The Statement of Faith Revision

Query: does the Scripture employ the term "gospel" in the same manner and to mean the same concept as does Rev. Keller? I submit that he's conflating the Gospel with the Law.

Reading the Gospels, The Acts of the Apostles and their Epistles, the Lord's secretaries appear to employ the term "gospel" to refer to a particular body of 'good news', that being the following facts:

Almighty God, the only Creator and Judge of the universe (including mankind) against Whose Law the first man originally rebelled [viz.: 'original sin'--automatic penalty for which is Death] and whose decendants do daily offend against God [viz: 'sins'--which carry penalty to man 'in his body' in addition to Death] has in the person of The Father graciously provided a particular substitutionary Death penalty.
God has Himself paid the sin-debt of men whom He has chosen for Himself by putting to death His only-begotten and perfect Son, and applying His Son's death to the account of His elect men.
The eternal Son of God came to earth as (also) Son of Man, named Jesus, our Lord; He was conceived by the power of God the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin woman Mary. He suffered for the sins of His people and by His death did once for all time redeem His people from the wrath of the Father, acting as their human kinsman and substitutionary sacrifice.
The Son being fully God as well as fully Man cannot remain under death but rises again as a guarantee of eternal Life for the individual men God has chosen for Himself.
Out of those men who hear this Gospel proclaimed, God the Holy Spirit convicts individuals of 'sin, of righteousness, and of judgment', convincing them of: the Gospel's truth, their own hopeless, dead state apart from the grace of God, and God's grace toward them.
To His chosen men God grants justification, new birth, repentance, faith to believe, sanctification, and eternal life (in that order of salvation).

I fully agree with Rev. Keller that Christians ought to live every aspect of their lives on earth in the light of the Divinely-revealed truth I recited above. I would add this question: Does the Gospel in Rev. Keller's recitation provide standards for 'how should we then live?' I think not.
Rev. Keller appears to me to actually point to God's Law (although he doesn't mention that). Law is the 'flip side' of the Gospel, inseverable from it.
God is just as gracious to us in revealing His Law as He is in revealing His Gospel. The Law *yet today* governs the citizens of God's kingdom, His children in His household. Jesus said "I have not come to destroy the Law--I came to *fulfill* it. Jesus saves His people from their sins, as our Substitute, by means of his atoning death--but along with His death stands His perfect obedience to the Law of His father. That same obedience the Father demands of His children.
The commandments provide the perfect *standards* for our daily life. In comparison, the Gospel provides this hope: that God may in Christ Jesus pardon man's inevitable and universal failure to meet the Law's standard, and reconcile pardoned men to Himself.

In my humble opinion, we modern American Christians have deeply imbibed that ancient curse known as *antinomianism.* By rejecting the Law we thereby reject God's authority over us and His right to command our obedience. Seems like Adam had a problem like that...
In our New Testament revivalist zeal to point out that "no man is saved by keeping the Law", and "we are not under law but under grace", we forget that "the Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul;...the Law is holy..., righteous and good." [Psalm 14, Romans 7:12] The Law rules us as our 'schoolmaster,' teaching us how to 'live and move and have our being' in the family and kingdom of Him Who by His Law expresses His perfect character.
"Any man who claims to live in the light but hates his brother [a commandment of the law: "love your neighbor as yourself" Matt. 22:39] is still in the darkness." [I John 2:9]. "It is those who obey the Law who will be declared righteous." [Romans 2:13] If anyone claims to have faith then he must 'justify'--demonstrate-- that faith by his works. [James 2:18, 20, 24, 26] If one claims to belong to Christ, but shows consistent disregard and violation of God's Law, then he demonstrates his status outside God's grace as a tare; he is not good wheat sown by the Son. [Matt. 13:37-38, 41]. A Christian's faith in Christ (given us by God in His sovereign grace 'under' which we live) does "not at all!" nullify God's law. "Rather, we uphold the Law." [Romans 3:31]

Law and Gospel--a truly 'Evangelical' Church needs both! [hat tip to Lutherans on this theological point]

Greg has posted an excellent nugget from one of two articles by Keller on Preaching in a Post-modern City. Keller is right on target. The way to sanctification is not law, but believing the Gospel deeper. From his comments above, it appears that DJH has not read the complete articles. I would encourage all reading this post to read PART ONE and PART TWO in their entirety. They are lengthy, but well worth your time.

I took a D.Min course taught by Tim Keller a few years ago at RTS Orlando. I use the printed class notes in courses on preaching I teach at RTS at the present. The course was titled," Preaching the Gospel, in a Post-Modern World? I was impressed with the very balanced and integrated way Keller actually dealt with both Law and gospel. He is careful to speak of Christ-centered, or ?gospel-centered preaching and living as a distinct "third way" (I believe the terminology is from Tertullian). On the one hand you often find moralism and legalism that says, "just keep the rules/law", ?just try harder?. On the other hand you have license, antinomianism and relativism that says forget the rules and just relax. He rightly points out that neither approach is deeply Christian and Christ-centered.

The biblical emphasis on the gospel is that all of life is repentance and faith. Without the clarity of Scriptural imperatives we won't know how to live or where to repent. But the imperative still has to always end up rooted in the indicative. That's the pattern clearly seen in the epistles but too often neglected in life as we "just try harder". An emphasis on the gospel for all of life calls us back to Christ and the gospel as both the motive and mean for living in obedience and growing in Holiness. We continually repent, not only of our sins, but also of the sin beneath the sins. The sin of unbelief that fails to fully find life and peace in Christ and the gospel and continually turns to idols of the heart, broken cisterns, false saviors, and self-righteousness. So we continually repent and return to Christ as both the Lord and the source of our lives.

