This letter is a response to Dr. Ed Stetzer’s Christianity Today interview of Dr. Greg Strand, The EFCA’s Executive Director of Theology and Credentialing. Ed Stetzer is Billy Graham Distinguished Chair of Church, Mission, and Evangelism at Wheaton College and Executive Director of the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College. The transcript of the interview can be read here.
Dear Dr. Stetzer and Dr. Strand,
I am writing in reference to your August 21, 2019 Christianity Today interview titled “One-On-One with Greg Strand on Premillennialism and the EFCA.” I would like to make application of the decision-making principles for doctrinal importance discussed in the interview to the Calvinist and Arminian soteriological differences which the EFCA has also made subject to those principles.
Granted, for the EFCA to require acceptance of premillennialism by their statement of faith would be to major in a minor. Yet, I would argue that the EFCA’s attempt to major in majors and minor in minors has failed when it comes to the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism. That is, the EFCA’s “significance of silence” approach is seriously flawed when applied to the Calvinist and non-Calvinist soteriological controversy. It results in the EFCA confusing and reassigning what they themselves affirm is a fundamental tenet of evangelical Christian faith – “the gospel” – to a minor category of belief in that these soteriological differences ultimately testify to very different gospels, let alone arguably a very different God.
By failing to acknowledge the nature and importance of the distinctions between the Calvinist and non-Calvinist soteriologies, the EFCA minors in a major. Dr. Strand affirms this posture when he says, “You can be young earth or old earth, you can be Covenantal or Dispensational, you can be Arminian or Calvinist…, you can be baptistic or paedobaptistic, you can be cessationist or continuationist, but you must be premillennial.” (Emphasis mine) Hence, Arminianism and Calvinism are placed in the category of non-essential or secondary minor doctrinal beliefs where premillennialism should also be. According to the EFCA, Calvinism and Arminianism are like premillennialism. They are not beliefs of “first importance.”
I agree that premillennialism may be categorized as a minor doctrinal belief. But surely, especially in light of the EFCA’s claims about the centrality of “the gospel,” the Calvinist / non-Calvinist soteriological differences are not minor doctrinal matters because the very gospel is at stake in those differences. The EFCA holds that what constitutes “the gospel” are non-negotiable fundamental truths. Dr. Strand states, “Our SOF reflects a desire for unity in the fundamental tenets of the gospel. We are silent on those doctrines which through the centuries have divided Christians…” But what are these “fundamental tenets of the gospel?” The Calvinist / non-Calvinist soteriological differences bear directly upon the gospel. Therefore, in that the EFCA marginalizes these soteriological differences they are inconsistent with their own claims about the primacy of the gospel and end up embracing a theological and soteriological relativism. Two incompatible soteriologies and gospel messages cannot both be true.
Again, the inconsistency is evident in that while the EFCA’s statements rightly hold to the primacy of the gospel as a major central tenet of belief that cannot be compromised, they also embrace both non-Calvinist and Calvinist soteriologies, deeming their differences as “secondary” or “non-essential” doctrinal matters. They place these in the category of minor doctrinal beliefs. But if these soteriologies are mutually exclusive, and one’s gospel content is entailed by one’s soteriology, then we have two mutually exclusive “gospels” here. Therefore, the EFCA’s claims about the Calvinist / non-Calvinist differences being secondary or non-essential matters is inconsistent with their claim that the gospel is a primary or major essential of their doctrinal beliefs. I believe this shows a lack of discernment and/or denial regarding the implications of this controversy for the content and proclamation of the gospel.
