as a missionary for the past 10 years in Africa, I will submit the following:
Eschatology is MAJOR in that it is part of the Whole Counsel of God.
Eschatology is MAJOR as it accounts for large portions of God’s Word.
Eschatology is MAJOR as it does affect the implementation of the Great Commission.

Does the Bible mean what it says, or is it an allegory for us to interpret in light of our theology? “Imminent” is one of the MAJOR motivations we have as believers to spread the Gospel. Besides, it is biblical. I Thes. 5:4-8, II Peter 3:1-10, Mat. 24:42, Titus 2:12-13, I John 2:28, and I John 3:2-3. (references taken from the EFCA membership manual dated 1994)

It is MAJOR as Church history proves that most missionaries and evangelists are premillennnial and especially dispensational. Forgive me, but yes, I dared to say it. It does matter!

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” 2 Tim. 3:16-17

A biblical fundamentalist,
Mark Outson

Andrew:

So you're saying that Blackhawk approved you for membership, even though you deny that hell is eternal, conscious torment?

To others:

You need to understand that Pre-millennialism = the Kingdom of God. The word "Pre-millennial" is just a bit of verbal shorthand that sums up, in a single word, our theology of the Kingdom of God.

The issue of how God's Kingdom will come to pass on the earth is not a minor doctrine. If you think Pre-millennialism is only about the particular number 1,000, or just the 20th chapter of Revelation, then you weren't taught it correctly. Even if Revelation 20 predicted only ten years of Christ's earthly reign, and it was called Pre-Decadalism, it wouldn't be any less important. How and when God's Kingdom will come to the earth is not an unimportant teaching.

Mark et al.,

I would respectfully suggest that your question is not as well-formed as it could be. Scripture does mean what it says, AND sometimes it is manifest allegory that requires nontrivial interpretation--especially books like Revelation.

A literalist should recognize that there is no explicit mention of a millenium anywhere except for a few verses in...Revelation. Also, what you write about church history is debatable (e.g., think of all the evangelism done in the early second century before Revelation was universally accepted and cited, or in the first century before it was even written. Think of all the Catholic missionaries of the 1500-1700's who were not premillenial. Etc., etc.) Your statement would be much more verifiable if you amend it to "most missionaries and evangelists have believed in Christ's imminent return".

Eschatology *is* major. I live in the hope of what will happen when Jesus comes back; while my service to Christ does not come close to yours, much of my life is built around this hope. I think that everything that the church does should be done with this hope. However, what the Scripture says about a millenium (or if it actually says anything at all about a literal millenium) is simply not clear.

I would love it if the word "imminent" were included in the SOF to describe Jesus' return (the sooner he returns the better!!). But not "premillenial". Would you be content with this?

Whether or not, I respect your years of service and your regard for Scripture. Very much. I do still have the question of whether EFCA sees benefit in having people like me participate. Feel free to email me off-line if you like: ajmiller16@yahoo.com.

"A literalist should recognize that there is no explicit mention of a millenium anywhere except for a few verses in...Revelation."

Except for a few verses...
Except for a few verses...
Except for a few verses...

Hello!!!

You could also say that:

"A literalist should recognize that there is no explicit mention of a hell anywhere except for a few verses..."

"A literalist should recognize that there is no explicit mention of the virgin birth anywhere except for a few verses..."

"A literalist should recognize that there is no explicit mention of a resurrection anywhere except for a few verses..."

Where do we draw the line?

What doctrine is next?

George Husted
Deacon Glastonbury Community Church,CT

In the discussion of eternal judgment, the comment was made that the Greek word "aionion" was not used by Jesus in Matthew 25. I suppose that is valuable in understanding the term as we find it in Matthew. We do, however, hold to the inspiration of scripture, which means that all of the words of Jesus will be in Greek not Aramaic or whatever language we may presume was spoken. Which words are "verbally inspired" only the original speech of Jesus, or also the written accounts we find in the Gospels in translation? Since we do not have the original speech, we would have nothing but speculative reconstructions of Jesus' words. Certainly we have and will always work with the NT as the authoritative text.
(Do we know that languages Jesus knew or did not know, by the way, Galilee was not unfamiliar with the Roman Empire or it's economic web.)

I think it was Norman Geisler who pointed out that Mk 25:46, which is not the parable, but the interpretive statement about the parable, makes eternal life paralel to eternal punishment (using NIV). Making the punishment other than eternal or conscious, would by parallelism in the same sentence make "life" other than eternal or conscious.

The comments expressed by the man in Blackhawk, Wi are the very reason why we should not be seeking to be diverse to so great an extent. What part of Luke 16:19-31 do you not understand about the Sciptural teaching of conscious punishment and the nature of the reality of the awareness of it by the rich man? I find it incredible that a pastoral staff in the EFCA would allow this!

Andrew,

Sorry that my posting did not more directly address your concerns, but when I wrote mine, yours was not listed yet. Since you seem well informed in doctrinal matters, I am curious as to where you studied, and who you might associate with in regards to theology?

What concerns me more than anything is your statement "There simply is not enough evidence in the Bible to support a confident assertion that every "unbeliever" will face "eternal conscious punishment." Are you asserting that there are “degrees” of unbelievers, and some will be punished and some not?

How many verses does it take to confirm a doctrine? 1, 5, 50, 500? Depending on the original text and context of the entire passage, and harmony with the rest of Scripture, I think in some cases, ONE would be enough! In any case, we are not just talking about one verse are we? You sound more than capable enough to look up topics like hell, and eternal judgment for yourself. What do you do with other verses like these? Are they allegories too?

I stand by my question on allegory. Unless the historical, grammatical, contextual, particulars of the passage lead one to allegory, it is best to treat God’s Word as literal as possible. This is why normative dispensationalism uses one hermeneutic for all of Scripture. When you resort to multiple/allegorical methods, you can do pretty much what you want with Scripture…that is why some use it to fill in the blanks, so to speak, in their system of theology.

“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning; unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths indicate clearly otherwise.”

Otherwise stated: “If the plain sense makes good sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense.”

Yes, some of my remarks may be debatable. Since I believe premill. was the doctrine taught in the 1st century, I believe it is biblical. Many early church fathers were premill. Even Augustine was, until he changed his mind. If you don’t believe me on some of this “Kingdom” doctrine, please get a hold of a copy of Renald Showers’ book “There Really Is A Difference”. If he doesn’t convince you, then keeping seeking the truth.