Keller's emphasis is not unique to him. The core themes are also developed in Richard Lovelace's "Dynamics of Spiritual Renewal" as well as in many other sources

If we define the gospel as only the core statements in 1 Cor. 15:1 ff we might fail to see the sense in which any imperatives are related to it. However if we include in our understanding of the gospel the proclamation of Isaiah, ?our God reigns? (Isaiah 52:7) then we can see that all of the imperatives, without losing their authority can be rightly related to the core of the gospel's grace based message that not only inspires but empowers Christian devotion, growth and obedience.

I think the emphasis on relating all of our SOF to the gospel is powerful and commendable.

I went to the Keller articles, and it took some time to get to the biblical material. It is clear that he is thinking in ways that are not customary to us - though he is striving to be very scriptural. My response is that "i need to think this over." My second response is, "how can we carefully think over the broadened definition of "gospel" as a movement so we know what we are signing on to?"

I'll have to go back and print them off and follow the thinking more carefully that I could by a drive by reading.

David Hanson, this gets at the heart of the fact that we have one Bible and two testaments, the Old and the New, which contain law and gospel. How are they to be understood? Is it law vs. gospel, is it law and gospel? The key in this discussion is Jesus' understanding of the law, and the impact His person and ministry had to the law. The question is not how Jesus relates to the law but rather how the law relates to Jesus. Thus when we engage in this discussion we must understand the law as it is fulfilled in and by Jesus Christ and interpreted through Jesus Christ (Matt. 5:17-20; Lk. 24:25-27; Rom. 10:4; 2 Cor. 1:20). This ensures a Christian interpretation of the whole Bible. And it is only those who believe and receive the gospel of Jesus Christ (Jn. 1:12-13), those who have been indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9; Tit. 3:5), who are enabled to fulfill the law as understood and interpreted by Jesus (Rom. 8:4). And this is exactly what was promised under the covenant (Ezek. 36:25-27), and then fulfilled by Christ, who ushered in the new covenant.

To piggy-back on Greg's comment above regarding our need to interpret Scripture through Christ--a good resource on this as it relates to preaching is Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture by Graeme Goldsworthy. I would like to recommend this volume and the book review in Trinity Journal.

Larry, you will be interested to know that a new book by Graeme Goldsworthy specifically on hermeneutics is due out in May. It is entitled Gospel-centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Biblical Interpretation and will be published by InterVarsity Press. With the gospel as the structure of the draft revision of the SOF, this will be an interesting read.

I would agree that the Gospel affects every area of the Christian life, and that there are many teachings in the Scriptures besides the imperative to believe the Gospel. But to say that the Gospel is the A to Z of the Christian life is incorrect and dangerous. The Gospel is the power of God for the salvation of those who believe it (Rom. 1:16), But not everything in the book of Romans is the Gospel. If we say that the Gospel is the A to Z--justification as well as sanctification--then are we not implying that in order to be saved, a person needs to understand much more than the Scriptures ask him to, and do much more in his life in order to be saved?

There are truths in the Bible that prepare a person for the Gospel ... I would call them Pre-evangelistic truths. For example, a person must know he or she is a sinner, that God exists, that he cannot save himself. Those are truths in the Bible, but they are not the Gospel.
In the same way, there are Post-evangelistic truths. These are truths for the believer; truths that challenge us to "live in a manner worthy of the Gospel" (Philippians 1:27). There are promises and commands that are only for believers. Since we have been saved by Grace, now we are to live as people who have been saved. That is absolutely true. But to say that the ongoing sanctification process is part of the Gospel is incorrect. The sanctification process for the Christian is a fruit of the Gospel, but not the Gospel itself.
The category called "Evangelistic truth" is the Gospel of Salvation. It is the Gospel as lined out in 1 Cor. 15, showing the remedy for our sin. It is the Gospel Paul preached to bring people to salvation. It is what Christ has done FOR me, not what he does IN me that saves me.

The Gospel must remain pure and simple, the remedy for sin and separation from God. Let a holy life flow out of a person who is grateful for it, and let it permeate our minds and transform us because of our gratitude for it, but do not add the whole Christian Life to the definition of the Gospel, or it will be robbed of its power to save. Keep the Pre-evangelistic truths clean and simple, and the Post-evangelistic truths simple, and keep the Gospel pure. That is where people will truly get saved, and once they are truly saved, and grow in their understanding of what has been done for them, they will be much more motivated to walk in a manner worthy of the Gospel, and for the right reasons.

If the Gospel is everything in Christian truth, then the Gospel is nothing.

There are theological foundations to the Gospel, such as monotheism. There are epistomological presuppositions, such as the possibility and understandibility of divine revelation, which is denied by Brian MacLaren and the emergents.

Inerrancy is a necessary foundation-block to the Gospel, no matter what the pietistic modernists at Fuller Seminary say. There is no distinction between "spiritual" truth and "earthly" statements of fact, since God is One. Without inerrancy, you cannot know whether or not the prophets and apostles ever said, "Jesus is Lord; Jesus is risen."

But foundations and applications are not the Gospel, just as the hinges and frame of a door are not the door.

Nor is any teaching about the social ethics of Christianity the Gospel -- a section in the new SOF that should be greatly condensed and then subsumed under the heading of Sanctification.

