The definition of The Kingdom of God arose in posts with Q. It is an important issue for which I have posted this introduction to my understanding.
As Christians we pray ‘your kingdom come’ but what exactly are we praying for?
Evangelical Christians preach the ‘new birth’ but the new birth must be proclaimed in the context of the Kingdom of God, because entering into the Kingdom of God is the purpose for which men are born again.
The central theme of Jesus message is the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven sometimes the Kingdom of the Father or even just the kingdom.
The current use of the term kingdom refers to the realm ruled by a king e.g. Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the United Kingdom. The older (archaic) meaning is the kingly rule, reign, authority, dominion or government exercised by a king. It is in this sense that the word kingdom is primarily used in the Bible. This is the meaning of the Greek ‘basileia’ and the Hebrew ‘malkuth’. This idea is expressed in Isaiah 9:6 “and the Government will rest on his shoulders”.
The Kingdom of God is the rule and authority of God in action, God getting his will done. In Aramaic ears Jesus could be heard saying “The kinging it of God is near” Matthew 4:17. Matthew 6:10 may be understood as a Hebrew parallelism ‘your kingdom come, your will be done’.
The geographical space where the activity of God is taking place does come into it. We pray for the coming of the kingdom to earth Matthew 6:10 and we are told “the kingdom of the world (cosmos) has (this is still in the future) become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ” Revelation 11:15. Heaven is the place of the full expression of the kingdom. So the kingdom is designated the kingdom of heaven.
As we pray “your kingdom come . . . on earth as it is in heaven” we ask for the kingdom’s future consummation and its present expression. Our prayers express God’s desire to see His actively changing this world scene by the exercise of His power NOW as well as its future consumation. This understanding ties the request for the coming of the Kingdom with that of our present need ‘give us our daily bread’ and our present duty to forgive. We are requesting the drawing near of His kingdom, the exercise of the kingly activity of God. We want t the kingdom of the heavens to invade the kingdoms of this world, for His kingdom to come upon people by the activity of the Holy Spirit and the authority of Christ. Now is the only time in which our faith can operate as we pray!
The kingdom is already on the earth but ‘not yet’ as it is in heaven. It is the ‘yet’ but ‘not yet’ concept the Kingdom has been inaugurated but not consummated.
This coming of the kingdom is an event that can be observed and has been observed in:-
– The Gospel stories of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee Mark 1:14-15, 27-34.
– The outpouring of the Spirit in Jerusalem “the kingdom comes with power” Acts 2
– The ongoing works of Jesus (Acts 1:1) carried out by the church in the power of the Spirit recoded throughout the book of Acts
– The many lives of the saints and historic revivals throughout the history of the church
We can also note that as people become subject to the rule of God (his kingdom) by allowing his will to operate in their lives, they can be said to enter the kingdom of God into the realm of God’s saving activity. John 3:5, Matthew 23:13. By faith and the power of the Spirit the active rule of God can then be released through them. As the centurion understood in being subject to authority he was positioned to exercise authority. he possessed this in the military sphere and so recognised authority in Jesus.
The church then is the Lord’s chosen vehicle to carry The Kingdom of God into the world by the power of the Spirit in the authority of Christ and to share in and complete His mission working with the Lord.
All Along the Watchtower 
I found this good to read Rob. What sort of evangelical are you, if you don’t mind me asking. I mean to say: do you adhere to a specific statement of faith? If so, which one? Many thanks
S.
LikeLike
S asked: What sort of evangelical are you?
Very much like Geoffrey we do not follow a written statement of faith – in brief word pictures:
– Agreement with apostolic and Nicaea Creed:
– Following a spiritual ecumenicalism: There is one church composed of all those ‘in Christ’ and disciples in each locality should endeavour to co-operate and present visible unity.
– Not literalist in Biblical interpretation – first consideration being to determine the category of literature of a particular book.