Concerning missions, I was talking about Evangelical or Biblical missions. Sorry, I do not consider Roman Catholic missions as part of evangelical mission history. What happened from the Reformation until the New Divinity movement was not the Great Commission in action, it was the “Great Omission”. Part of that reason is they had no “imminent” motivation in their Confessions. That is why as a missionary the “refreshing” of #11 in the SoF is troubling. From that time forward it has been mainly those who took eschatology seriously, and mainly of dispensational background, who have carried missions forward. You may dispute that, but you can check out the theology of those involved. Beyond that, look at the theology of the majority of evangelists and missions of the last 50 years. Other resources include: Mission Handbook 2004-2006, which lists who is really INVOLVED in evangelism, not just those who TALK about it. I appreciate C. Gordon Olson’s “Beyond Calvinism & Arminianism” for a sobering look at the history of missions, and extremes in systematic theology. The abridged version, just out, is called, “Getting the Gospel Right”. He not only taught Missions and Theology, but was an ACTUAL missionary in Pakistan. If you really desire to know more, see his book “What In The World Is God Doing?: The Essentials of Global Missions”. All this to say that, pemill. and imminent must remain.

I hope and pray that you will keep attending church. Your “I don't know what I am” statement means that you are seeking. That is good. After what you said, I hesitate to send you back to your church, but hopefully someone there believes in the current EFCA SoF. In any case, I would love to send you “The Stranger on the Road to Emmaus” by John Cross as a love gift. This is a chronological Bible study starting from Genesis. Please let me know your address via e-mail.

Contending for the Gospel,
Mark Outson
m.outson@freesurf.fr

David,

You make good points--thanks. I want to stress that I do not think what I wrote settles the matter of eternal judgment--far from it. My point is that many Christians (including those, like me, who believe in the inspiration of Scripture) recognize that Scripture itself may not always provide enough evidence to settle every theological dispute, however much we want it to.

To respond to a couple of your points:
--I disagree with Geisler. Verse 46 *is* a part of the parable, just like verse 30 is part of the parable of the talents, and verse 12 is part of the parable of the virgins.
--I'll acknowledge that my assertion that Jesus did not know Greek is debatable. (He certainly knows it now. :)) But the obvious, overwhelming probability is that when Jesus taught, he taught in Aramaic. (It is clear even from Acts that the original disciples were not Greek speakers, and that including Greek-speaking Jews in the early church was a significant source of strife.)
--As I mention above, a difficulty in using Matt. 25 (and other synoptic quotations of Jesus) to justify the doctrine of eternal judgment of every "unbeliever" is that these passages never mention belief as a criterion for judgment. The literal criteria that Jesus gives in the synoptics is always *conduct* (except, perhaps, for the last part of Mark 16, a text that poses problems that are even more severe).

Again, however, let me stress that my main goal was not to change anyone's mind about this doctrine. It's obvious that whatever happnes to the SOF, this doctrine is in for the near future. The point is to pose the question: In defining the SOF, does EFCA want to encourage people like me to participate within it?

Another way to phrase the question: are Christians who are doctrinally similar to the church father Origen, George McDonald, G.K. Chesterton, and C.S. Lewis (to name a few) welcome?

Also, Mark, thanks a lot for your post. I'll reply off-line when I can find time.

Andrew,

I don’t want to take up too much space with this issue, but maybe this will help you.

(“Handbook of Evangelical Theology” by Robert P. Lightner)
Eternal Punishment of the Wicked

Except for a few (Origen was a notable exception), the early church fathers held to the doctrine of eternal punishment for the unregenerate. The fathers of the Middle Ages held the doctrine and often presented it in extreme forms. The great Protestant Reformers believed it but did not stress it, no doubt because they said little about the broader doctrine of ESCHATOLOGY. [oops, he said the ‘E’ word; all caps are mine]

“In the eighteenth century a rebellion against the doctrine started. Caused in part by the extreme forms in which the doctrine was propagated by its adherents, this rebellion swelled into a mighty revolt in the nineteenth century, a revolt which continues to the present day. At the same time, many continued and still continue to hold the traditional doctrine, although rarely in the grotesque forms in which it was held during the middle ages.” [Buis, The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment, p. 111; see also pp. 53-111.]

Within evangelicalism there is a small but growing movement away from the belief in eternal punishment for the wicked. At the present time this difference among evangelicals is not nearly as great as those discussed above, yet it does deserve mention. One evangelical describes the difference in these strong words:

“This issue of the duration of punishment for the unrighteous is the issue for professing Christians in the late twentieth century. Today there is hardly anyone feigning to be a Christian or assuming himself part of God's church who does not agree there is at least some judgment on the ungodly. But there is a growing number who are insisting that, contrary to the obvious teachings of the historic church, the Bible teaches only a temporary period of punishment.” [Jon E. Braun, Whatever Happened to Hell?]

Those evangelicals who question the eternal punishment of lost often do so by arguing the Greek word aionios means "aionic” or "new age" rather than the traditional "everlasting" "eternal.” [see Fudge, “Putting Hell in Its Place”] This understanding of aionios must, of course, squared with the fact that the same word, or a form of it, is used describe God the Holy Spirit and God the Father.
Leon Morris' comments highlight this reality:

“It is plain from the Bible that sin will be punished (Dan. 12:2; Matt. 10:15; John 5:28-29; Rom. 5:12-21), and the duration of this punishment is sometimes expressed in the NT by the use of aion or one of its derivatives (e.g., Matt. 18:8; 25:41, 46; II Thess. 1:9). Aion means "an age," and it was used of the never ending "age to come," which gave to the corresponding adjective aionion meaning "eternal," "everlasting." These words are used of the “King of ages” (1 Tim. 1:17), of "the eternal God" (Rom. 16:26), and when glory is ascribed to God "for ever" (Rom. 11:36) and God is blessed "for ever" (II Cor. 11:31). The concept of endless, duration could not be more strongly conveyed; the use of these expressions for the eternity of God shows conclusively that they do not mean limited duration. It is important that the same adjective is used of eternal punishment as of eternal life (Matt. 25:46 has both). The punishment is just as eternal as the life. The one is no limited than the other.” [Leon Morris, "Eternal Punishment," Evangelical Dictionary of Theology]

Secure in Christ,
Mark Outson

Andrew, for the record, I not Geisler said v. 46 wasn't part of the parable. his is the paralelism comment.

i don't think we can declare that parabolic passages can not teach. it seems you tend that way. it is often true that we want to make more of them than is there. but they do say someting. just as poetry says someting - the psalms often cited in NT as prophetic and/or teaching texts. (Hebrews 1 for example)

also, all teaching on heaven is to some degree metaphoric - golden streets and so forth. that does not make it unreal.

so unquenching fire - Mt 3:12 - not a parable here - can mean that 1. the fire burns unquenchably but the sinner is consumed (J. Stott's position, I believe)or 2. that the sinner is in the fire endlessly.