The Bible itself doesn't even follow a Gospel-Is-Everything construct. The Gospel is nowhere present in Esther, the Song of Solomon, or Ecclesiastes. It is not present in the epistle of James.

Nothing in those books contradicts the Gospel, and everything in those books is harmonious with the Gospel, but the Gospel as such is not mentioned -- and yet they are inspired of God and part of the canon.

The Revision Committee does not have a theological right to use the two-word phrase "The Gospel" in a loose, metaphorical, or poetical way. It is a Biblical phrase with specific content and meaning, and to use it otherwise is disrespectful of God's revelation.

Here is an interesting Statement of Faith by BB Warfield. I found it on a website of a PCA related author. If you follow the link, #10 mentions the gospel, but aspects of the gospel begin in #6. This is a bit wordy, but it seems BB tried to, as does our SOF revision, make the statement flow. However, not under a general category of Gospel. Of course, this is specifically reformed, and not inclusive of wesleyan/arminian theology or premillenialism as is the EFCA.

http://www.seejesus.net/about_beliefs.html

I appreciated the recommendation to read BB Warfield's SOF. I find it odd, though, to suggest that if something is specifically Reformed or associated with the PCA that it would not be inclusive of pre-millenialism.

The PCA denominational seminary at Covenant in St. Louis was specifically a pre-millenial seminary for decades. It was both Reformed and pre-millenial. It has only been in the last 20 years or so that Covenant began to include amillenial and post-millenial options. I myself graduated from Covenant Seminary both Reformed and pre-millenial.

The PCA itself as a Reformed denomination has always been inclusive of pre-millenialism. Reformed theology is not inherently antithetical to pre-millenialism.

Throughout these discussions I have found myself repeatedly confused by implied suggestions that Reformed theology is itself a threat to the EFCA.

The Warfield piece has to have predated the PCA by decades, so there is no direct connection. The author, Paul Miller, (Love Walked Among Us, etc) had listed this on the website of his book publishing group as their statement of faith. I understand that some of his books are popular in PCA circles.

I am OK with Reformed theology, mostly. It is not typical for Reformed theologians to be preMillennial. That is all I meant. Sorry for the confusion.

However, I did like Warfield's statement, overall. I thought it was pertinent to the quesion of "what is in the gospel".

Some thoughts on the issue of just what "The Gospel" does and does not encompass:

The proposed revised statement does not exactly say that the gospel is everything we believe or that everything we believe is the gospel. It is using the history of redemption as a narrative framework for our beliefs. When the second point reads "God's gospel is authoritatively announced in the Scriptures" and then follows with our beliefs about the Bible, it is not saying that our doctrine of inerrancy is the gospel. It is simply noting how our doctrine of Scripture relates to our identity as gospel-centered Christians. They could just as easily have said (though it would have meant more verbiage), "God's gospel is authoritatively announced in the Scriptures, and this point will tell you what we believe about the Scriptures." We need not think that everything is the gospel, but certainly that everything relates to the gospel, and this seems to be what I'm reading from those who are most vocally against this proposed framework.

On the other hand, I do think we can go too far in reducing the gospel to the message of Christ's death for our sins, his burial and resurrection as in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8. The word gospel is used throughout the NT in a much broader sense, and this has been noted by the SHC and others. Here's my contribution to this discussion: Did Peter or Paul think they were NOT talking about the gospel when they spoke of the one, true Creator God, the fulfillment of OT prophecies, and final judgment? These can be distinguished from Christ's redemptive work, but certainly they are not unrelated to it, or else why would the apostles have bothered to talk about them in their evangelistic proclamations? If these things are related to the gospel in such an organic and necessary way, why is it such a problem to organize our doctrinal statement accordingly?

After reading and listening to Keller I think it is going too far to think he is saying the gospel is literally everything. He isn't. That's clear when you read him. After all the Lord Himself said he is the Alpha and the Omega (A-Z) but if someone pressed that language too far they could make the argument that Jesus was denying the place of the Father and the Spirit. As if to say "Jesus is everything and the only thing" When Paul says, I knew nothing among you except Christ Jesus and Him Crucified it seems a stretch to argue that he literally meant no topics or themes were dealt with except those we might strictly label "Christological".

What these statements suggest and what Keller intends in his "a-z" statement is that everything is related to the gospel and to Christ.

Keller's point in the context is that the gospel is not just the gate we pass through to get into the kingdom. It's the source of life and strength we draw on as we walk the path. Ephesians 1-3 gives us almost entirely gospel truths, great redemptive themes. At the end of Ephesians 3 Paul prays that we might be rooted and grounded in the love that surpasses knowledge, then beginning in chapter four he lays out a very diverse set of life applications and implication which he continually relates back to the gospel. What Keller stresses is that this pattern is distinctly Christian. The gospel relates to all of life and all of Scripture relates to the gospel in various ways.

Someone raised the issue of the gospel not even being mentioned in Esther. God isn't explicitly mentioned in Esther either. But, it seems to me, that it is not a stretch to see embedded in the story of Esther some great themes that reach their greatest expression in the gospel. God saves his people in a surprising way! He uses a concubine slave replacement wife of a pagan Persian king! Salvation for God's people comes out of weakness and in an unexpected manner. And Esther must be willing to risk her life saying, �if I perish, I perish�. The people of God are snatched from the jaws of death in this suprising way. You don't have to call this a type to see in it a theme that resonates in the gospel. When God saves his people in a very surprising manner through a savior who looks weak but wins the battle.