– Value theological understandings of Church Fathers particularly pre Augustine
– Charismatic in theology and practice
– Kingdom of God is advanced by prayer, worship, sacraments, words (preaching), works of compassion, signs and wonders
– Open theology (rather than Calvinism or Armenianism): i.e. a relational God who may change His mind and has neither pre determined all future events and does not know them exhaustively e.g. Gregory Boyd
– A relational God: i.e. rather than one defined by Greek philosophical terms some of which distort the Biblical view of God e.g. Not an immutable God, all relationship necessitates change and the inability to change is a weakness rather than a virtue. Such philosophical definitions of God were arrived at by human reason rather than study of God’s self revelation. e.g. God pre Christian Greek philosophical reasoning determined that God must be immutable – as being perfect if he were to change for the better would imply he were not originally have been perfect and if he were to change for the worse would imply he could become less than God. The fallacy here is to assume that all change is either for the better or worse whereas change allows for relationship with changing people and circumstances. The incarnation was a change for God.
– New perspective of justification e.g. Bishop N. T. Wright
– Believers church e.g. Anabaptist – pacifist – church as a whole of life community of believers
– Initiator of house churches endeavouring to work in unity with city wide church
– Eschatology: historic pre-millennialism e.g. attributed to Irenaeus (not today’s comic book version)
– Ministry emphasis is to make disciples rather than to convince sceptics
I have been liked with the Ichthus Christian Fellowship in London for 30 years. The church network (which has member churches from various denominations or none) is supported by Roger Forster and the team leadership. Roger has been chairman of the evangelical alliance. If you visit the website you will find http://www.ichthus.org.uk/ free resources and downloadable teaching on every Biblical book and an extensive range of topics. I noticed you were looking to understand more of the Biblical basis of evangelical Christianity. The usual teaching Method followed at Ichthus is to present a survey of all the orthodox views on a topic to understand them and draw out the value of each e.g. the various historic and theological views / aspects of the atonement.
LikeLike
Thanks for this Rob. Very much appreciated. I am indeed looking to explore a more Biblical approach to Christianity. Not because my own position is likely to change: I am a liberal Anglo-Catholic; but rather to again look at an area of Christianity that frankly has me baffled — I want to see if I can understand what people are on about.
I’m interested by your list above – and I have seen on the Ichthus website that there is a standard Evangelical Alliance statement of faith.
Some things I find appealing and interesting for an evangelical:
(i) new perspectives on Paul / justification – i.e. a rejection that penal substitution is the only thing going
(ii) an interest in the theology of the Fathers
(iii) sacraments (how does this work in practice, as presumably there is no sacramental priesthood – and then there is apostolic succession too)
(iv) open theology
Let me set out my own thoughts, which might well be quite rude (!), but I am sure it is because I don’t understand, and this is what leads me to an interest to understand better. However, these are the bits of what I understand to be an evangelical approach, and which you seem to adhere to:-
(i) magical thinking: personal physical return of Jesus of Nazareth on Earth
(ii) infallible Bible – you say that there is no literalist approach (and you almost say that a historical-critical approach isn’t going to be shouted down as heresy), but there are still claims made about the Bible being fully trustworthy for faith and conduct. What does this mean in practice, in particular with aspects of church Tradition included?
(iii) calling the Bible the ‘Word of God’, when clearly the Bible doesn’t claim that, but quite otherwise.
I hope I am not being rude, but whenever I go to an evangelical church, whether pentecostal or more ‘traditional’ I always feel drained of energy when I leave. I try to go somewhere once a year or more that it in these type of traditions. With charismatic approaches the draining aspect is that the emotionally laden music seems designed to remove free will in carrying one towards where the pastor wants it to go – i.e. it seems like a step over the mark of how much ‘leading’ is acceptable, which in my mind is akin to psychological manipulation and a suppression of the Spirit.
For more ‘traditional’ evangelical services, I always find myself concerned at how the Bible seems to be an object of veneration, and whether or not those involved take a non-literal approach to the Biblical texts, it feels like they do.
I suppose someone may say that I think too much; but I say to counter that that is just leaving oneself wide open to spiritual abuse.
I suppose people like me are not unusual. However, I just cannot in any sense connect with what is going on in evangelical churches – which leads to my impression of entertainment shows promoting magical thinking.