Dr. Strand clearly talks about, “…our strong value of unity in the gospel in which we major on the majors” and the EFCA’s “professed and lived unity in the gospel of Jesus Christ (John 17; Eph. 2:11-21; 4:1-6, etc.).” He gives an analogy of “the hall” of evangelicalism and denominational “rooms” stating that, “…If the hall is the place that represents evangelicalism—the place where Evangelicals gather—and if the rooms off the hall are the places where the denominations gather, the EFCA is unique in that we are between the large hall of evangelicalism and the denominational rooms off the hall. Although we are not to be identified as a denomination of the via media, those who are often fence-sitters regarding essential doctrinal matters, we do focus on first order doctrinal essentials and grant charity on non-essentials. We intentionally and purposefully exist in the space between the hall and the rooms and believe it is a strength because it reflects our professed and lived unity in the gospel of Jesus Christ (John 17; Eph. 2:11-21; 4:1-6, etc.).” With respect to the “different denominational rooms” he states, “Rather, if a Wesleyan (Arminian) goes into the Presbyterian (Calvinist) room, they would know [the difference] quite quickly, and vice versa. Whereas in the EFCA, that would not be noticed as quickly…And this is, I believe, the uniqueness of the EFCA as a denomination. Our identity is not then described or explained by how we are different, but rather how we are the same, without compromising doctrinal truth.” (Italics mine)
But the failure to distinguish the difference between non-Calvinist and Calvinist soteriologies with respect to their implications for the content of the gospel is not a “uniqueness” but a weakness of the EFCA. To attempt unity with respect to the Calvinist and non-Calvinist soteriologies is at the same time to compromise doctrinal truth with regard to the gospel. If these are two mutually exclusive soteriologies and gospel messages, then when the EFCA claims the gospel is a major doctrine that is central to their beliefs, which “gospel” are they talking about? Two mutually exclusive propositions cannot both be true. When the EFCA deems the Arminian and Calvinist differences a secondary or a non-essential matter, they are also deeming the gospel a secondary and non-essential matter. Dr. Strand states, “It is a unity centered on the truth of the gospel, even if and when there are differences on secondary and tertiary matters.” But the gospel stands or falls with one or the other of these mutually exclusive soteriologies. Therefore, there is an inconsistency in their claim of unity in the gospel and that the gospel is a primary and non-negotiable doctrinal truth when they refuse to recognize the mutual exclusivity of the Calvinist and non-Calvinist soteriologies and the incompatible “gospel” messages those soteriologies entail, labeling these differences a secondary matter that is non-essential.
This “significance of silence” approach fails to recognize that the non-Calvinist and Calvinist positions have mutually exclusive gospel implications. If the gospel is essential, a refusal to acknowledge the incompatibility of these soteriologies fails of the claim of “unity in essentials.” It certainly seems false to state, “We are truly together by, with, and for the gospel of Jesus Christ” and to talk about “a unity centered on the truth of the gospel” and yet be silent on the Calvinist / non-Calvinist differences which entail very different gospels. If there is “a unity centered on the truth of the gospel,” then which of these two incompatible gospels is the EFCA referring to? Such statements smack of a denial of the intellectual and hermeneutical problem here within the EFCA’s thinking and documents. I realize there are motivating factors as to why the EFCA has adopted this “significance of silence” approach, and the requirement that members hold to premillennialism may be the perfect candidate justifying this approach. But I think it is a serious oversight to take this approach with the Calvinist / non-Calvinist differences.
Furthermore, to accept the “significance of silence” approach regarding mutually exclusive soteriologies is to cease searching for soteriological truth and the truth of the gospel. The Calvinist and non-Calvinist soteriologies and gospels cannot both be true. This approach also implies that both are valid interpretations of Scripture and are therefore legitimate evangelical beliefs. But this is to embrace not only a soteriological relativism but also a hermeneutical relativism. Although the EFCA will allow for debating these differences, the practical result of this approach is to abandon the search for the truth of the gospel. It is to leave it in abeyance, undefined and ambiguous. This approach, therefore, can have serious negative intellectual, hermeneutical and evangelistic implications. One implication of the marginalization and indifference to the fact that these soteriologies are mutually exclusive is that the true, biblical gospel message of “good news” is being eroded and lost in the “evangelical” church today.