Besides, the statement of faith doesn't say the whole Christian life is the gospel but that the gospel is related to all of the truths we affirm in the statement of faith.

I think it is a great way to organize the statement of faith

I have just given a first read through to the third revision. I am much more pleased with this version.

1. I feel that the statement on scripture clarifies that we are not claiming that the Bible contains all possible knowldege, but it is completely true and our final authority.

2. I am glad to see a recognition in the preface of the autonomous nature of the churches, who are in association. The total removal of any congregational element from the prvious versions left our polity totally out of sight - this gives it prominance. (there remains a need in our association to come up with the definition of Congregational, but that is another topic).

3. I also think statement 8, while including compassion and justice as mandates, does not make it sound as if our solution is soley political in nature -- which could have been the concusion on older versions.

4. As to the big question, millennialism - this statement seems to me to preclude the idea of postM, at least some of them, as we do not have the Lord return after the kingdom is established by the gospel's growth, but at his return Christ does establish it. It seems to me, we are making a home for preM, both dispensational and historic and AMil, but not so much for PostM. This is fine with me, as I have a hard time finding the PostM argument to be very persuasive, and the reconstructionist view (a sub set of PostM) is pretty alien from our theological tradition.

Good Work - the process of discussion in the open air has been helpful to us all.

David Carlson

Hi, not many writing these days. My chairman raised a question about the wording of the part on membership.(#7)

The true church is manifest in local churches, whose membership SHOULD be composed of only believers. (Caps added)

the commentary says "should" is used to recognize that we can not know for sure who is part of the "true church".

Will this, however, leave the possibility of churches not requiring members be born again because it only says "should", i.e. it is only a suggestion or recommendation - so we are free to ignore the "member of the true church" concept altogether.

the old statement said, "we believe that only those who are members of the true church will be eligible for membership in the local church."

While I see the problem with certainty of another's salvation, does that over ride the need to be clear that we are "believers only, but all believers."

Our forbearers were not as circumspect about this principle.

David,

I appreciate the concern. We on the SHC share it.

Stating that "membership 'should' be composed only of members of the true church," in no way suggests that non-believers can now become members. It is rather a statement of humility, recognizing our human frailty in determining who ultimately is a true believer and who is not.

My guess is that over the years there have been some who have become members of the local Free Church who have not been truly born again, and thus have not been members in the true church. This is true of all local churches. We recognize that there are wheat and tares (cf. Matt. 13:24-30). That is what we are saying. We cannot be in the role of God alone.

Thank you for sharing your concern and suggestion.

Greg

Greg,

Thanks for replying. I hope you are enduring this process well!

As long as we understand the "should" with the intended meaning, that is OK. You are right, we can never know. However, we don't want to go too far on the "tares and wheat" idea to where we don't do our best to determine that prospective members have a testimony and bears some measure of fruit.

3. We believe that God created Adam and Eve in His image, but they sinned when
tempted by Satan. In union with Adam, human beings are sinful by nature and by
choice, alienated from God and under His wrath. Only through God�s saving work in
Jesus Christ can we be rescued, reconciled and renewed.

I know we want to be brief but I think there should be a statement clarifying the impact of the fall. I have seen attempts to minimize the fall to merely a spiritual death and not a physical death in order to accommodate those who hold theistic evolutionary views. That is to say that God created a world of death, disease and decay as part of the pre-fall condition. This has a significant impact on our understanding of the character and nature of God as well as our redemption.

To the President and Board of Directors of the EFCA

On the Document "sof_proposed_revision.pdf"
Page 7 footnote 24 reads:

--------------
Quote "We have eliminated the word "glorious" and all language about angels, the coming Kingdom, and Christ as Judge ("with His holy angels when He will bring His kingdom to fulfillment and exercise His role as Judge of all.") because of the objections by some that these terms all referred to specific events in the eschatological timetable which they could not subsume under the term "Christ's coming.""
--------------

Why omit the very word ("glorious") that is used by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself in describing His own coming?

"At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory." (Luke 21:27)

Blessings in Jesus

Thor

Thor,

I would guess that "glorious" was removed so that the statement on Christ's return could be general enough to encompass both a pre-tribulational rapture of the Church, in which believers are looking forward to a "secret" return, as well as a post-tribulational rapture, which in effect sees one "Second Coming" of Christ in which everyone is aware of his triumphant arrival.

Thanks to Greg and the SHC for your hard work. I'm not ashamed to say that I am disappointed in the way things have turned out, but I am trusting in the Lord that your labor was not in vain.

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

Thank you Bruce,

So, if your "guess" is correct, we are to accept the fact that a "clear" teaching of Jesus is to be pushed aside to support a "not so clear" teaching?

Blessings in Jesus,

Thor

I am still trying to understand the insertion of �Israel�s promised Messiah� into the statement concerning Jesus Christ. No matter what punctuation is used to off set it and give it meaning it gives the impression (to me) that the Messiah was promised exclusively to Israel. Is not the first promise of the Messiah found in Genesis 3:15? Did not the �seed� of the woman refer to Eve in whom was the seed of all the nations making the first promise of a redeemer applicable to all mankind? Didn�t God so love the WORLD that He gave His only begotten Son? Was the Messiah promised to ethnic Israel or to whosoever would believe? Is it the nation of Israel who was promised a Messiah or all those whose faith is credited as righteousness like Abraham (Romans 4)? Did Abraham receive the Gospel before being circumcised making the promise of Messiah, which is the centerpiece of the Gospel, applicable to Jews and Gentiles (Galatians 3)? If the word �Christ� is the Greek equivalent for the word �Messiah� how well would the phrase �Israel�s promised Messiah� hold up if we were to reread the New Testament passages which use �Christ� by replacing it with the word �Messiah?