Having said that, I have just read John Stott’s ‘Basic Christianity’ which I found interesting, although not that well developed. He did make clear, which I found interesting for an evangelical, that the Resurrection was not a physical corneal man-jumping-out-of-a-grave type event. However, this makes me even more confused: if there is an approach to the Resurrection which invites people to explore a deeper faith, then why is all this ‘personal return of Jesus’ stuff going on?
Any help you can provide to a confused man is much welcomed !
God bless,
S.
LikeLike
Reply to S
First I would point out that the views I hold would be largely those represented on the Ichthus website. Roger Forster is considered by most of the ‘new church streams (if you know who these are) as the leading theologian amongst them. The sort of stuff N. T. Wright is now producing on justification was written about by Roger 40 years ago and has just been updated and republished in the 3rd edition of ‘Gods Strategy in Human History’ by Roger Forster and Paul Marsden – which would be an interesting book for you to read.
I will try to provide a reading list but I am in UK till 10th Sep so I do not have access to my library.
You are not at all being rude there are no views off the table as we honest seek God. I will work through your points and post replies.
I have not read the Evangelical Alliance Statement of faith for about 40 years and it may of course be interpreted differently by evangelicals with various emphases.
I will respond to each of your points as soon as I can.
For now: I was interested in and agree with your comments about the risks of spiritual abuse. With regard to feeling drained of energy that of course may be linked to the former or it may be the result of personal spiritual deficiency. Now it’s my turn to hope I have not offended you. I found this very interesting as when I was an ‘Evangelical’ as opposed to “Charismatic’ I used to experience exactly that feeling following enthusiastic worship as a young man. Following an experience of the Holy Spirit I found that worship (though more what shall I say energetic) was up-building, renewing and strengthening. Now I sense some environments are seemingly very enthusiastic but lack a sense of the Spirit, they seem driven by human emotion, enthusiasm and at their worst whipped up. To me it seems they have lost something of the Spirits presence and push hard with human energy – such times are unproductive. Other environments carry (in my experience) the Spirit’s presence and blessing.
So as with all personal spiritual (subjective) and internal reactions we each have to ask ourselves when the experience is negative – is the issue with me or them? If we approach our experience with honesty, humility and prayer and repentance of any known sin in our own lives my conviction is the answer will become clear and spiritual progress will result.
LikeLike
Thanks for this. I really appreciate you setting out this reply at such length. It’s really appreciated.
I wrote a long reply, and then I thought better of it. You have made a good point in your reply though about where ‘the issue’ is. I have nothing against charismatic approaches to faith at all, let me add. I suppose the concern I have is that many charismatic approaches seem to be totally Bible-literal approaches, and seem to end up turning people a mass movement of conformity – as if the way to be accepted is to conform to a ‘you have to believe ten impossible facts before breakfast’ model of church of a type that exists in some quarters.
I’d value to hear your further thoughts on the questions I have posed above. In the meantime, I have just bought the book you suggested on Amazon, and when it arrives I hope to learn more!
I really do find the approach you have outlined interesting though – alas I do not live near any of your churches, so cannot visit.
Many thanks once again for the response.
S.
P.S. Just to outline the type of Christianity where I feel most at home, without going into things too deeply, if I were to recommend a book that I like as an ‘opening up’ to a faith approach that I feel comfortable with then it would be ‘The Thoughtful Guide to Faith’ by Tony Windross. There’s some of his material on his church website here: http://www.stleonardschurchhythekent.org/WHYBOTHER/WhyBotherIndex.html
Although my favourite theologian has to be Keith Ward. Something of his that I often show to other people as a way into this type of thinking is here: http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-formation-of-christian-doctrine. Just if you’re interested! 🙂
LikeLike
I will follow up those websites and continue to work through your questions. Between the 6th and 8th I’m spending a couple of days in London with my wife then fly home to Barbados. For the next few days I have to sort our old home in Cardiff a tenant has just left it in a bit of a state and we have to get it ready for the new tenant by the time I leave.