I don't see us moving from 2 to 1. In the near or long term.

CS Lewis belived in a kind of eventual depopulation of hell, as far as one can tell.

Now Stott could preach at Bethany, even be called to pastor, just could not be a member or in the ministerial association.

Dear David,

I'm not sure that's quite right -- if an EFCA church willfully chose to call someone who directly contradicts the SOF, the church itself would/should lose its standing as a member church. But I'm assuming you mean here that the individual church has the power to call a John Stott, and the EFCA couldn't forbid them, unlike the PCA.

Unrelated P.S. If we're re-writing the SOF just to accomodate a change in EFCA constituency that's been happening because pastors and superintendents have been deliberately looking the other way, that's just as bad as re-writing the nation's laws because we've refused to defend our borders or stop illegal immigration. There are those who would benefit short-term from creating doctrinal amnesty. But how can they have the confidence that the future leaders of their generation won't do the same thing again, with reference to other doctrines that they see as very important?

Hey Grag Strand if you are out there..this would be a good time to jump into this conversation.

Let us not lash out. I agree that Andrew does experss views that are troubling. He is very smart and has done his research according to a certain vain of thought and expression. But make sure we are not going at him with a pack mentality. He is in our midst because those who should know better did not act in a consistent manner with our SOF or destinctives. Yet thery may very well love him and treasure his involvement and fellowship.

As to you Andrew, your realm of evangelicalsim is not a surprise to me. You are not alone. There are some who have graducatedd from TEDS with the same bent as yours. There are those who will say that your bibliology makes you an non-evangelical. They would be surprised to find out that you are one of many,and a growing movement. May I ask you a couple of questions?

(I'll assume you consent)

What is your view of inerrancy?

What is your biblical stance on the Godhead?

In what ways is God ommniscient?

What is the confessin of the believer?

Is there more than one way to recieve pardon from God's wrath?

What is the difference between the Church and the covenant keeping Isreal?

I am interested in knowing these things from you, because you are an eye opening look at the new evangleical. Or maybe not.

I just think EFCA leaders need to know that we may want to revisit what an evengelical is, or is becoming.

We may even want to consider a new name sake for our denomination/associantion.

To quote a certain movie "I do not think that word means what you think it means" I say this not so much to you as to those who think we need to change as scocietal movement or philosophies change. The evangelical that I embrace may not be the evengelical that you embrace.

The EFCA and the leadership need to realize that there are those who wish not only to redefine the EFCA but also the enagelical movemnet. And they are (as Andrew is, already amongst us).

Andrew I hope through your searching you will find God as the unchangeing and knowable Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I apreciate your comments and honesty. You have jumped into an in house fracas that is finally coming to the surface.

Stayin On Course (heb 12:1-3)

Pastor CJ Addis
Kings EFC Hanford CA
pastorkefc@juno.com

Top of the Morning to ya,

Technically the Kingdom of heaveen and the Millenial kingdom (Millk) are not the same.

The Kingdom of Heaven is the eternal reign of God. The Millk is the Messianic reign of Jesus, fulfilling all the promises to David , Moses and Abbrahmic Covenants.

It is not an everslasting state.

Pre-mill is not just shorthand but a specific address to when and how Christ comes back to judge and fulfill the covenant promises. So what do the other mills think?

The A-mill holds that Christ is indeed fulfilling his covenant promises to Isreal by way of the Church. The Church replaces the role of Israel. So the Church rules for Christ on earth until(at some far off time) he comes for us to usher in the New Heavens and New Earth.

Post Mill believes that the reign of Christ is when the world is Christianized as a propper place for Jesus' return (or something like that)

The Amill and Post mill positions will definately demand some interesting views on the role of the Church and Chrisitian in culture.

Look up preterist and Dominion Theology.

Well there is probably an over simplification and or generalization for ya.

Stayin ON Course (heb 12:1-3)

Pastor CJ Addis
Kings EFC, Hanford CA

I am and have been a member of the Congregational/UCC for 68 years. Lately I have become concerned with the route our conference wishes us to persue regarding inclusive language and the open & accepting toward the gay community. Could some one explain to me (in BLACK & WHITE), the differences betwwen EFCE and UCC. Do you use Apostles Creed; do your pastors wear robes and vestments; do have divided chancelery and paramounts on the pulpit and lectern? How often do you serve communion?

Being dissatified with the direction the UCC is taking but very ingrained with the traditions I've been raised with, I don't to change; also losing all the friends I've made over the years.

Marguerite asked about the EFCA and the UCC. Here a a few quick observations

The UCC is liturgical, that is, it follows the forms you seem to appreciate. Most of our churches are not liturgical in that sense. Part of the meaning of "free" is that the form of worship is not tied to a particular form. Our churches are then more informal, and would put the preaching of the bible at the center, more so that in the UCC.

The UCC has become theologicaly liberal, for the most part, by which I mean, the current campaign "God is still speaking" would indicate that the Gospel is changing and adaptable. We are theological conservatives, in that we hold that the gospel is what it has always been.

The EFCA has issued a statement that we do not affirm gay, lesbian, etc sexual behaviors or same gender marriage. The UCC is on the other side of that question. We say that the Good News is for everyone, but we are all called to follow Christ - which includes sexual behavior among many other things.

Most of us do not wear robes or vestemnts, some might observe portions of the church year, especially Advent, nor do we have a lectionary.

We have had a family recently explore our congregation for the same reasons as you have indicated. It is a difficult decision.

If it helps, there is a story of a man who bought what was said to be George Washington's hatchet. However, he was told, the handle was changed twice and the head one.

A church can continue a name (George Washington's hatchet) but in fact, piece by piece, totally transform the content of it's teaching. Some, such as Bishop Spong, of the UCC, have gone so far as to deny the idea of God, and yet claim to be Christian. I can't accpet that you can be a Christian without faith in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

On the other hand, there remain a number of UCC congregations that teach the scriptures faithfully.

I hope that helps.

Correction:
Biship Spong is Episcopal, not UCC. My apologies.

I wish to respectfully respond to Mark Outson, a fellow missionary. Mark, you recommend Renald Showers’ book. I have read it and find it contains serious flaws of scholarship. Mr Showers misinterprets the patristic evidence. One egregious example: his citation from Justin Martyr, Dialogue 80 conveniently omits a comment Justin makes just a few lines above where Justin explicitly states that the premill view he holds is not held by all true Christians. Furthermore, his book loses credibility for me since it never once acknowledges any kind of premill except dispensationalism. No major historic premill author is ever mentioned or cited by Showers, not once (e.g. Ladd, etc). Showers, who has an MA in Church History, never cites from original patristic sources but only from English translations.