Israel was chosen as a special nation through which the Messiah would be born but the Messiah, Jesus Christ, is not and was not Messiah for Israel exclusively. From Genesis to Revelation He is the Messiah who offers salvation to all peoples.

So then, why is this addition necessary? I�ve looked at other statements of faith, especially the historical statements and creeds but do not find this distinction being made. I am not trying to be contrary. I am seeking understanding with regard to this inclusion. I look forward to any explanation or corrections of my theological understanding.

"They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen." (Romans 9:4-5)

Yes a savior/redeemer/deliverer was promised in Genesis 3:15, but which people among the peoples of the earth had that text and viewed it as God's revelation of his promise? Hittites? Jebusites? Amorites? Assyrians? Babylonians? Persians? No. Israel, via Moses? Yes.

In whose line was the Messiah to come? Through Ishmael? Esau? Pharaoh? Nebuchadnezzar? No. Through David of Judah of Israel? Yes.

These questions illustrate that Israel was the one through whom God was sending a Messiah. God made the promises to them, but (and here's where various theological schools part ways) that does not mean that the promises would be fulfilled to them only.

When we get to the New Testament, Jesus is revealed to be not only the Messiah for Israel, but in actuality the Messiah (or, in Greek, Christ) of all who believe. See the whole of Ephesians 2:11-22, though I will include just verses 12-13 here below:
"...remember that you [Gentiles] were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ."

The foreshadowing that you rightly recognize in the Old Testament that showed the Messiah to be for all peoples was in some way not clear until the life and ministry of Jesus and later apostolic teaching. See Ephesians 3:1-6 which says this inclusion of the Gentiles was a mystery that had been revealed through the apostles. Verse 6 reads: "This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel."

Thus, the Romans and Ephesians texts quoted above make it very appropriate to describe Jesus as "Israel's promised Messiah," but that does not at all imply that he is Messiah to Israel only. It simply means that before his first advent, the promise of Messiah were declared to Israel and would be fulfilled through Israel. The NT reveals the the beneficiaries of the promise are all who believe, both Jew and Gentile alike.

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

I agree that Israel was the one THROUGH whom God was sending a Messiah. I agree that the New Testament teaches that �Jesus is revealed to be not only the Messiah for Israel, but in actuality the Messiah (or, in Greek, Christ) of ALL who believe.� This is why I am questioning the inclusion of the phrase �Israel�s promised Messiah� in a statement of faith. It may be appropriate to describe Jesus as �Israel�s promised Messiah� but since the New Testament reveals the �mystery of the Gentiles� and expands our understanding of the promise of the Messiah to all who would believe, should this phrase be included in a statement of faith? If it is to be included shouldn�t it be presented in such a way as to reflect the fullness of the Scriptural teaching with regard to this phrase and to whom are the partakers of the promise? Again I will ask, why is there a need to make this addition to the statement of faith when it has not been part of the historical creeds or past statements of faith? What are we addressing in the 21st century that makes this inclusion necessary?

David Barr, Pastor
Lake Street Fellowship, Madera CA

While I maintain that the phrase "Israel's promised Messiah" is perfectly true and accurate, I can also see the point that it might be unnecessary. It gets your attention by its presence, and probably wouldn't raise an eyebrow by its absence.

On the other hand, I do see it as a good way to state briefly our belief that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises. The only other affirmations of the OT occur in our statement on Scripture and the Human Condition with its reference to Adam and Eve and the Fall.

So, even though it is unique, I think it does serve a good purpose. You can't understand who Jesus came to be and what he came to do if you don't understand the how and why.

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

Thor,

Thank you for your question/concern about not including the term "glorious." And thank you Bruce for responding.

The return of Christ will certainly be glorious, and we know this because it is explicitly taught in the Bible. In that sense it is �clear.� But the facticity of the coming of Christ within a premillennial framework does not always result in the specifics of that coming being clear or agreed upon by all. For that reason the word was not included.

You will also notice the reference to the �kingdom� was not included. Once again, this is considered to be the key teaching of Jesus, and we know this to be true because it is taught explicitly in the Bible. But within premillennialism there are differences of understanding regarding the kingdom.

Here is the principle: everything in the SOF is true biblically, clearly and explicitly. But everything that is true biblically is not contained in the SOF. This is one reason, among many, why a SOF is reformable/revisable. The only document in which that is not true is the Bible.

One final thing. We did at one time have the term �glory� in our SOF on eschatology. The Norwegian-Danish Association�s SOF, adopted in 1912, included the word in their article on eschatology, but it was without the word premillennial: �We believe that Jesus Christ, who ascended into heaven, shall come again in great power and glory.�

Greg Strand

David,

Thank you for your question/concern about the expression "Israel's promised Messiah." And thank you, too, Bruce, for engaging in the dialogue.

