Tim Keller, Senior Pastor, Redeemer Presbyterian Church, writes that preaching the gospel is key for Christians. And he concludes that as we preach and live the gospel it is important to know that the gospel not only saves unbelievers it also sanctifies believers. By believing the gospel we are saved and then through that same gospel we are progressively transformed. This is a good explanation of the broader New Testament understanding of the gospel, which is what is being used in the SOF.

Keller writes "that 'the gospel' is not just a way to be saved from the penalty of sin, but is the fundamental dynamic for living the whole Christian life--individually and corporately, privately and publicly. In other words, the gospel is not just for non-Christians, but also for Christians. This means the gospel is not just the A-B-C's but the A to Z of the Christian life. It is not accurate to think 'the gospel' is what saves non-Christians, and then, what matures Christians is trying hard to live according to Biblical principles. It is more accurate to say that we are saved by believing the gospel, and then we are transformed in every part of our mind, heart, and life by believing the gospel more and more deeply as our life goes on."

One of the strengths of our 1950 SOF is its brevity. In the work we are doing on the Draft Revisions of the SOF, we are attempting to retain this strength of being brief. But there is also a challenge with being too brief. Since the SOF is one of the only authoritative documents used for membership in local churches, ordinations of pastors, etc., those things not explicitly stated in the SOF can be addressed pastorally but not as authoritatively. On some issues it would be good to speak more clearly and have the authority of the SOF to support it. Granted, the challenge would be how we determine what rises to the level of biblical and theological importance that must be included.

Regarding length, there are things gained and lost with either brevity or greater length. We cannot be maximalists by including everything, but neither can we be minimalists by including a bare minimum which does not address critical issues in sufficient detail.

Here then is the question: in today's cultural climate and what is happening in the church, is it better to have a brief SOF, or is it better to have a longer SOF (but remember this longer SOF would still only focus on essentials, which would prevent it from becoming too long)?

2. God's gospel is authoritatively announced in the Scriptures �

We believe that God has spoken through the Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments. They are the verbally inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for salvation, and the ultimate authority that stands over every realm of human knowledge and endeavor. Therefore, the Bible is to be believed in all that it affirms, obeyed in all that it requires, and trusted in all that it promises.

Questions (please feel free to respond to any or all of these questions):

1. What are your thoughts about this article following the article on God? What are the strengths? What are the weaknesses?

2. Notice the ways in which the Bible is referenced: Scriptures (2x), Old and New Testaments, writings, Bible. Are there other important ways to refer to the Bible that are being overlooked? Is there a difference between a reference to Scripture (singular) and Scriptures (plural)? Is it fitting to refer to Scriptures (plural) and Bible (singular)?

3. In the reference to �God has spoken,� it refers to the Bible. But we would also say that God continues to speak today through that same Bible. Is this continuing to speak in the Scripture important to state, or is that our assumption in the expression referring to the past? It could be used in a perfective sense, i.e. God has spoken and those words have ongoing authority and significance today.

4. The reference to �the Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments� refers to the 66 books of the Bible. Today in light of the prominence of The Gospel of Thomas and The Gospel of Judas, is it important to reference explicitly the 66 books of the Bible, or can it still be assumed that what is said in this article is sufficient?

5. There are some key things being stated: verbally inspired . . . without error . . . complete revelation . . . ultimate authority. Are there other things that need to be stated about the Scripture today? Does the expression �verbally inspired� communicate clearly what we want to affirm, or is there a better expression that gets at the same truth?

6. What is being affirmed in this statement? What is being denied?

7. How is the truth of the doctrine of the Bible being undermined today, within evangelicalism and outside of evangelicalism?

8. How important is it to address things like Postmodernism and the notion of truth and epistemology?

9. Most Creeds and Statements of Faith do not include an explicit statement on hermeneutics. Do you agree with this? What is your sense of not including an explicit statement on it in our SOF? Most, however, do have an implicit hermeneutic that focuses on essential truths of the Scripture that guide our interpretation. As you consider this, what are the key principles being stated in our SOF? How does this compare or contrast with the 1950 SOF?

10. What do you like/dislike about including orthodoxy and orthopraxy, i.e. stating truths about the Bible and also including our response to it? What are the strengths and weaknesses of doing this?