A bit of a challenge it is a beautiful old (500 yrs in parts) and fairly large former Anglican vicarage next to the 12th century church of Saint Mellons. There has been a church on the site from at least the 4th Century and possibly for much longer. Tertullian mentions Christianity in Britain in I think the date was 220 AD. St Mellons on the east side of Cardiff is about 8 miles from Caerleon where the 3rd Roman legion was garrisoned and it is within the territory where Caratacus resisted the Romans. Legend has it that the founder of the church was a descendant of Caratacus who was in Rome the same time as St, Paul – nice credentials for our old site if it were true.
LikeLike
S.
I have reviewed the first 6 in the ‘Why Bother series you directed me to not just for you but for my own interest and comment progressively through his scripts briefly below. It may give you some idea of the type of Christian I am. It sees these leaflets present the overview of a position so my view of them would provide the same for you.
WHY BOTHER TO THINK ABOUT THE BIBLE: Study it or leave it alone in some senses is good advice but someone has said “It’s not the bits of the Bible I don’t understand that bothers me but the bits I do”, the same could be said for the strange bits. I do however believe in inspiration of the scriptures and think that many Biblical prophecies that were later fulfilled are an evidence of this. The Idea that 300 years prior to Christ the OT was edited I think is a reference to the translation from Hebrew to Greek which was not an editing process – unless I misunderstand what he refers to. I agree that working out what sort of literature a particular Biblical passage is must just about the first consideration in any study of it.
WHY BOTHER TO THINK ABOUT THE CREED: I don’t, I consider the same topics but through the Bible rather than ‘The creed’. I believe the virgin birth, incarnation, perfect life & miracles, death, resurrection and return of Christ to His pre incarnate state and a future consummation of the Kingdom of God. So you say I believe ‘The Creed’, at least I’m told I do I’ve never read it or recited it.
WHY BOTHER TO THINK ABOUT EVIL: The idea institutional evil is useful one as old as the Bible and he deals a good blow to Augustine’s ‘original sin’ – I do not go for Augustine’s inherited guilt / stain or Calvin’s total depravity, our nature is creation-ally good but flawed and weakened – sin is more like a virus we should be resisting, I think this is more in line with the Orthodox view. The Devil is another matter I’m convinced in his reality from scripture and many experiences of assisting people caught up in the occult and witchcraft some of which I cannot explain without reference to a supernatural component whether you put this down to my fundamentalism or being deeply disturbed is your call. Theodicy – human free will – natural disaster OK: two meaty books I recommend on the subject by Greg Boyd “Satan and the Problem of Evil – Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy” and “God at War – The Bible & Spiritual Conflict”. Another lighter book by Greg takes up the issue of blame “Is God to Blame”. In short many of the problems in theodicy are largely due to the stupidity of Augustine and Calvin and their concept of a God who is in control of everything.
WHY BOTHER TO THINK ABOUT FUNDAMENTALISM: The meaning of the term to the 1910-15 evangelicals is not what it means today, fundamentalism then did not equate to creationism or literalism as it presently does. Today fundamentalism and evangelicalism are two different things but an individual may be both. I am neither a creationist nor a literalist a good book dealing with the myth s about Christianity and its adherence to creationism is “Reason Science & Faith” by Roger Forster and Paul Marsden. I take the words and example of Jesus as the standard for values and behaviour – this requires a trust in the record of them in the Bible. Most evangelicals find abortion on demand and homosexuality (not homosexuals) abhorrent many are pacifist rather than as described which is my position. I see the origins of evangelicalism not in fear but in the love of Christ, I think his caricature here is a generalisation, inaccurate and unfair. Intolerance is not a fruit of greater certainty but of bigotry and he gives an impression of equating Christian evangelicals with Islamic ones.
WHY BOTHER TO THINK ABOUT GOD: I do not know if his facts are correct. In the late 1980s research at Oxford University showed many prayed at least in crisis (It may have changed). On a worldwide basis I think he has definitely got his facts skewed. In UK I think he’s probably right a residual belief that makes little difference to life. He ends seeming to have a ‘god symbol’ but no God. I’d rather start with the sceptics with the Orthodox statement that “the only thing we can know about God is that we can know nothing about God”.