Here is a more complete statement of the expression in question: "We believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, fully God and fully man, one Person in two natures. Jesus � Israel�s promised Messiah � �

Here is what is contained in the commentary on this statement: �This puts the story of Jesus Christ in its proper Old Testament context. The God who is incarnate in Jesus Christ is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the promised Messiah. Implicit here is the notion that the Messiah of Israel is the Savior of the world (cf., e.g., Jn. 4:22; 1 Jn. 2:2). The early Church quickly ruled out an understanding of the Christian gospel apart from the Old Testament (cf. the language of the Chalcedonian confession: "such as he was announced formerly by the prophets"). Although Christians recognize two testaments, they embrace one Bible, with Jesus being the key.�

It is important to know that the title �Messiah� of the OT equals the title �Christ� of the New Testament. Here are a few passages that address this, and these kinds of passages could be multiplied.
1. Peter's confession: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16).

2. The mocking on the cross: ""Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross that we may see and believe" (Mk. 15:32).

3. Nathanael's response to Jesus: Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel" (Jn. 1:49).

4. Paul clearly connects Jesus with David, Israel�s great king: �Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ . . . set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David, according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord� (Rom. 1:3).

Here are some of the key purposes (and strengths) of including this expression.

1. This makes a clear connection between the Old and New Testament, the promised Messiah (OT)/Christ (NT) is Jesus!

2. It ensures that we remember we have one Bible. Yes there are two testaments, but one whole, unified Bible.

3. It reminds us that the unifying truth of the testaments is the person of Jesus Christ, who (which) is, in fact, the climax of God's revelation. If there is any interpretative key, this, or more accurately, He, is it.

4. It recognizes that this "Jesus," who is the Christ, is a historical figure, a Palestinian Jew. This addresses the "scandal of historical particularity."

5. This Jesus, the promised Messiah of Israel, is the only Savior of the world. Here is what John wrote: "But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 Jn. 2:1b-2).

Greg Strand

Rick,

Thank you for sharing your concern regarding the fall (article 3). The impact of the fall is seen in a number of ways.

In article 1, it is explicitly stated that God will �redeem a people for Himself,� which implicitly means that people need to be redeemed. Moreover, the statement that He will �make all things new for His own glory� refers not merely a spiritual state but a literal reality. This is related to the saving work of Christ in whom we are �rescued, reconciled and renewed.�

In article 3, it is explicitly stated that because of our sin we are �in union with Adam . . . sinners by nature and choice.� Moreover, in this state we are �alienated from God, and under His wrath.�

In article 4, it explicitly states the Jesus �arose bodily from the dead,� and because His resurrection is the �first fruits,� we too will be raised bodily. This is part of the physicality of it, though �flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God,� there will be a transformation, a glorification of our bodies.

In article 9, it is explicitly stated that Jesus will return �bodily.� Once again, this has implications to us. His resurrection is �bodily,� and His return will be �bodily.�

In article 10, it is explicitly stated that the unbelievers will suffer the wrath of God in that they will suffer �condemnation and eternal conscious punishment.� This refers to a physical death. And once again, the believer will be �with the Lord in the new heaven and the new earth.�

Be assured that there is no attempt to minimize the fall, and there is no attempt to make it only spiritual. Of course it is spiritual, but it is not only spiritual. It also has physical implications. With the many references noted above, we believe the implications of the fall are sufficiently noted, and that they carry both spiritual and physical implications, as does, on the other side, redemption both individual and cosmic.

Greg Strand

I would like to first thank Greg for his excellent and gracious feedback.

On the matter of "the Return of Jesus," here is the issue as I see it.

Jesus unequivocally said his return would be "glorious."

However, the EFCA Statement of Faith is appearing to be tailored to the communication of a "teaching" that falls out from an "interpretive framework" that, as Greg has said, is not "agreed upon by all."

It is in this action it appears that the EFCA, as an organization, is using an "interpretive framework," to suggest a "corrective" to the words of Jesus.

Greg also said, "Here is the principle: everything in the SOF is true biblically, clearly and explicitly."

If this is true, then what is the EFCA saying within its Statement of Faith about both, itself as an organization and those who do not agree simply with making a distinction with the specific "teaching" derived from the "interpretive framework"?

What I believe about a "Statement of Faith"
1. What is written is what is affirmed.
2. What is not written is not necessarily affirmed.

With respect to both, I believe the 1912 Norwegian-Danish Association's statement on the Return of Jesus, provided by Greg, presents the subject very well - very clear, consistent with scripture, and unifying - and serves as a much better statement for the EFCA as a whole than what we have in SOF revision 3.

If "premillennial" ideology is such among the members of the EFCA as to threaten non-passage of the SOF, or worse, what does that suggest is the basis of "unity" of the EFCA?

Jesus "said" his return would be "glorious" .. let there be a resounding AMEN.

Blessings in His glorious name.

Thor Lundberg
Broomfield, CO
Ephesians 4:3 and Colossians 3:14

I don't think that the proposed revision is offering a "'corrective' to the words of Jesus."

Everyone on both sides of the debate believe that Jesus' appearing is going to be glorious. None disbelieve Jesus' words. All can say "Amen."

But some people believe that Jesus' return also has two phases, the first of which is not glorious but secret. And they believe that is biblical, too.

What we say jointly must be able to be agreed upon by all parties. And all are trying to be biblical.

I thought the 3rd draft had hit the balance well, but I understand that many felt that it emphasized the glorious and triumphant part of Christ's return so much that it excluded the pre-tribulational view--which is historically the majority view among our association.

One of the things we've always been saying with our SOF is what we ALL believe and ALL can affirm. Where there are interpretative differences that are still within the bounds of orthodoxy and the rest of our agreements, we've agreed to disagree agreeably.