Perhaps these issues would be a good topic for a further interview? For instance, perhaps Dr. Strand could answer what Article 10 of the Evangelical Convictions means when it states,
“The Statement of Faith of the Evangelical Free Church of America is an exposition of the gospel – God’s gospel, the gospel of Jesus Christ. And what is the gospel? It is the evangel, the good news that God has acted graciously to save a people for himself through his Son Jesus Christ. The gospel is the simple message that Jesus died for our sins and rose again so that we might have eternal life. This message of good news can be stated as concisely as this: “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son so that whoever believes in him may not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16). Our Statement seeks to unpack this gospel by organizing the essential doctrines of our faith – our critical Evangelical convictions – around this central theme.” (p. 234)
Surely in light of the Calvinist and non-Calvinist soteriological differences and the EFCA’s claims about gospel primacy, this statement raises issues that need to be clarified. For instance, how do the non-Calvinist and Calvinist soteriologies reflect the gospel defined as “good news?” What is meant by “a people?” Who constitutes this “people?” How does a person become a member of this “people?” Who does the “our” and the “we” refer to? What is meant by “world” and “whoever” in John 3:16? How should the context of John 3:16 inform our interpretation of that verse? Does this verse contain a genuine and dynamic offer of salvation for all sinners on the basis of believing that God gave his Son for each of us, or is it merely informing us that there is a predestined number of individuals unconditionally elected to salvation in which God will irresistibly work belief and bestow eternal life? How does this bear upon “the gospel” as being “good news?” Do both non-Calvinist and Calvinist soteriologies contain “good news?” How so? Which of these is “the good news” or “the gospel” as referred to in the EFCA Statement of Faith and Evangelical Convictions? In light of these incompatible soteriologies and “gospels,” what is “the truth of the gospel?” Can Dr. Strand detail for us the precise content of the biblical gospel message the EFCA is referring to, and given that content, can he assess which of these two mutually exclusive soteriologies and gospel messages is consistent with that content? If one is consistent and the other is not, would he still maintain the position that “We are truly together by, with, and for the gospel of Jesus Christ?” Given his definition of “the evangel,” what does it mean to be an “evangelical?” And most importantly, if logical and moral incoherence, inconsistency and contradiction result from one or the other of these soteriologies, would this be hermeneutically significant in that these would be reliable indicators as to the interpretive validity, or invalidity as the case may be, of that soteriology?
I deal with these issues in more detail in two papers I have written – “Two Incompatible Gospels: A Serious Matter for the “Evangelical” Church” and “Agreement on the Gospel? – An Assessment of the Claim of the “ForCLT” Unified Sermon Series.” These papers are case studies that contain detailed sermon analysis to demonstrate more fully what I have argued above.
Finally, having attended and served in EFCA churches, as well as many other denominations, I’m concerned about the erosion of the gospel in our evangelical churches and the acceptance of incoherence in biblical interpretation. Any church denomination calling itself “evangelical” should maintain doctrinal consistency and a gospel that is truly “good news.”
All feedback, critiques, comments and opinions are welcome.
Sincerely,
Stephen C. Marcy, M.A., M.A.
The Truth of the Gospel 
This argument appears to be made with a bit too much repetition on the issue of “two different gospels” and that this should be placed into the “major” vs “minor” category. I was left wondering which position he took, but if I was to make a guess, I would say that he prefers the “non-Calvinist” gospel. Having known committed followers of Christ in both camps, and having attended a church fellowship where folks don’t agree on this issue, I do believe that committed, intelligent believers in Jesus can still have unity and charity in spite of this.
My Calvinist pastor still preaches that one needs to place his faith in Christ to be brought into a right relationship with God. Even the “once saved always saved” issue need not divide believers IMO.
The non-Calvinistic position, again IMO, makes more biblical sense, but I respect those that come to a different position: for as Paul says, ‘we all see as in a mirror dimly’. One day our knowledge will be complete; in the day of Christ.
The EFCA Statement of Faith does still have one glaring “major” that I think should be placed into the “minor” category, namely the exact nature of hell AKA eternal punishment.
It is my understanding that there are at least 3 understandings of what happens after death to an unbeliever, and EFCA has taken the stance of the “traditional” view, namely “eternal conscious punishment”. An honest exegetical treatment of this subject would probably lead to some new wording that would agree with all 3 views.
That said, I can remain in fellowship and even shepherd a flock that affirms this “traditional” Augustinian/Catholic view.
My biggest “beef” with any gospel presentation and teaching is the recent “Western” teaching and preaching is this: that the main focus of the gospel is to “get people into heaven and out of hell” while minimizing the command to “obey all that I have commanded you”, that is obedience, recognizing that Jesus is our King and Lord not only our Savior, and He deserves to own us completely; i.e. “to deny ourselves and take up our cross daily” just as He showed us.
If we preach and teach this, many other issues quickly fade away.