A second point: Mark, you assert that most mission activity comes from dispensationalists. I have worked in the Philippines for almost 20 years side by side with wonderful and godly sisters and brothers who are missionaries sent from the Allianz Mission, the missions arm of the Evangelical Free Church of Germany. Not only are they not dispensational or premill, they have no statement of faith at all! Yet this denomination has vigorous missions work in many nations around the world. Yes, dispensationalism has contributed much to missions, but let us not forget the contributions of others.

Dr. Ernest Manges
EFCAIM missionary to the Philippines, on home assignment in Grayslake, IL.

Marguerite,

The UCC and Angilcans are governed by the creeds. Unfortunatioey the Creeds do not address bibliology.

They assumed that everyone througout all time had the same aproach to Holy Scripture. The changes in credal churches comes by way of ones challenging the inerrancy of the scripturs and a closed cannon and revelation.

Does culture change our faith or faith inform our culture. The UCC has attempted over the last three decades to adapt God's revelation to the prevailing values of culture. That is unfortunate.

My desire is that the EFCA will learn from the UCC and the Episcopalians.

Keep on askin, seekin and knockin
God revelation will never Fail and Jesus is the Living Word

Pastor CJ Addis
Kings EFC, Hanford CA

I think this will be my last post, though I will continue to try to read the blog. I'll try to answer CJ's questions in case it's helpful. If any of you wish to reply further, convince me that I am wrong :), etc., please email me off-line: ajmiller16@yahoo.com.

Before proceeding, I wanted to assure those who are concerned that I continue to have deep, consistent fellowship with people from my church. Thanks for those who expressed concern about that.

Also, I should apologize to Greg Strand. I think the new SoF is masterfully done. While I stand by the statements of my first post, there may be a lack of respect towards Greg implicit there which I absolutely did not intend.

"What is the confession of the believer?" The best answer I can think is the historic creeds, such as the Nicene and Apostolic. Irenaeus' Rule of Faith is also good. I affirm all of these with passion. One of the reasons that I can't affirm premillenialism, or the eternal conscious torment of every person who doesn't become a Christian before death, is that these doctrines go beyond the historic confessions of our faith.

"What is your stance on the Godhead?" My answer to the above should cover this.

"In what ways is God omniscient?" Every way imaginable. :) This question makes me feel uninformed; I didn't know this was an area of controversy. The only thing that I can think to add is that God's knowledge of how we will respond to him does not mean that he determines how we will respond to him.

"What is the difference between the church and covenant keeping Israel?" Not much. The church is the "Israel of God". This quotation (Galatians 6:16) absolutely does *not* settle the matter, as there there lots of Biblical proof-texts available for covenant theologians, dispensationalists, and everything in between. But I'll move on.

Well, not yet. The reason I say "not much" rather than "none" is that I have enormous respect for Judaism. To loosely paraphrase Romans 3, the vestiges of what the Jews have inherited from their ancestors have been enough to preserve a fascinating identity, an identity which (in some ways at least) deeply reflects God's faithfulness.

"Is there more than one way to reduce pardon from God's wrath?" In the sense of 'Is there salvation outside of the work of Christ?' the answer is emphatically NO. God revealed himself in Christ, and only in Christ did God "reconcile all things to himself" (Colossians 1:20).

However, in the sense of, for example, 'Will members of other religions be forgiven?', I would say they may well be. I hope so. I don't pretend to know all the particulars of what the next age will be like. God is the judge, not me. I think that nothing impure and no one who remains unrepentant in the world will have fellowship with God. But I can't deny that God is at work in other religious communities now; nor can I know that he won't find a way to be gracious to people who die in another faith.

This is *not* to say that all religions are the same. Far from it. We are called to share the gospel and ourselves with others. This is crucially important both for this world and the one to come. But believing that all who die in other religions will go to hell forever won't help us do this.

I neither affirm nor reject the universalism that seems to be implicit in this quote, but it's worth listing: "As a human race we are on a journey and we need to be shown the road...In Christ we have been shown the road. We cannot treat that knowledge as a private matter for ourselves. It concerns the whole human family. We do not presume to limit the might and mercy of God for the ultimate salvation of all people, but the same costly act of revelation and reconciliation which gives us that assurance also requires us to share with our fellow pilgrims the vision that God has given us, the route we must follow, and the goal to which we must press forward."
(Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society, p. 183).

"What is your stance on inerrancy?" I am afraid that I will get into trouble here, but I hope not. I can affirm the SoF, both current and revised.

I am much more excited about affirming the inspiration of Scripture than its inerrancy (although I am well aware of the historical reasons for which these two terms are linked). The reason is that we don't have the original texts of Scripture. We have copies of copies of copies. This means that inerrancy of the original writings doesn't get us far without additional assumptions or knowledge about how the copying process occurred. There is massive documentary evidence that suggests that the copies we have are essentially accurate. Unfortunately, there is also massive documentary evidence that clearly indicates that some mistakes were made in the copying process. (Evangelicals don't like to admit this, and many fundamentalists will not, but it's the obvious truth.) Did these copying mistakes result in the introduction of erroneous assertions into the the texts we have? I don't know. I don't think that it should be an article of faith that they did not, since Scripture itself says nothing about this.

Affirming the inspiration of Scripture by the Holy Spirit (as all of the most ancient creeds do), along with the massive documentary evidence of the essential accuracy of the copying process, allows us to limit ourselves to saying about Scripture what it says about itself, and yet still look to it as God's prophetic revelation to us. The texts we have are not powerful and life-changing only because the originals had no mistakes, but because *God inspired them*.

I appreciate the phrasing that "the Bible is to be believed in all that it affirms". I am a theistic evolutionist; I do not believe that the first part of Genesis affirms that God created every animal and plant species 6,000 years ago. (It affirms many things about God, about man, about sexuality, about sin...but not what I said in the previous sentence.) There are many evangelicals who share this point of view, and the language of the SoF, it seems, will encourage their participation.

Also, I don't believe that the Bible always affirms historical facts in the same way, or with the same precision, that 21st century textbooks do. Before getting mad at me, consider: when was Jesus crucified? Before the Passover (as stated in John), or after (the synoptics)? There is a historical contradiction here, and one of the two is mistaken. I do not think a historical inaccuracy is an "error"; nor would it have been understood as one by readers of the time. (Yes, I have read "solutions" to this dilemna that deny the existence of a contradiction, but they are not convincing and come across as less than honest. My own best guess is that John, by giving details such as those found in 18:28, intended to be historically precise, and perhaps even to correct the synoptics, while the synoptics themselves (e.g. Mark 14:12) were giving a general time reference and not
intending to be precise.)