I applaud the SHC and BOD for listening carefully and prayerfully to all concerned and striving for unity.

Jesus said His return would be "glorious."

Jesus never "said" His return would be "secret." You have to dig to get that.

Why then is the accommodation of a "secret" trumping the clear words of Jesus?

The Apostle Paul said to Titus, "while WE wait for the blessed hope�the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13 - UPPER mine)

THE APOSTLE PAUL was (actively) waiting for the "glorious appearing of Jesus Christ".

I pray that same hope is good enough for all of us who are alive.

Blessings

Thor Lundberg
Broomfield, CO
Ephesians 4:3 and Colossians 3:14

Matt,

I appreciate what have have written about the return of Christ. You have stated it well. I am also grateful for the affirmation.

I would suggest one correction to what you have said. You mention that "'some' people believe that Jesus' return also has two phases (emphasis mine). Later in your post when referring to the Third Draft and why the change in the Proposed Revision you state "that 'many' felt that it emphasized the glorious and triumphant part of Christ's return so much that it excluded the pre-tribulational view" (emphasis mine).

In the latter statement, it would be more accurate to make this parallel with the earlier statement and say that "'some' felt that . . ." This would be consistent with the "strong minority" referenced in the letter from the Board of Directors.

Grace and Peace,
Greg

Greg,

Thanks for your suggestion.

You are right. In the second statement, I did mean "many" as in a "strong minority" (much fewer than a majority but still significant, passionate, and vocal), and I see how that could have been confusing because I had used "some" earlier to refer to pre-tribulationalists of which there are MANY in our association.

Thank you for the precision and graciousness with which you lead us in this process.

-Matt Mitchell
Pastor, Lanse EFC, Lanse PA

I find it interesting, that with the language of "glorious" as it was in drafts 1 and 2 being of like presentation as seen in Holy Scripture by Isaiah (Isaiah 24:21-23), by Peter (referencing Joel - Acts 2:20/Joel 2:28-32, 1 Peter 4:13, 1 Peter 5:1), by Jesus (Matthew 16:27, Matthew 24:30, Matthew 25:31 .. etc.) by Paul (Romans 8:18, Colossians 3:4, 2 Thessalonians 1:10, Titus 2:13) so forth, that it would be deemed inappropriate for a Statement of Faith because (in summary) it "emphasized the glorious and triumphant part of Christ's return so much that it excluded the pre-tribulational view."

I wonder also how the current revision of the Statement of Faith serves the purpose of unification - specifically with regard to those amillenialists and postmillenialists among us, how their consciences speak as they contemplate signing the SOF with the premillenial statement.

Thor Lundberg
Broomfield, CO
Ephesians 4:3 and Colossians 3:14

Thor,

Everyone believes Christ's Second Coming will be glorious, both dispensationalists (who hold to a pre-tribulational rapture of the Church) and non-dispensationalists (who may be post-tribulationalists in their view of the Rapture). The difference is that pre-tribbers believe that Jesus' return is really in two phases (I'm not actually sure if they would use that specific term or not), and thus they need to be explicit that, in their view, it is the Second Coming and not the Rapture that is his "glorious" return. Since the SoF cannot be that specific without endorsing an exclusively dispensational view, it must talk about his return in ways that do not exclude one view or another.

No one is debating or denying that Christ will return in glory. The difference is that dispensationalists don't think that the Church is looking for the return in glory, but that it will come after the Church has been raptured.

As to the latter part of your post above, it seems to be the opinion of the Board of Directors that it would not be worth the gain of adding those of other millennial views to our denomination if it would also serve to alienate a "strong minority" of those who are already in the EFCA family and are holding to a position held since 1950. Practically speaking, those who are not premillennialists will be in the same position as they were before the proposed revision, and they will have to act with integrity.

I am disappointed, as apparently you are, that the third draft didn't make it as the final proposed revision, but at this point, it seems that the best we can do is to support the proposed revision for the sake of the many positive changes that it would introduce, even if it is not as compelling as the earlier drafts. Finally, we must express ourselves, both any support for the proposed revision and our disappointment in the loss of certain elements, in a way that shows we care about doctrine AND our fellow believers in the EFCA.

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

So with the EFCA effort to result: "everything in the SOF is true biblically, clearly and explicitly."

"glorious" - very clear, very true, and very explicit - Biblically.

"secret rapture" - not quite so clear, and not quite so explicit - Biblically.

..

Bruce, you said: "Since the SoF cannot be that specific without endorsing an exclusively dispensational view, it must talk about his return in ways that do not exclude one view or another."

So in having Article 9 of the SOF, as accepted by the EFCA BOD on April 26, 2007, use the term "premillennial," which views are not being excluded?

Article 9 written as it is does not help with new potential members of EFCA churches.

Blessings

Thor Lundberg
Broomfield, CO
Ephesians 4:3 and Colossians 3:14

I agree with you, Thor, that a "secret rapture" is not biblically explicit, and so I am glad that our SoF, both currently and in the proposed revision, does not make it explicit. On the other hand, I do not see how the lack of "glorious" seriously undermines the strength of the statement, no matter how clear it is in Scripture. There are multitudes of details in Scripture that will not make it into the final draft. There needs to be more to your argument for its inclusion besides the fact that it is clear and biblical.

