The Statement of Faith Revision

As a professing open theist who was worshipping with an E Free Church in Watertown SD, I am impressed that my views were so important to the church at large that you took the time and effort to formally pass the new doctrinal statements and throw me out.

However, I have a problem with your approach. The new statement does not explicitly address the topic of open theism. It is only in the footnotes and comments on the proposed statements do I find any mention of open theism.

The new statement does not address open theism. The offhand comment on the limitless knowledge and power of God is not a statement that specifically excludes open theism.

So we have a problem. Shouldn't you be honest and just include some statement like "We only except Calvinists or Augustinian based theologies." Or how about "we only accept the teaching that God knows every event that will take place in the future." This would certainly be clear and eliminate any doubt on the Free Church's position.

I know you practice and prefer the more deceptive "it's in the footnote" method of "anathametizing your opponents" but I was hoping for some honesty. Again I was disappointed.

Craig Fisher

Craig,

Thank you for engaging in the discussion of the Proposed Revision. It has been a very healthy discussion the past four years, for which we thank and praise the Lord!

Here are a number of responses to your post.

1. We were intentional about following the general rule of Creeds and Statements of Faith of affirming what we believe in the positive. Credo means to believe. Therefore, we did not emphasize what we did not believe (though there is an exception when addressing the ordinances in article 7, "Though they are not the means of salvation," which is carried over from our 1950 Statement of Faith).

2. What is stated explicitly in the positive in this Proposed Revision does carry some implicit denials. So as you point out, though it is said explicitly of God that He has "limitless knowledge and sovereign power," it implicitly denies any belief that undermines or discounts that. One of those beliefs that denies these attributes of God today is open theism. Our model here is what was done at the Council of Chalcedon in affirming Jesus' hypostatic union, fully God and fully man, over against the heretical denials of either.

3. We recognized that if we were to include this sort of language it would have made the SOF too technical for many people. Since our SOF is used for membership, credentialing of pastors and granting tenure of faculty, we had to be wise with the level of language we explicitly used.

4. There is a more definitive interpretation to the SOF than each individual person interpreting it as he or she deems appropriate. This is determined by the Conference, which is why it is important that the Conference know what the SOF affirms and denies. This is why it has been spelled out in the footnotes, and it will be spelled out in the commentary as well.

5. We have not been secretive about this. Since April 2001 the Board of Ministerial Standing has had a policy in place for those pursuing credentialing in the Free Church that states we will "not approve credentials for those who deny God's exhaustive foreknowledge, which includes the future free acts of human beings." Moreover, in our written and public discussions of the Proposed Revision we have explicitly addressed the topic of open theism.

6. It is important to note that both Arminians and Calvinists embrace God's exhaustive foreknowledge; they differ on the specifics of how God knows that future. This is why we would not and could not make a statement as you recommend about "Calvinists or Augustinian based theologies."

7. In sum, it is important that we discuss these kinds of issues. But at some point decisions need to be made about the biblical orthodoxy of certain positions, or one, by default, ultimately denies the authority of the Scriptures. Either God knows the future exhaustively, including the future free acts of human beings, or He does not. Both cannot be true. We believe the Bible teaches He does.

Thank you, again, Craig, for your post, and for allowing me to respond. I trust this helps you to understand why we did what we did, and why we stated this biblical truth in this way.

Grace and Peace,
Greg Strand

It might be helpful to all of us blog-readers if the makers of motions to amend the RSOF would appear on this blog in the comment pages (or through Greg, if he thought it was a good idea) to explain the rationale for their amendments.

There is very little detail in the communication from the moderator.

Also, it would be helpful to know which, if any, of the proposed amendments have (or will be) deemed "significant" by the BOD if passed, enough to push the vote on the RSOF to 2009.

-Matt Mitchell
Pastor, Lanse EFC
Lanse, PA

Matt,

Thank you for your post!

It was an intentional decision by the moderator to include only the amendment in the documents sent out via email (or hard copy for those churches without email).

Of course, as stated in the Transitional Rules, the maker of the motion will have the first four minutes of debate and discussion to give the rationale for and defend his motion. This will be followed by a representative of the Board of Directors to give the rationale for and defend the Proposed Revision.

Having said this, I do like your suggestion to use the blog as a forum to carry on some discussion prior to the Conference. I will think about this for a bit and ponder how this could be done most effectively.

Regarding your question about which amendments might be "substantive," the Moderator and the BOD task-force are discussing that now. But there is no "definitive" statement to be made at this time.