LikeLike
Daniel,
Thanks for your assessment of my letter and your additional comments on several theological issues.
In my open letter to Dr. Ed Stetzer and Dr. Greg Strand I pointed out that the EFCA claims that “the gospel” is a major and primary doctrine that is central to their beliefs – and rightly so. They maintain that “the gospel” is a fundamental tenet of the evangelical Christian faith. The EFCA speaks about “a unity centered on the truth of the gospel.” This is all good. But it is a fact that the Calvinist and non-Calvinist soteriologies are incompatible. That is, their doctrines of salvation, beliefs about who can be saved and how a sinner becomes saved, etc. – which just is “the gospel” message – contradict each other. In other words, one’s soteriology impacts one’s gospel content and message, and yet we have two soteriologies – both of which claim to be the teaching of Scripture – that are in direct conflict with each other.
Now, two incompatible soteriologies and gospel messages cannot both be true and therefore they cannot both be the teaching of Scripture. Therefore, any denomination who claims that the Calvinist / Arminian soteriological differences are a minor, secondary, and non-essential issue, simply does not grasp that the gospel is at issue here. If the EFCA claims that “the gospel” is a fundamental, non-negotiable, and central tenet of their beliefs as evangelical Christians and they also state that the Calvinist/Arminian soteriological differences are a minor, secondary and non-essential issue, then the EFCA simply does not or will not see the inconsistency in their statements. They also do not grasp the logical and hermeneutical relativism being sanctioned in those statements. They do not see that the very truth of the gospel is at stake here and therefore this cannot be a minor, secondary, and non-essential doctrinal difference.
You state, “I believe that committed, intelligent believers in Jesus can still have unity and charity in spite of this.” Charity, yes. Unity, not likely in most settings. I appreciate the sentiment, and I am glad that you can remain in fellowship and even shepherd a flock with which you disagree on issues that are actually minor issues. That is as it should be. But I suggest that with respect to this issue of the gospel, an intelligent believer cannot accept that two logically and theologically incompatible soteriologies are both the teaching of Scripture. And surely, he cannot accept two incompatible gospels. Paul makes that clear in Galatians 1. That is why this is an important matter. Which of these two contradictory soteriological positions is the true, biblical gospel? What is the truth of the gospel? Moreover, this matter has to do not only with the gospel, but with clear thinking, and clear thinking about the text of Scripture which the Calvinist and non-Calvinist both believe is the final authority for faith and practice. Thus, the intellectual and hermeneutical relativism we are being asked to embrace in the name of brotherly love and church unity is simply unacceptable for the intelligent believer.
You also said that “My Calvinist pastor still preaches that one needs to place his faith in Christ to be brought into a right relationship with God.” That’s fine, as it goes. But you might ask him to give you a more precise explanation of what he means by the above statement that is consistent with his Calvinist soteriological doctrines. I surmise you are not a Calvinist, and I take it that you already know what his Calvinism entails in this regard. But what else does your pastor say when preaching the gospel, that is, when he preaches the “good news?” If he were to preach consistent with his Calvinist soteriological doctrines, would he have any “good news” to preach? What would that “good news” be? Would it matter to you that his explanation is completely contrary to what you believe to be the teaching of Scripture on the gospel and salvation? So, what does your Calvinist pastor proclaim as the “good news” that is consistent with his Calvinist theological and soteriological beliefs? Does he believe God loves everyone? Can he tell every sinner “God loves you!” Can he tell them “Jesus died for you!” Can he proclaim, “God does not want you to perish but desires you to believe in Christ and be saved!” He may say he can sincerely say these things, but his sincerity is not the issue. What is at issue is whether what he says is consistent with his Calvinist beliefs and that whether what he is speaking are words that are true for the hearer. For instance, can he genuinely and truthfully say to every person that God loves them? What about those God has not predestined to salvation? Is what your pastor preaches true with respect to the hearer? The epistemological answer, “Well, we do not know who the non-elect are” is not sufficient. This is not a matter of what you know or don’t know about the hearer, it is a matter of whether what your pastor speaks is true or false regarding the actual ontological state of the hearer – and that is only one of two states – elect or non-elect. If in reality God did not predestine them to salvation then it cannot be truly said of them, “God loves you!”