All that the current and proposed SoFs do is allow for the possibility of a pre-trib rapture, which I am willing to grant even though I do not believe in it. I wish that we had chosen to allow similar latitude on the millennial question, partly because it seems inconsistent to me to have the SoF be tight on one issue and loose on the other, if (and this is an important qualification) both issues have had a variety of positions that have been significantly represented in our stream of orthodox, Protestant, Evangelical church history. Ironically, you seem very much like those who are taking a hard line on the exclusively premillennial position in this respect.

I'm not sure you can expect others to allow openness on the millennial issue if you're not willing to allow it in the rapture/tribulation issue. The big obstacle here, and the reason why that argument for latitude on both issues ultimately failed, is that an exclusively premillennial view is riding 57 years of precedent. Those of us who believe that that position should change were not able to sway those were convinced otherwise.

By the way, to defenders of the exclusively premillennial position, they hear your last comment as something like, "Let's get rid of a doctrine in order to get more members." "Sure," they think, "and we could get rid of sin and hell and get even more members." What we have to demonstrate is that an exclusively premillennial position unnecessarily keeps out Christians who are just as biblically faithful as premillennialists. But as is demonstrated by our own conversation here, it's hard for some to accept that others might hold a different position that can also be within the bounds of what we can tolerate within orthodox-Protestant-Evangelical Christian fellowship.

Bruce,

First, let me thank you again for the dialog.

You said: "defenders of the exclusively premillennial position, they hear your last comment as something like, "Let's get rid of a doctrine in order to get more members"

There are too many problems with that theoretical pre-mil defender's statement to comment on here and now. But thank you for bringing it out into the open.

My response: PREMILLENIALISM is NOT a TEST for ORTHODOXY. I take no responsibility for palpitations this statement may have caused. I welcome personal discussions on this very matter (address below).

In my position within my church, I HAVE SEEN again and again that the word "premillenial" in the SOF is a problem for many, serious for some, potential new members, and unfortunately, many either do not join the church or have had to wrestle their own consciences into agreement to the statement. This should not be so. As I look at 1 Corinthians 8 (esp. vv.11-12), I get deeply concerned as well of the EFCA's responsibility into what the one "non-essential" word is doing for the unity and faith of believers.

Back to topic, I do not see a reason to withhold the use of the word "glorious" regardless of an escatalogical viewpoint.

For example, from my understanding, the Southern Baptist Convention has been (or "is") strongly dispensational (see "sbc(dot)net"). If true, THEIR SOF does not include the word "premillenial" but instead uses the word "glory" in complete agreement with Scripture on the matter of "Last Things" in describing Jesus' return.

Regardless, we need to consider the fact that the word "glorious" was used in the apostolic "regula fidei" for the first three centuries (and beyond) in describing the return of the Lord Jesus. The "regula fidei" was THE TEST for orthodoxy prior to the completion of the Canon, and continued for some time thereafter as a single exegetical hermeneutic in summary of Holy Scripture.

Why then, would the word "glorious" be good enough for the "regula fidei" as determined by the apostles, as received by the early Church, but not good enough for the EFCA?

Lastly, what happened 57 years ago that is so novel that it trumps 18th and early 19th century Evangelical eschatological belief?

Revisions 1 and 2 were presented to the EFCA leadership with good, strong, Biblical language on the matter of the return of Jesus .. That language was rejected.

Because we are not using the word "glorious," despite the other good points the current SOF maintains, we need to be sure we are lining up with both Holy Scripture AND the "historic" Christian faith and that we are not "adding" a perscription of allegiance to some young non-essential eschatological baggage.

Blessings in the Name of the Lord Jesus,

Thor Lundberg
Broomfield, CO
Ephesians 4:3 and Colossians 3:14
tkestm-efcablog1 @ yahoo.com

Thor, I am happy to say that I am in essential agreement with your last post. Interestingly enough, I would also not be surprised if there are some staunch supporters of the current SoF that could also agree with your assertion that "premillennialism is not a test for orthodoxy." This illustrates the problem of precedent.

I think it is fair (and, to me, compelling) to say that we should make our statement reflect that which is indeed necessary to believe. Others, however, see the removal of "premillennial" as a departure from EFCA heritage and a loss of EFCA identity. Even though I disagree with this opinion, it is a difficult challenge to overcome, when for many, "premillennial" has not just been an article to affirm, but an article to defend. To some, the earlier revision felt like an attack against, or at least an erosion of, long-held convictions.

Thanks for the interaction, Thor. I'll probably need to take a break from posting for a little while.

To all,

In summary, using the word "premillenial" in Article 9 of the SoF:

1. It DISCONNECTS the EFCA from 18th and early 19th century Evangelicalism in eschatological belief

2. It implements a NOVEL requirement among believers within the EFCA that is FOREIGN to "historic Christianity"

3. It is CONDUCIVE to BREAKING UNITY among ALL the faithful within the EFCA

In using "glorious" however:

1. It SUPPORTS all the major eschatological viewpoints
a. pre-wrath - would not even a rapture be "glorious?"

2. It is supported in PERSPICUITY within Scripture

3. It is supported in the TOTALITY of Scripture

Which is better for establishing a "heritage of the EFCA identity?"

Blessings,

Thor Lundberg
Broomfield, CO
Ephesians 4:3 and Colossians 3:14
tkestm-efcablog1 @ yahoo.com

I cannot seem to find the old SOF drafts online. Perhaps they were purposefully removed? However, even though rejected, I think they have historical and educational value and would like to have access to those earlier drafts. Any chance they can be made available (or more accessible)?