I was (pleasantly) surprised to discover that in the new, proposed revision to their Statement of Faith, the EFCA is considering dropping references to the premillenial position. Their commentary on the change was very interesting as well.
The Evangelical Free Church is trying to walk that tightrope between preserving essential Christian doctrine and allowing freedom on non-essentials. They recognize the important doctrines that are clear in Scripture, yet allow differing viewpoints on the unclear. For instance- they affirm water baptism as valid and important to the life of the church (unlike the hyper-dispensationalists who affirm only spirit baptism: that was a strange discussion), but recognize that godly people take differing views on who may be baptized. So, they do not exclude those who practice infant baptism, as many/most baptistic groups do.
Now they want to do the same with the millenium. They affirm the personal, visible return of Jesus to judge the living and the dead. They used to be pre-trib, premillenialists, but have seen a significant shift in the years such that many of their people are historical premillenialists rather than dispensational premillenialists. But in keeping with the general spirit of their denomination, they don’t want to divide the Body based on millenial views that are under the tent of orthodoxy. That is refreshing.
I started as a dispensational premillenialist, moved to the historical premillenial position (without really knowing there was such a thing), and gradually became an amillenialist while in seminary (talk about a view being much misrepresented). I’ve got post-mil friends, and have a hard time seeing the biblical case for it. But… it is a legitimate option for a Christian that has been held by many a “big name” over the course of history.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, particularly in the life of the denomination should the revision pass.
(HT: Mike Shea)
Cavman Considers 
Leave a Reply