Therefore, I am certain that if your pastor were to speak consistent with his Calvinist doctrines of salvation, he would have no “good news” to offer sinners. A consistent Calvinism cannot be put into the service of evangelism that brings truly “good news” to the hearers. On this issue you may also be able to remain in fellowship and shepherd the flock, but I suggest that this shepherding must make the gospel a priority and given the presence of two mutually exclusive views, getting at the truth of the gospel.
When the EFCA deems the Arminian and Calvinist differences a secondary or a non-essential matter for the sake of unity, they are also inconsistently deeming the gospel a secondary and non-essential matter. This is not only inconsistent but fosters theological and hermeneutical relativism. This is what I wanted to point out in this letter.
Hopefully you will have some time to spend reading elsewhere on my site to see how I support my position above and the arguments I bring against Calvinism.
Thanks again for reading on my site and thank you for providing your critique of my letter and your additional thoughts.
~ Steve
LikeLike
Beloved brother in Christ, Steve,
I am truly grateful to receive your thoughtful response to my brief comments. Thank you!
I do understand the inconsistency of preaching the good news to ALL people (sinners), and I have granted much grace as I hear “Calvinists” explain their understanding of their beliefs in the context of evangelism.
I prefer to give them time to progress in their understanding of what the scriptures state about God’s love for the world and His desire for “all men to be saved”.
It very well could be that EFCA sees unity (as I do) as meaning that we followers of Jesus are united in Him, I.e. His body, and we are committed to obeying Him.
An imperfect understanding of how we are saved and remain in Him (by our faith) will be worked out over time. Like you I see the tenets of Calvinism as being mutually dependent on some erroneous exegesis of many scriptural texts.
I’ve heard others say that “Calvinist doctrines are heretical” and I’m tempted to agree, but that word has been misused and I don’t think that using this word is beneficial for progress in the debate.
Therefore, I heartily embrace debate on the merits of this system while asking our Father to bring wisdom, humility, understanding and love to both sides so that we might all attain to the unity of the faith, to the maturity of the fullness of Christ’s perfect stature, the church’s goal (not that the proclamation of the glad tidings of Jesus Christ is secondary of course).
I’m sure that you understand my thinking and I thank you for reading my thoughts.
To God be all the glory and honor and praise, now and forever.
Your brother, Dan
LikeLike
Daniel,
Thank you so much for your response. I fully understand and appreciate your position and your comments which demonstrate your spiritual maturity. Thoughtful mature critiques and comments are always welcome on my site.
I agree that folks should be given time to progress in their understanding of the scriptures on these matters. This is wise and necessary. Hopefully your pastor and other Calvinists in your church are willing to progress in their understanding, if for no other reason than that the gospel is at stake. I believe this is the reason why every Christian needs to think through the beliefs and implications of Calvinism. If they could honestly and forthrightly examine what Calvinism teaches along with its implications, I think many would see that it is not a tenable theology either logically, morally, or biblically.
I understand people do not want to be confrontational. They want to preserve the unity of the congregation. And rightly so. But if the church is to care about the gospel, and surely it must care to be truly “evangelical,” I don’t think this issue can be ignored. The evangelical church is to be about, among other things, preaching and teaching the gospel. Therefore, to accomplish its mission, it must be clear about what is the true, biblical, gospel message. Therefore, this issue of two incompatible soteriologies within the Evangelicalism needs to be addressed by the evangelical church. But I don’t think this inquiry needs to be divisive. I think it should be addressed in a fair manner in a mature, educational setting, either in the church or elsewhere, where people can ask tough questions and discuss the issues and answers clamly, openly, and honestly. Biblical interpretation being primary, the study of hermeneutics (i.e., the principles of interpretation) would be central to the endeavor. (I offer a way for the evangelical church to address this controversy in my post “Ryken v. Ryken: Calvinist Inconsistency in Light of Billy Graham’s Gospel.” About two thirds of the way through see the section titled, “The Wheaton Challenge.”)
Well, much more could be said, but that is why I have this website. Hopefully through it I am helping to restore and preserve the gospel as “good news” in the Evangelical Church.
Thanks again for reading and commenting on my site. Feel free to do so again anytime. It was a pleasure to read your thoughts and correspond with you.
God bless you in your ministry,
~ Steve
LikeLike