There are many, many other examples I could give. Yes, it is easier to defend the "historical inerrancy" of the Bible against every historian, archeologist, and textual critic who is not a fundamentalist. Yes, it's scarier to have sometimes to ask questions like "Exactly what is being affirmed historically is this passage?" But it's *honest*.

Related to CJ's quotation of some movie about a giant, a Spaniard, and the dread pirate Roberts (and other, earlier blog posts), I think that the EFCA should be considering the relative importance of the Distinctives and specific provisions of the SoF. I fell in love with the Distinctives when I first read them. It's part of what made me decide to attend an EFCA church. But if the EFCA really wants to define itself as it does in the Distinctives, it will have a hard time keeping people like me out, and at some point its SoF will probably need to reflect that. Just my two cents, in case anyone cares.

That's it. Again, email me directly if you have something that you think would be helpful for me to read. Otherwise, grace to you all. I hope the SoF revision goes well.

Just a comment: I think Andrew has given me a little snapshot of the Emergent Church movement (and my fears about it). But I don't think the issues he raises, though all pretty important, apply directly to the SOF revision. I would caution others who are critical of the revised SOF from using Andrew's words as portents of anything too particular re. the SOF. The lines drawn by even the new SOF would exclude theistic evolution, any view less than full verbal-plenary inspiration, etc.

For most of us (I think), we're debating the process -- the fact that a revision of such a crucial document of the EFCA was launched without an authorizing vote by the General Conference, the sole fact of which anoints the process with its top-down character -- and then the actual contents of the "product" itself. Both the current and the proposed SOF define us in ways that would deny most of the doctrines described in this previous post.

Sorry if this makes you sound a bit like a specimen under a slide, Andrew, but I don't think anyone should use your ideas or questioning for rhetorical purposes.

-- Jack

Mark said this:
"It is MAJOR as Church history proves that most missionaries and evangelists are premillennnial and especially dispensational. "

While it is true that the majority of missionaries in church history have been premillennial, it certainly is NOT true that the majority of missionaries in church history have been dispensational, considering that dispensationalism is not even 200 years old.

There is a saying that says "if it is true, it ain't new and if it is new, it probably ain't true."

Just throwing that quote out for fun.

Travis

Hey Guys,

Andrew thanks for your candor and honesty.

Jack, I think Andrew has given insight into the practices of churches that do not take serious the SOF. What is to say that they will take the revised statement serius?

Our distictives may also portray something differrent to others, than what we wanted them to. Our distinctives were not aproved of by conference, were they? I do not recall.Also the distinctives are not the standard for membership or of ordination.

Our Free churches can be very open to a larger audince than is membership and the responsibilites that come with membership. One can be an involved worshiper and find areas of service with out being a member. Yet there needs to be a more intimate expectation of those who desire to participate in our congregational system

This true for laypersons and clergy.

Talk to ya later Andrew, and thanks for the call.

CJ Addis
Pastor Kefc, Hanford CA

Dr. Manges,

I hope you are having a refreshing home assignment. In regards to your comments, I admit that Renald Showers’ book may not be perfect, but I feel he presented some good arguments, and covered the subject very well for the briefness of the book. I don’t think Mr. Showers ever intended this to be the magnum opus on the subject, and that is why I recommended it to Andrew. If you know of some unflawed and all-inclusive scholarship on the subject, I would be willing to look at it. I suspect that much of your criticism comes from the fact that you are not dispensational? I look forward to your critique of Olson. In all fairness, I don’t believe my remarks ever stated that ALL missionaries are dispensational, just most. I praise the Lord your fellow missionaries are active in the Great Commission. We could all use more help.

Mark Outson

C.J.,

My main concern was that those of us who have criticisms of the RSOF II shouldn't latch onto Andrew's words and start making a case like, "see , looky here! Adopting this will open the door to some of the beliefs that Andrew said that he believes!", etc.

Supporting and enforcing the doctrinal standards of the Christian group to which one belogs is a serious matter of integrity in the sight of God and man. If there are EFCA churches that have softly dropped certain standards for membership, or are tolerating the teaching of doctrines that are contrary to the SOF, then those churches need to recognize that they've sinned against their own word, and repent. If we don't enforce our own standards, or if DS'es pick and choose which churches to confront and which ones to leave alone, or which doctrines they'll insist on compliance with and which doctrines they'll passively let unravel in the churches given to their care, then we might as well have no SOF at all.

Travis:
I believe I clarified my remarks in my post to Andrew. Please reread them. As I stated, one of the major reasons for the “Great Omission” was a lack of biblical eschatological development and lack of having imminent motivation in their Confessions. I suppose many think it was coincidental that biblical evangelism picked up around the time of the New Divinity movement, and increased prominence of eschatology? That’s fine, we can agree to disagree.

I do have to agree with Dr. David Jeremiah’s radio comments last week about how many believers will be surprised in heaven to learn that His imminent return was important. Believe it or not, theology does, upon occasion, trickle down from the pulpit and into the congregation and affect our walk with Christ (pastors correct me if I am wrong on that one).

The other reasons for the Great Omission, I won’t do into here. Look at Olson’s books if you are interested in Missions. Also, since Covenant theology wasn’t developed into a “system” until about the same time as dispensationalism, I don’t see your point. For your sake, I will say that “dispensationalism” is just a term to describe what God’s Word has always said, if you take His Word at its normative meaning, as I talked about with Andrew. Even Covenant theologians have stated that if you use a normative hermeneutic you will be a “dispensationalist”. No surprise there.

Just for fun I will throw out the following quote for discussion:
“Always, of course, the conclusive evidence of the truth of a doctrine is not historical but exegetical.” Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology

Everyone:
It has been interesting to “blog” with you all over the past weeks. It was a new concept for me having been out of the States for 4 years. Since we are in the process of packing for our return to Africa, I will have to bow out of the blog. (some of you will probably rejoice!)

In my final remarks about the “refreshments” of the SoF, I will just say that many of them are probably helpful. Problem is that the process has gone beyond its mandate as far as #11 goes, and seeks to change our traditional distinctives. If that is where the EFCA is headed, so be it. Integrity is another issue. Maybe biblical ethics courses should be reexamined.