WHY BOTHER TO THINK ABOUT HEAVEN & HELL: I’m not sure how many thinking evangelicals consider them places as such I tend to think of them as realms or states of existence. The up/down motif I take to mean that one realm/state is higher than the other on a spiritual/moral sense.
Heaven & hell was hardly dealt with in relation to an after-life. I certainly agree that an eternity of suffering is not justice for a lifetime of sin. Neither do I think the concept is Biblical, how could it be in relation to non immortal beings. The idea of the innately immortal soul is a Platonic one rather than a Biblical one. In terms of the various views of heaven and hell in relation to an afterlife I am a ‘conditionalist’.
LikeLike
Thanks for this Rob. I am warming to your version of the faith. I can see that it is informed and developed, although we will no doubt still have differences, but that is OK. I still cannot really though understand people who sign up to an Evangelical Alliance confession of faith. Some of the things in there seem bizarre – to take the Bible as ‘the authority’ (whatever that means), bare, without any reference to tradition – including traditions of interpretation.
I really appreciate your responses: it helps me get a better insight into a type of Christianity that has me baffled. The core sense of bafflement is how, often, seemingly nice and intelligent people can conform to modes of behaviour (including adherence to certain types of ‘statements of faith’) that just seem to me to be rather wooden dim reflections of a more true faith. I can see that your faith is developed, and that you said beforehand that you hadn’t looked at the statement of faith on your church website for some time, yet it is still there: how do you reconcile that, I wonder.
Thanks very much for your engagement with me. I haven’t responded directly to your comments that you have just made, as it is rather in the concepts that I want to explore differences, rather than in the detail of materials that reflect an approach to the faith that I find favour with. I hope that’s acceptable to you.
All best wishes,
S.
LikeLike
S:
I’ve done a bit more in answering your questions and will post in relation to sacraments. I will comment on the next six ‘Why Bother’ leaflet then look at the Evangelical Alliance Statement of faith and comment on any items left up in the air.
On the Bible evangelicals start with a firm conviction of its inspiration that means what we have was produced by men carried along by the Holy Spirit in their writing. This was not a dictation or a take-over of their personalities – they have their own culture style etc. I see evidence of this in fulfilled Biblical prophecy and its historical accuracy.
Perhaps a way forward once we have covered the overall position of evangelicals would be for you to present a few problem passages for such a view and see how I and perhaps Geoffrey would handle them.
I think you misunderstand a thinking evangelical’s appeal to scripture authority. It is not one that ignores tradition or traditional interpretations of scripture, the use of reason or comparison with other fields of knowledge. But it seems to me that tradition can and has developed way beyond any oral deposit of interpretation or information deposited by Christ first disciples. So evangelicals bring tradition to the scriptures and vice versa in determining their beliefs.
In this way you of course you get a range of opinion but it seems to have been the same with early theologians also. Sometimes the differing views cause some heat as has the issue of hell (as you might expect) and the nature of the atonement. I sit comfortably with these differences as I consider them, I form the best position I can and am content with or leave questions open.
LikeLike
Reply to Struans:
Sacraments: In a previous post I mentioned sacraments which prompted your question as to how that worked with no priesthood, I’ll comment on each of the traditional 7. I think this is a typical charismatic approach.
I was brought up in a tradition of two ‘ordinances’ baptism’ and ‘The Lords Supper’ as we termed it rather than seven sacraments. These ordinances were not seen to convey grace.
Baptism: Adult baptism was only seen an act of confession of faith on the basis of previous repentance. Baptism without personal faith and repentance I still consider to be faulty. Although many who are baptised as infants later come to personal faith and repentance and in good conscience may count their baptism as valid. I think it faulty theology that has brought them to this view but consider such as similar to catholic churches would view a baptism of intention. That’s why I used the term faulty rather than invalid, to me their baptism is validated by their wilful intention to follow Christ.