Grace and Peace,
Greg Strand

I agree with Matt. Here is my two bits. (I did not submit any of these ammendments)

1. Seems to move to a more neutral position on the ordinances.
2. Seems to be a matter of rewording, I don't see the substantive issue here.
3. Strikes Pre-Millennial - obviously a "significant" issue.
4. Adds a congregationalist phrase - which I at this point favor. I think ecclesiology is theology and not just governance.
5. Changes "command" to "offers" and removes "repentance". Is there is a question here of how the gospel ought to be presented?
6. I am not sure what the issue is here. It seems to be abrupt to move from condemnation to doxology in this proposed ammendment. (blessedness - condemnation - doxology) As written the order is condemnation - blessedness - doxology.

OK, I jumped in. Please play nice.

David Carlson

David,

You will see that I just posted a new entry under "Proposed Revision" titled "Amendments." You will read there that amendments 5 and 6, both addressing article 10, have been withdrawn.

Greg Strand

Thanks Greg,

It looks like the times will get busier for you now!

I remain curious about the significance to the submitter(s) of 1 and 2. I get what 3 and 4 are about. And 5 and 6 are gone.

David Carlson

David,

Hope to meet you soon. Going to be at conference?

Here's my take on your take on the amendments to the proposed revision (try to say that fast 3 times!):

1. Seems to move to a more neutral position on the ordinances.

I can see why someone who is concerned that we not slip into sacramentalism wouldn't like "confirm and nourish" the believer. Personally, as long as "not a means to salvation" is present, it doesn't strike me as problematic.

However, this is not a big deal to me.

I know that the SHC intended to say something positive about the ordinances. I think the suggested shortened phrase would do that "celebrated by faith" without causing a rift.

It would be interesting if the makers of this motion would give us a short rationale and if the BOD considers it "substantial."

2. Seems to be a matter of rewording, I don't see the substantive issue here.

I'm not sure what the concern is here, either. I suspect that it's the idea of "must not be separated" as a possible way of slipping in legalism through the back door.

I think the wording as original proposed is biblical and sound, but I'd be interested in hearing what the amenders are thinking.

3. Strikes Pre-Millennial - obviously a "significant" issue.

Yes, and I'm not sure what I think. I agreed with the idea of striking it originally--and that it would resolve a long standing tension in our movement.

But should we do it as an amendment? And should we do it if it puts the vote on the whole off a whole 'nother year? Not sure.

4. Adds a congregationalist phrase - which I at this point favor. I think ecclesiology is theology and not just governance.

Yes, it's theology, but is it a theology that all believers need to embrace to be members in our churches?

I like the fact that congregationalism in our DNA. I'm convinced of it biblically and glad it's in the preamble to the RSOF. But I like it there. That says, in my view, that we are congregational and that all who would join us need to know that going in, but that we don't expect everyone to be convinced of it, just ready to submit to it.

And, while it may not need said, I'm glad that amendments 5&6 were withdrawn. The last one, with suggesting taking out the new heavens and the new earth seemed unwise to me.

-Matt Mitchell

Matt,

Yes, I plan to be there. I am pretty happy with the revision without having to put it off another year. But I would like to hear the discussion first. The ammendments without comments make it hard to see the point - it is like going to an art museum without knowing the history.

David Carlson

If I understand it correctly, it is good that you have "repentance" in this.

It was a little hard for me to follow exactly which was the "final" revision you are trying to confirm. Other thoughts but not sure which "draft" or "revision" is the one you are considering. thanks!

Jim Coleman

Jim,

During this Statement of Faith Revision process, we have had three Draft Revisions (December 2005, February 2006, February 2007), and one Proposed Revision (April 2007).

Whenever a new Draft would be released, the previous Draft was removed from our EFCA website and the new Draft was posted. Finally, when the Board of Directors were at the point of presenting a Proposed Revision to the Conference, it was posted on the EFCA website April 2007, and has been there since that time. Subsequently, this Proposed Revision was presented to the Conference in June of 2007 as a motion, to be voted upon at this summer's Conference.

You can see the Proposed Revision at the following link: http://www.efca.org/about/media/sof_proposed_revision.pdf

I appreciate your affirmation of the word and theology of including "repentance" in the Proposed Revision.

Grace and Peace,
Greg Strand

We had a discussion at our board and the sense was to vote yes, unammended on the SOF. There were strong feelings to keep the premillennial position. Sorry that I'll miss the conference due to circumstances.

David Carlson