Since I cannot lay aside my convictions on “premillennial and imminent”; if the changes go through, we will have to withdraw our membership and seek one that does. In any case, that will not be the end of the world, as my sufficiency is in Christ alone.
To quote someone I have been reading lately; “We have an overwhelming responsibility to manifest love to our fellow believers, even in the way we dialog doctrinally. If I have failed to do this in this [blog], I ask your forgiveness. However, if the truth makes you angry, I cannot apologize for that!” We will continue to pray for the situation.

Adieu,
Mark Outson
Sioux Falls, SD

Most of what I have read on the blog seems to deal with dispensational versus covenant discussions or strong Calvinists versus moderate Calvininsts [commonly known to the strong Calvinist as Closeted Arminians - :) ]. However, what I anticipate is that the primary challenge will lie in the area of pragmatism and cooperation. I base this observation on some past experiences I have had within the denomination.

For example, I was once a member of an ordination council that met at the church in Santa Clarita. Some members of the council were very reformed and others, like myself, needing more reforming. It was sometimes difficult to reach agreement on licensing and ordination when a candidate went against the grain of some of the theological inclinations of those who sat on the council. The good news is that we were able to work together most of the time, but I remember at least one occasion when Craig Miller, the moderator, had to remind the council it was theoretically possible to be Arminian and become ordained. It seems to me that as long as we have some balance of views represented within the denomination a certain level of tolerance must be maintained, but what happens when a majority shift occurs and the balance is lost? Or has this already happened? Will the minority group, whoever it is, still have a voice of expression within the denomination or will they feel like a stepchild?

My second example has to do with the magazine PURSUIT. I remember several pastors in my cluster group who did not like the magazine and were very vocal about it to the denomination because it went against their particular theological point of view. The wide range of diversity within the denomination will make it difficult for the denomination to provide common resources (like PURSUIT) to the churches or the resources will become one-sided to the frustration of some.

As I mentioned on the other half of this blog I was attracted to the EFCA because of its diversity and I am not against making our statement more friendly to other views, if in the process it does not become less friendly to my own.

I liked it when I went to the national convention in New Mexico and the seminar sponsored by the ministerial association entitled "The destiny of the unevangelized" (and which appeared to be heavily attended by reformed pastors)was right next door to the "Becoming a Contagious Christian" seminar by Mark Mittelberg of Willow Creek (and was not so reformed). Yet it is a difficult balancing act requiring a great deal of wisdom to minister from and to both sides of the aisle.

Last, but not least, and again I am all for diversity, will we be confusing the general population of church goers by being so diverse? Will they see our distinction as being that we have nothing that makes us truly distinct and each individual church is some sort of theological grab bag...that could change at any time?

GNP2U

Jeff Harrington
Bakersfield, California

Just a snapshot observation
Is it a coincidence that the imminent return, premill and congregationalism are all removed from the revision? Is there a connection?
I have been asked repeatedly what the connection is between eschatology and ecclesiology.
Maybe we should ask the Spiritual Heritages guys and the revision fellas. They obviously see a connection, and are intentionally removing roadblocks towards a reformed evangelicalism that excludes non-covenant or reformed people. For guys of their caliber not to see this coming is shortsighted, or even manipulative.

I am about done with this blog stuff. I want to hear directly from these guys. That is why I am going to mobilized my cluster to make sure we all go to the national conference.

I do not think that those who do not consistently, with integrity hold to the current SOF as individuals (be they laypersons or clergy) or churches should be allowed to vote on these issue. They can sound off but in our “congregational system” they should not have the same rights in approving these changes. We do not let illegal aliens vote, likewise those who have become members by fudging should not be validated in such a way, nor should the churches that have made this their practice have the same weight in decision making. Nor should a non-EFCA ordained Pastor have the same influence as one who hold to the current SOF with intergrity.

This is a tough thing to say. But true Christ oriented love does not approve or validate dishonesty.
I am talking ethics of our Christian faith displayed to a larger evangelical community. Do we mean what we say, and do what we mean. Apparently our current SOF and the procedures of our association have been compromised (for quite awhile) and we are complicit (pastors, church leaders, District leaders and National and TEDS).

I heard from them at our CA meeting in Bakersfield. They were open and engaging. But there seemed to be (as I reflect) a desire to really not get into the "down and dirty" of this change and the future ramifications.

We should bring in some recognized amill and postmill guys who represent the ecclesial side of theology. Let's hear where this stuff will actually go.

I fear the unity we seek will be towards a reformed unity, under a centralized movement and not a decentralized association of churches in a denominational structure. Historically this is what people tend to do.

This is what the revision with its removal of congregationalism and our unique eschatology is doing. We will no longer speak of the invisible universal church, but the visible Catholic Church under reformed evangelical confessions.

When that happens you have two routes

1. a centralized bishop governed organization with decisions being made by districts or by a ruling council.

2. A liberalized universal church that seeks to unify under a humanized gospel and allegorical understanding of the creeds and confessions, let alone the Bible.
Saddened and concerned,

CJ Addis
Pastor KEFC, Hanford CA

While we are recommending books, I am over half way through Dr. Hesselgraves new book, ("Paradigms in Conflict" Kregel, 2005) which has 10 chapters on different paradigm conflicts in missions. However his discussion of "Restrictivism and and Inclusivism" is interesting on the question of etermal punishment, and the players in that debate. His "Holism and Prioritism" is relevant to the role of evangelism and social action (tne Revision #8).

Dr. Hesselgrave is a retired missions prof from TEDS.

On eternal punishment, I had to go check a reference on Stott, who seems to have decided that we have conditional immortality - hence, neither eternal punishment or annihilationism, but, as far as I can tell, selective resurrection. (I am not really sure what he said here). So there is a bigger issue on the question in these blogs: "Could John Stott join the EFCA?" ( See: J. Stott, David Edwards, "Evangelical Essentials" IVP, p.313ff)

And I have been a fan of much of Stott's writings over the years!

Greetings to fellow missionary Mark Outson,

My main objection to Showers is that he unfairly ignores historic premill while purporting to write a book comparing dispensationalism to other evangelical theologies. You’re right, I’m not a dispensationalist. I accepted historic premill while taking a TEDS class taught by a strong dispensationalist, Paul Feinberg, who was FAIR in his teaching by assigning us to read the best of all the options and letting us make up our own minds. So your question of 2 March, “does Trinity want to remove Dispensational teaching?” can be answered, “no.”

The best single book on the millennial issue is still The Meaning of The Millennium, R. G. Clouse, ed. (Intervarsity Press, 1977).

But may I respectfully suggest that as a dispensationalist you should read Clarence B. Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism: Its Historical Genesis and Ecclesiastical Implications (Eerdmans, 1960)? I have not yet seen a copy of the book by C. Gordon Olson, but I will try to do so soon.

