A Return to Ye Olde Fudge Shoppe
The case against fudging and for revisions was made earlier with some help from imminency. Faithful expositors of Scripture generally agree that written documents need to be understood as their authors intended, thus the case for revision with respect to the understanding of the word “imminent.”
Lest confusion fill our ranks, let’s be frank – a complete rewrite is NOT the same as revision, and furthermore previous fudging does not necessitate dropping imminency out of the EFCA Statement of Faith. A complete rewrite is done when nothing is salvageable from the original, thus the US deep-sixed the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union in favor of the Constitution (which has been amended since it was originally written).
A revision that includes imminency could be written with the intention of reflecting both possible meanings. After all, the great defender of the Post-Tribulation Rapture, Doug Moo, defended both the significance of imminency and Premillennialism. At the end of his chapter in Three Views of the Rapture, Moo wrote, “The truth of the imminent coming of our Lord Jesus Christ is an important and indispensable element of biblical truth. That this coming is to be premillennial the Scriptures plainly state.”
posted by Sean Dennis at 2:06 PM
4 Comments:
"Near" is a flexible-enough word. It wouldn't have been hard to clarify what we meant to include/allow.
So you're saying that the "cure" (a completely new SOF 5x longer than the original) wasn't justified by the "disease" (some degree of ambiguity to the word "imminent" -- an ambiguity which I suspect most EFCA pastors sufficiently grasped anyway)?
If we were in so much imminent danger of mixing up our respect for the SOF with the Bible itself, then how does a SOF that's 5x longer and actually adds lots more language, cure that problem? Additional verbiage and length increases the possibility, it seems to me. The longer the SOF, the more different ways to argue about it.
If the reasons for writing it were constructed during or after the project, that would make them "spin". One out-of-state EFCA pastor I know takes the Preamble that way, and is insulted by what he's decided is the "marketing" intention behind the stated rationales.
But even if they are, it has little bearing on assessing the new SOF itself. As they say in politics, the best of intentions doesn't always translate into good law. Most of our focus needs to be on the pros and cons of the SOF itself. But if EFCA pastors react to the Preamble as "spin", that makes it mentally harder to give the SOF itself a fair shake. If someone in Mnpls is retroactively trying to think up artificial selling points, that's going to upset some people as much as anything else.
I wonder if church history doesn't have something to say to us on these issues?
The Church has held in an orthodox fashion all of the four views of eschatology (pre, a, post, pre-trib) and through them all there are some important distinctives. Jesus will physically return. Jesus will rule the nations. There will be a resurrection of all people, some to judgment some to righteousness. Jesus will judge the nations. The end come to the present earth and a new earth will be instituted.
The historic creeds and confessions of the Church have never taken a firm stance on one particular eschatological view but have affirmed the essentials.
What the SoF should do is ensure a broad, evangelical orthodoxy on this issue. That would embrace all the orthodox permutations and exclude the heterodox ones: Hyper-preterism should be excluded as it denies a future return and resurrection. Liberal post-mill because it ignores the gospel and focuses only on social ills.
But what of theonomy? Well, first of all, I think theonomy has sort of faded from the scene and been replaced by the Federal Vision, or rather the Federal Vision consumed it. But is it orthodox? Better still, is it heterodox? It exists mainly in Presbyterian circles and the southern Presbys are tearing themselves apart over that issue. The dust simply hasn't settled.
But current controversies shouldn't force our hand in the SoF. Let's clearly articulate the essentials. The SoF should be clear on the essentials so no matter how the FV debate comes out or whatever the next issue is that arises, it can stand in light of it without having to be rewritten again. In other words, lets make the EFCA SoF a historic document.
I think Jack makes some important point in his comment too!
I don't consider the millennial views to be a standard of Christian fellowship. But I do think that a-mil, post-mil, and preterism can all fairly be characterized as Covenant Theology views, and that they establish a Covenant Theology view of the visible Church -- which our SOF denies.
I'll direct you over to newcovenantliving.blogspot.com for more on that idea.
We have chosen (in contrast to the IFCA) to not be an explicitly dispensational association. However, we are an explicitly baptistic group. Our current definitions of "church" are all anti-Covenant Theology. We particularly deny that the children of Christians are members of the local church.
But Covenant Theology eschatologies walk arm-in-arm with Covenantal ecclesiologies. Problem is, we don't accept Covenant Theology ecclesiology. If we anoint a-mil, post-mil, and preterism, then we bring even more incoherency into our SOF than just the one puny little word "imminent."
Also, ISTM that so-called Hyper-Preterism is the consistent application of the preterist hermeneutic. The reason Inconsistent Preterists like Sproul will never be able to refute Consistent Preterism is because the exact latter group is using the same hermeneutic as the former group.
Won't it be just lovely to have to deal with all this in our own ranks?
Jack
Georgetown EFC (KY)
Well Jack, it would be lovely to deal with this in our own ranks. And I think we are! :)
I am Reformed and believe in Covenant Theology. I am also baptistic. So when you say that other eschatologys "establish a Covenant Theology view of the visible Church -- which our SOF denies" I agree and disagree.
First, the SoF does not explicitly deny that infants can be baptized. The EFCA chose to remain open on that question and leave it up to the local church. If I recall correctly, AT Olson baptized infants if asked. The Evangelical Covenant Church said that all ministers must be willing to baptize infants and the Baptist General Conference said that infants may not be baptized. The EFCA was the middle group between the three.
Second, as a Covenant Theologian, there is nothing in the SoF that gives me a problem. My eschatology is historic premill (aka post-trib).
I'm not sure I agree with you that partial preterists cannot defeat full-preterists. I think 1Co 15 poses a real problem for a full-preterist and none for partial preterists.
Finally, if we simply omit the word "premillennial" from the SoF, the other eschatological positions are admitted without any incoherency. If, as you said, a covenantal view of ecclesiology is inherent with the other eschatological positions and denied in the SoF then the issue of preventing Covenant Theologians from joining the EFCA (if that is a desirable thing to do) should be solved! :)
The thing is that Dispensationalism is more tied to an eschatology than Covenant Theology is. Dispensationalism is predominantly pre-trib. There are a few mid-trib (a position I never understood exegetically!) and a very few post-trib. Covenant Theology is all over the map eschatologically. Historic pre, a, non-Liberal post. Wow. Because of the Dispensational heremenutic, a Pre-mill position is assured. With a redemptive historical heremenutic, there is more disagreement on eschatology.
Oh, sorry, I'm lecturing now. :-0
Post a Comment
<< Home