Communion: In my tradition communion was seen as a remembrance of the Lord and his sacrifice accompanied by worship in prayer and song. It took place each Sunday morning – in an open non liturgical assembly where all received bread and wine and any (male) member could contribute by way of distributing the elements, prayer, exhortation or teaching. I do not see this as a perpetuation of Christ sacrifice.
A Charismatic View: Coming into charismatic experience my views somewhat changed. These ordinances are touch points through which faith may be enlivened and so grace communicated – I’m concerned about the actual concrete experience of grace, which I might describe as the conscious reception of divine energy, rather than any theory about it or how it is conveyed. I used the word sacrament to imply that grace can be communicated by these physical means so outward signs of inward (form also outward) grace. Faith will usually be involved whether that of the recipient others or perhaps by the direct intervention of God with little evidence of faith. Focus and learn from the results not the rules.
Baptism performed publically in the presence of one’s community marks you out as one claiming to follow Christ and in a sense will set you apart from the worldly community and identify you with Christ community. It is in this sense “Likewise baptism saves you” 1 Peter 3:20-21 may be taken. As such baptism marks a clear break for a Muslim or person of another faith from their community and saves them from it.
It seems the early church met in homes and the communion was part of a fellowship meal. This is now our normal way. Some see this as sacrilegious but we consider it the other way around and that our daily life, fellowship and eating together as a community is sanctified in our communion with Christ. There is no differentiation between male or female functions.
Confirmation: Obviously has no part as a liturgical sacrament as adult conversion and baptism is in itself an individual commitment to faith. However in its intention as the impartation of the Holy Spirit I see a shadow of the early church converts experience of baptism in the Holy Spirit (trace the Biblical concept) when through the laying on of hands (not invariably require) disciples received the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts to empower their ministry and service to the church and the world. Again this is a conscious experience with definite results spiritual and practical.
Holy Orders: Following the above it seems appropriate to take this next. I believe the only New Testament priesthood is that of ‘all believers’. Each believer is called to service and gets her/his holly directions (orders in another sense) directly from God. The God given spiritual gifts and types of service (see list in Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 12 and Eph 4 as examples not necessarily comprehensive list) of individuals are recognised by the church. There are functions with authority that individuals are called to elders and deacons (presbyters). There is no differentiation between male or female functions.
Confession: Confession to one another in an open setting or to a member of the church with responsibility or particular skill is appropriate but not enforced. The power of forgiveness is Christ at times to bring restoration and comfort to the one making confession they may be declared forgiven by an individual in responsibility or the community. James 5.
Extreme Unction: It was originally meant to bring healing not to prepare the sick for death James 5. The change probably marks the decrease in spiritual power in the church and those claiming to be ministers of Christ.
Marriage: is a covenant between the two being married witnessed by state and the believing community. It is a representation of Christ relationship with His church a serious and holly state and covenant. It does not require the function of any priestly class to validate it.
LikeLike
Again Rob, I am very grateful to you to set out your views like this. I have now read what you have written twice, and I sense that the differences between us on these matters are not very great.
Perhaps I might ask what you mean by ‘divine energy’ out of interest?
I’m getting a better view of charismatics – at least in your tradition – from your writings. Again I am thankful for this. Perhaps I might be able to look forward to your completing my questions. I hope I am not seeming too demanding, but I really am grateful for your engagement…..I have for some months now been wanting to get to grips with forms of Christianity that puzzle me, but I find going to some of these churches unhelpful because the leaders and congregants there just don’t seem to want to engage.
S.
LikeLike
Struans: I’m aware the Orthodox speak about ‘the energies of God’ as opposed to God’s essence which they say is un-knowable. I tend to think that what we experience of God informs us somewhat of God as he actually is. But I was not intending to use the term ‘divine energies’ so specifically.
The church speaks of grace that is supposedly received via various religious/liturgical observances – but is it actually received, if so what consciousness do participants have of it – how do they know they have received it? I do not mean to say grace is not received if one is unconscious of it. I was trying to indicate that perhaps we should expect a conscious reception of grace more frequently – the term ‘divine energy’ seemed to convey the idea.