Finally, to your assertion that “most missionaries and evangelists are premillennial and especially dispensational” (comment of 22 March), may I respectfully suggest that you consider South Korea? Of the many thousands of missionaries that nation has sent out in the past few decades, a significant number are not premill because they’re Presbyterian.

If you (or anyone reading this blog) would like one-to-one conversation, you may contact me: manges “at” efcaim.org

Blessings on you during your home assignment, a stressful yet enriching time.

Dr Ernest Manges, missionary with the EFCA-IM in the Philippines, on home assignment in Grayslake, IL

Having attended our district's conference discussing the new SOF last Saturday, I have these comments:

1. Greg Strand is absolutely brilliant when it comes to discussing theology. I am grateful to the Lord for Greg's leadership on this committee and the drafting of the revised SOF (second draft).

2. Having said that, I believe there will be unintended consequences that will occur should this new SOF change takes place. One of these is the possibility of a major split in the EFCA. Since our SOF is the only document that in effect holds us together, I fear churches that do not want a revised SOF will leave the EFCA and that would be tragic!!

Dr. David Hansen

I don't think it is such a bad thing that some churches end up leaving EFCA. No one is telling them they have to adopt amill views or covenant theology. The truth is they have no toleration for those of us with differing views on secondary issues.

I can see someone leaving if an essential was denied in the sof. If the sof denied that Jesus is God, then by all means, we should all flee. But this just shows where people are at. If someone is willing to leave EFCA because their particular views on eschatology is not being mandated, then I say, so be it. We have a world to win for Jesus, and if I were a pastor, I would not deny somoene membership because he was amill. I just think that is absurd.

If by making EFCA more evangelically open is a bad thing, then, Lord, I don't want to be right!

Travis

Travis,

I would ask you to examine the breath and scope of this revision's consequences and the theological implications. A revision is not some trifle affair. It is the spiritual DNA of a group of associated churches and the standard for ordination and associational Biblical conduct. Consider your comments and then broaden your experience level. Ask some one from the Orthodox Presb. Church, PCA or any other reformed group what their eschatology and ecclesiology have in common (make sure to ask some one who actually knows and cares about such things).

I think some must understand that these arguments have more to do with clergy and church/denominational leadership and associational expectations.

If you would like, you may email me and I will send to you works by amill folks and their view of the universal church and local. These are people I respect and hold as brothers in the faith.

I also think you must consider your position here. We are imminent, premill Congregationalists. You act like we are subverting your denomination/association. There is no lack of a home for an evangelical reformed brother. Someone who is amill has more choices in denominational fellowship than do we who are not amill. It seems that you and others, think we who are of the Ev Free are wrong for our consistent and historical stance within the EFCA.

There is no major denomination that does not take a stance on eschatology and how that affects their ecclesiology. The following are example from two major reformed evangelical groups.

The PCA says
“We believe that God is gracious and faithful to His people not simply as individuals but as families in successive generations according to His Covenant promises.
We believe that Jesus will return, bodily and visibly, to judge all mankind and to receive His people to Himself. “
__________________________-
This is a pretty good statement and I believe a good statement of the reformed church movement except, that the other Presbyterian churches would add to it an adherence to the Westminster confession.

Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) says…
42. With the Augsburg Confession (Art. XVII) we reject every type of millennialism, or Chiliasm, the opinions that Christ will return visibly to this earth a thousand years before the end of the world and establish a dominion of the Church over the world; or that before the end of the world the Church is to enjoy a season of special prosperity; or that before a general resurrection on Judgment Day a number of departed Christians or martyrs are to be raised again to reign in glory in this world; or that before the end of the world a universal conversion of the Jewish nation (of Israel according to the flesh) will take place.
Over against this, Scripture clearly teaches, and we teach accordingly, that the kingdom of Christ on earth will remain under the cross until the end of the world, Act 14:22; John 16:33; 18:36; Luke 9:23; 14:27; 17:20-37; 2 Tim. 4:18; Heb. 12:28; Luke 18:8; that the second visible coming of the Lord will be His final advent, His coming to judge the quick and the dead, Matt. 24:29, 30; 25:31; 2 Tim. 4:1; 2 Thess. 2:8; Heb. 9:26-28; that there will be but one resurrection of the dead, John 5:28; 6:39, 40; that the time of the Last Day is, and will remain, unknown, Matt. 24:42; 25:13; Mark 13:32, 37; Acts 1:7, which would not be the case if the Last Day were to come a thousand years after the beginning of a millennium; and that there will be no general conversion, a conversion en masse, of the Jewish nation, Rom. 11:7; 2 Cor. 3:14; Rom. 11:25; 1 Thess. 2:16.
According to these clear passages of Scripture we reject the whole of Millennialism, since it not only contradicts Scripture, but also engenders a false conception of the kingdom of Christ, turns the hope of Christians upon earthly goals, 1 Cor. 15:19; Col. 3:2, and leads them to look upon the Bible as an obscure book.
_________________________________
The fact that we are premill is a fact. It is a fact that our eschatology does separate us from others according to their confessions. Not only is this an issue of eschatology but also of the ordinances (this is not a problem with most presbys-except for baby baptism as a standard-, but with Lutherans and Methodists, and Roman Catholic who are also Amill).

If you hold to a doctrine it is important for you to understand the fullness of that doctrinal conviction. This is not a pick and choose faith and fellowship and neither are the reformed denominations.

There is a church movement that seems not to care for doctrinal distinctives. Pick and choose is their credo. They are called the “Emergent Church”. They would hold to the Church Creeds and Christ oriented communities. Sounds great right? But they are redefining the Christian faith in their own images.

Travis are you a member? Do you conduct yourself with integrity? I think you probably try and intend to act with integrity. I would encourage you to study the history of the EFCA and respect the identity that is the EFCA. We do need to make changes but not a revision. We need to speak of our SOF with more integrity as an association than we have. I have never felt that a believer must go to an EV Free. I think they need to be in a church that reflects their core beliefs and encourages them to act on those with consistency and regularly.

At any rate this is not an “us vs them; but a struggle for who we are willing to be”. This should be an in “the family” discussion. Unfortunately we have guests trying to make house rules for their benefit.

Feel free to drop me a line.

Ev Free and Lovin’ it

Pastor CJ Addis

Kings EFC, Hanford CA
Ch 559-583-0356
Email pastorkefc@juno.com

Ok, I’m going to try this blog thing. It seems to me that the millennium and imminent are getting all the press. So rather than beat that horse I have a question about number 4.