Such experience may be quite simple as a sense of God’s presence but at times more evidently supernatural by means of spiritual gifts, signs and wonders, dreams or visions etc. e.g. Rom. 12 or 1 Cor. 12
Sorry I did not reply sooner I am busy on a couple of websites for our company so further replies may take a while. My wife and I still head up a national organisation which we are currently trying to develop further in the UK and further afield.
An example of God’s input was in relation to guidance in the establishment of our business to the extent that my wife’s thesis for her MBA was titled “Called to be Different – the relationship of the Holy Spirit to business”. She was rather surprised that this study was accepted by Cardiff Business School. Basically our experience led her to enquire whether this sort of thing was the case for others.
I noticed from one of your post that you are also in business and was curious about what line of business that is.
LikeLike
Thanks again Rob – again I feel that I am close to where you are. However, I still don’t understand why you seem relaxed that you’re not following the standard Evangelical Alliance statement of faith. Even more so, I don’t understand why you would want to belong to a church which states itself to be so rigid. Most of these protestant churches set up because they didn’t like the more nuanced aspects of episcopal churches, and when bishops said that they couldn’t have the certainties that were wanted, people founded new independent churches based on various flavour of certainty.
I am in business myself yes – I used to be in investment banking, but now am in something related to educational services – something entrepreneurial.
That sounds like an interesting thesis I must say. Why don’t you post about that? It’s an area that I have a lot of interest in.
S.
LikeLike
Struans: I am not too sure what I have written that makes you think I am so removed from the Evangelical Alliance statement of faith or whether our views (or approach which is a different matter) agree as close as you consider. However I do not see intellectual agreement upon all these points as the basis of fellowship between Christians. So I will work through the EA Statement to assist:
Evangelical Alliance’s statement of faith – We believe in:
1. The one true God who lives eternally in three persons the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
I covered my view on this in my response to Mushtaq – I hold a traditional position as this is what I see as Biblical.
2. The love, grace and sovereignty of God in creating, sustaining, ruling, redeeming and judging the world.
I see no problem with this it is very wide. How sovereignty is interpreted may be Calvinistic, Armenian or my view ‘Open Theology’ to the extent that God determines some events, knows all future possibilities and responds appropriately to human choices in the accomplishment of His purpose in Christ. Creation I see as by an evolutionary process. I am not a Deist – God is not distant and disengaged with His creation He actively upholds it (generally what we see as natural laws) but may and does intervene by way of miracle.
3. The divine inspiration and supreme authority of the Old and New Testament Scriptures, which are the written Word of God fully trustworthy for faith and conduct.
I hold to this view:
– supreme authority does not imply there are no other authorities we can derive truth from
– OT/ NT Revelation was progressive and the ultimate revelation of God was Jesus and all scripture must be interpreted through His life, example and teaching.
– fully trustworthy – but not literally interpreted – 1st determine which type of literature is being considered e.g. is the text myth, history, prophetic, poetic/song, gospel, epistle or apocalyptic.
If we get this right I see little problem, no conflict with scientific evidence and no ‘magical thinking’.
4. The dignity of all people, made male and female in God’s image to love, be holy and care for creation, yet corrupted by sin, which incurs divine wrath and judgement.
This again may be interpreted in many ways perhaps the most controversial being wrath and judgement. The judgement of God upon creation was (as dealt with in Geoffrey’s post) was that ‘God gave them up’. The wrath of God in my view is what is left for those who reject Him i.e. the judgement of being without God and the consequences of that. Eternally that means God will not continue to uphold the existence of those who reject Him – an eternal destiny is ‘conditional’ as ‘God only has immortality’ and isolated from God there will be no existence i.e. ‘conditionalism’.
5. The incarnation of God’s eternal Son, the Lord Jesus Christ born of the virgin Mary, truly divine and truly human, yet without sin.