The phrase “Israel’s promised Messiah” gives the impression that the Messiah was promised exclusively to Israel. The verse is cited from John 4:22 as a proof text that Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, is the Savior of the world. The way I understand this line of reasoning is that Jesus is the Messiah and Savior of Israel but for the rest of us Gentiles He is the Savior and not the Messiah. Is that what Scripture really teaches? When Jesus said “salvation is from the Jews” in John 4:22 could it not be understood as salvation proceeds from the Jews because the Messiah of the world that God so loved was a Jew? Is this also taught in Romans 9:5? Paul writes, “To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.” In addition, in a study of Romans 4 and Galatians 3, does not Paul make the argument that Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised, ie. a Gentile? So the Messiah was promised to Abraham before he was circumcised. So, isn’t Jesus then the promised Messiah to the Gentiles as well as Israel. (Galatians 3:7-9 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. [8] And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." [9] So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.) Finally, If Jesus is exclusively the promised Messiah of Israel why does the New Testament refer to Jesus as Christ for both Jews and Gentiles? Is not “Christ” the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew “Messiah”? John 4:25 The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things." Wasn’t Paul ministering and writing to Gentiles when he wrote for example in Ephesians 1:17? “that the God of OUR Lord Jesus Christ/Messiah, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him,”

Pastor David Barr
Lake Street Fellowship
EFC Madera, CA

on #4

the footnote #14 on p.4 of the 2nd revision discussion says

"this minor change is simply meant to minimize the notion that Jesus is only the messiah of Israel and not of the whole world. The new wording offersa subjective rather than on objective genetive, suggesting that jesus is Israel's Messiah for Israel but also for the world."

Dear David,

I'm not sure I understand why the phrase is problematic. Could you clarify? Jesus was Israel's promised Messiah. To me, the phrase is an allusion to the Old Testament prophetic support for our belief that Jesus was/is the Messiah. It's true that God promised salvation-blessing to the nations as well (in Abraham's covenant), but Israel held primacy in order of access to the blessing. That's why Christ told his men to not preach to anyone except the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mt. 10) -- a preaching rule He later rescinded.

Responding to Pastor Barr's post on 4/6 regarding point #4 of the draft revision:

I agree with you that Jesus is the Messiah of all in the sense that he is the only possible Lord and Savior of mankind, though he is this Christ most fully for those who have acknowledged his lordship through repentance and faith and received his promise of salvation, whether Jew or Gentile.

On this point I think the revised statement is simply trying to affirm that we identify Jesus as the very fulfillment of the Jewish hope for a Messiah. So, if someone were to ask us, "Who do you worship, Jesus or Israel's Messiah?" We would say, "We believe that Jesus _is_ Israel's promised Messiah." We are not by that statement limiting Jesus and his lordship to Israel (which may be the bare meaning without the emphasis on the verb); rather, we are affirming that Jesus is the fulfillment of that very same promise and not making completely different claims. Thus he is not "Messiah 2.0 for Gentiles," leaving Israel to wait for their man who hasn't shown up yet. No, Jesus is Israel's Messiah now revealed to be the Lord and Savior of all peoples! This is the good news! [And precisely the point of Matthew 28:16-20.]

Bruce McKanna, Associate Pastor
EFC of Mt. Morris (IL)

For those who, like me, want to retain our premillennial distinctive: I feel I should encourage all of us to remember that we are advocating retaining the premillennial position, not dispensational premillennialism specifically.

The doctrine of an "any-moment" Rapture is specifically and exclusively a dispensational viewpoint -- no other set of Christian prophetic beliefs holds to it. The word "imminence" was given a broader meaning in the 1970's, and the post-trib view was officially sanctioned from that time on. I foresee no chance that this policy will be reversed, nor do I wish that it should be.

The word "imminence" was the only distinctly dispensational word in the entire founding SOF; and so, with the permitting of the post-trib view, the EFCA severed its creedal, organizational commitment to dispensationalism.

This is why I say that our debate (among other things) should be about the importance of premillennialism in the broadest sense. It will be a lost cause if we try to build our issues around imminence, since the EFCA broke with the original meaning of the word "imminence" thirty years ago.

For Jack Brooks (or anyone else who's willing to tackle this...)

On the question of imminency... I have one question regarding the classic definition.

While I believe that Christ could now return at any moment... and I do believe that the early (apostolic) church could hold to that definition... if we believe that Israel holds a primary key to dispensational hermaneutics, could we have also held to an identical interpretation of "imminency" between the years of the diaspera and 1948? Without Israel in its homeland, can we really hold as tightly to the all of the teachings of dispensationalim -- whether you're pre-trib, post-trib, etc. Doesn't Israel's presence in their homeland provide a platform for imminency and corresponding prophetic events in some way?

While I hold to imminency today, I wonder if I would have held as tightly prior to Israel becoming a nation again.

Steve Miller
South Holland, IL

I believe the doctrine of imminency was first theorized and popularized by Rev. John Nelson Darby, in the early 1800s; and the Scofield Bible, and the Niagra Bible conferences which further popularized it, both pre-dated the recreation of Israel as a secular state. So the doctrine of an any-moment rapture predated the recreation of the state of Israel by something close to 100 years. Israel's reinstitution as a state further inflamed eschatological excitement among evangelicals (I sound like Dr. Seuss here -- Big E, little e, what begins with e? Eschatological Excited Evangelicals, whee whee whee!).

Anyway, no, I don't think the existence of Israel as a nation was crucial. People held to imminency long before 1948.

One of the criticisms of the new SOF made by some is the charge that it abandons all forms of imminency. "Living in constant expectation" is a pale, watery shadow of the former robust imminency view.

Some say that post-tribs can't live with an imminent expectation, but I believe the counter-argument is that imminent expectation can pertain to the entire, final, end-time chain of events. I.e., the whole thing could kick in at any moment. I can buy that, since it's consistent with Jesus' prophetic parables. The virgins weren't caught completely unawares -- there was a "midnight cry" which preceded the bridegroom's arrival (Mt. 25). Jesus said His disciples could roughly figure out that spring was near, because the trees were blossoming.

But what about the millennial views? If we're going to endorse post-millennialism -- which is what the new SOF does -- aren't we at the same time abandoning all commitment to any type of imminency? Post-millennialism is completely incompatible with any sort of alert expectation of Christ.

The new SOF implicitly endorses post-millennialism through its silences.

Please forgive me if I do not respond to any questions with regard to my ramblings in a timely manner. I promised myself that I would not get sucked into blogdom and spend too much time in the world of blogging. I have set a limit of once a week at the most fo