This view follows from my orthodox view of the trinity – the term ‘son’ is obviously an analogy an anthropomorphism for the eternal nature of the ‘Logos’ birthed from God. The term ‘person’ must be understood theologically not as another individual ‘being’ but as a mode in which God eternally exists. Incarnation – “The Logos became flesh” born of the virgin Mary.
6. The atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross: dying in our place, paying the price of sin and defeating evil, so reconciling us with God.
Again there are a number of views of the atonement ‘Christus Victor’ (Christ defeating evil) being the predominant Biblical motif that I hold to. The ‘forensic’ view cannot be considered uncritically.
7. The bodily resurrection of Christ, the firstfruit of our resurrection; his ascension to the Father, and his reign and mediation as the only Saviour of the world.
Resurrection the same body came out of the tomb but it was not resuscitation or the experience as Lazarus. The body of Jesus was transformed into a ‘Spiritual Body’. As I see it this body exists in another dimension in a spiritual form and may materialize at Christ’s will
8. The justification of sinners solely by the grace of God through faith in Christ.
Our salvation is “by grace through faith” Eph. 2:8 but many verses interpreted by Luther e.g. “The just shall live by faith” should actually be interpreted as “The just shall live by ‘faithfulness’” and the faithfulness in view is the ‘faithfulness’ of Christ. N. T. Wright the new perspective of ‘justification’.
9. The ministry of God the Holy Spirit, who leads us to repentance, unites us with Christ through new birth, empowers our discipleship and enables our witness.
The ministry of the Holy Spirit in these ways and through the development of the ‘fruit of the Spirit’ Gal.5 a Christ-like life and ‘Gifts of the Spirit” 1 Cor. 12; Rom. 12 is a charismatic emphasis.
10. The Church, the body of Christ both local and universal, the priesthood of all believers given life by the Spirit and endowed with the Spirit’s gifts to worship God and proclaim the gospel, promoting justice and love.
I think we all agree on this but interpret the concept of the ‘Universal Church’ differently.
11. The personal and visible return of Jesus Christ to fulfill the purposes of God, who will raise all people to judgement, bring eternal life to the redeemed and eternal condemnation to the lost, and establish a new heaven and new earth.
Probably the most difficult area (Magical thinking?) for you.
Visible return of Jesus Christ – Most Biblical texts dealing with this are apocalyptic but Acts seems unavoidable as a historical account and comment Acts 1:9-11. This like the resurrection is the manifestation/materialization of Christ who exists in another dimension, as will be the resurrection for judgement (see judgement and eternal condemnation above).
I hold the historic pre-millennial view of the 2nd coming which I understand can be traced back to Irenaeus.
New heaven and earth a ‘transformed heaven and earth’ a ‘new age’ the ‘consummation of the Kingdom of God’.
LikeLike
Thanks for this Rob. Again, you are being very kind. I am starting to understand that there are all sorts of flexible ways evangelicals may take their statements of faith. That is something new to me. I appreciate your sharing.
So often, when I meet evangelicals, they don’t want to discuss matters of faith like this. I can only surmise that either they are afraid out of being laughed at, or slipping up and being labelled a heretic of some sort by literalists, or else they think that there’s a taboo on this type of discussion – in the same manner that RCs won’t discuss things like women priests because to discuss such things would be to question the popes authority and that’s an even bigger no-no (to criticise a particular manner of reading the Bible would be the analogy for evangelicals, I guess).
Concerning the ‘second coming’ and the Acts passage you reference. The Ascension of Jesus surely doesn’t have to be taken literally – it’s a description of Christ’s place with the Father in the Biblical cosmology. The second coming to me will be when the body of Christ is complete – i.e. when, in some way, all of humanity are at one with God. That would be the point in time where, once again, humanity becomes divine, just as it does with Christ (according to the creeds).
Let me say though that the number one surprise for me from your list was that you’re a fan of Christus Victor – I was under the understanding that if one doesn’t go with penal substitution then that was a big no-no for evangelicals.
I’m learning from you, as I hoped I would. It’s so unusual for me to find an evangelical who is open about their faith in an intelligent manner.
Thanks once again.
S.
LikeLike