GARBC Conference '09 - Day 2
Just a few paragraphs to wrap up day two at the GARBC Conference in Elyria.
Today was a first for me; it was my first time hearing “Rennie” Showers. Rennie is on staff with the Friends of Israel gospel ministry, and writes extensively for Israel, My Glory magazine. He has written several well-known books on dispensationalism, eschatology, and Christian advocacy for the geo-political state of Israel (commonly referred to as Christian Zionism). The notes he has presented are extensive, but as I mentioned in my twitter posts, he seems to be making broad and sweeping generalizations regarding Covenant Theology. When presenting their positions,
he offers no direct quotes and no bibliography. He simply states that “This is the covenant theologian’s position.” While I want to guard against lobbing unnecessary stones, it seems to me that his argument would be strengthened if he actually quoted CT’ers (Covenant Theologians) in their own words rather than presenting their positions in his own words.
Also see my tweets on Showers’ view regarding multiple gospels. If I understood him correctly,
he stated that Abraham did not believe in Christ or even a coming Messiah; rather, the object of his faith was in the promise of God to provide him a son (Isaac) in his old age (Romans 4 was offered as proof). In my opinion, this multiple gospel view (Christ also preached another gospel … the gospel of the kingdom) comes dangerously close to affirming multiple ways of salvation. Acts 4:12 seems to refute a “multiple gospel” view of history.
Although each of the speakers and workshop leaders appears to be a traditional dispensationalist, it is intriguing to identify the nuances of each as he presents the traditional view and contrasts that with CT. Dr. Bauder has shown a gracious spirit toward those who may not hold a traditional DT (Dispensational Theology) hermeneutic, while others have offered no praise or affection for any CT’er. Perhaps—and I want to give the benefit of the doubt here—this is a simple oversight on the part of several of the speakers. For the sake of the gospel, though, it would be reassuring to hear some praise for the CT’ers high view of Scripture, their call for a pure gospel, and their love of truth. I have heard this courtesy from the other side of the aisle, but it seems slow to come from this side.
One final concern before I offer a few brief reporting snippets: we have yet to hear any speaker address or acknowledge the weaknesses of the traditional dispensational system. Having heard a number of critiques of CT, several attendees have expressed their desire for the speakers and panelists (I’ll explain the panel in a moment) to acknowledge and address the apparent weaknesses of dispensational theology. It seems that those who are confident in their theological system express their confidence best when they are willing to self-critique that system. I’m hoping it will happen prior to our departure on Friday!
Now for a few, brief report-style snippets:
1) Attendance improved today, and we are expecting an overflowing crowd for tomorrow evening’s gathering. First Baptist will offer overflow seating to accommodate 400 via live video streaming. If you are attending the conference, arrive early on Wednesday evening.
2) New to this year’s conference was this afternoon’s panel discussion. The topic (of course) was dispensationalism. Attendees (approximately 200 attended this inaugural event) were given the opportunity to ask questions related to dispensationalism. Sitting on the panel were: Dr. John Hartog III (FBBC & TS), Dr. Kevin Bauder (CTS, Minneapolis), Dr. Rennie Showers (FOI), and Dr. Mike Stallard (BBC & S, Clarks Summit). Several attendees took advantage of the opportunity to ask questions, and did not adhere to the dispensational topic. Questions regarding broader fundamentalism and Calvinism were asked, as were questions related to specific individuals in conservative evangelicalism and gospel-centered gatherings like Together For The Gospel and The Gospel Coalition. Several panelists made statements regarding the perceived danger of an over-emphasizing the gospel (in Stallard’s words, “One of my concerns is how my students are responding to this. For groups such as T4G to place such an emphasis on the first coming, they must deemphasize the second coming. I want my students to not diminish their interest in the second coming.”).
Showers responded by stating, “We are not saying that we are trying to downplay the gospel; we are saying that the gospel is the center of CT. That’s the whole thing God is doing throughout history [in their minds]. This is one of the reasons they are amillennial. CT is saying that salvation is the thing God is doing throughout history, and that is why they don’t see any need to talk about future events.”
Bauder appeared to temper the tone of the previous responses by stating: ”We, as dispensationalists, draw a distinction between the gospel as the center of our system, and the gospel as the center of God’s overall plan. When it comes to the system of faith, the gospel is the hub of that system—so much so, that we can use the gospel as the touchstone in providing an answer to many theological questions. The real question is this: how does God intend to bring glory to Himself? The CT: the history of redemption. The DT: the history of redemption, but there’s more than that. The DT insists that God intends to glorify Himself in many and various ways.”
Later, when asked if it possible to make too much an issue of dispensationalism, Bauder acknowledged that, “It’s possible to make more out of dispensationalism than ought to be made … It is not a fundamental of the faith, it is not the gospel. I do not withhold fellowship from CT’ers! My greatest hero in the faith was a Covenant Theologian, as is my best friend in the faith.”
Overall, the discussion seemed profitable. Tomorrow, several round table discussions will be held with the panelists leading the discussions.
3) The Articles of Faith amendment re-clarifying the GARBC’s stand on the pre-trib rapture passed overwhelmingly. There were only six “no” votes. Don’t even ask!
The Lord is blesing our time together as an association, and the time renewing acquaintances and friendships has been refreshing!
See you tomorrow on twitter, and tomorrow evening here on the SI Liveblog!
- 86 views
This assertion that the object of faith changes is not multiple gospels. Salvation is and has always been on the merits of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and it is and always has been acquired by faith.
But if you read through the timeline of Scripture without reading NT back into the OT, you have to come out with the fact that the object of the faith is only the promises of God that have been revealed up to that point. Certainly truth about the Messiah was progressively revealed in the OT, but to insist that OT saints had any conception of Jesus Christ or what he was going to do is difficult to prove. Certainly some understood more than others, but it was not until the person of Jesus Christ himself came to earth that God’s plan was fully revealed. Even his disciples didn’t understand!
Scott Aniol
Executive Director Religious Affections Ministries
Instructor of Worship, Southwestern Baptist
[Scott Aniol] Ken, you’re being quite ironic in your statements here. In one of your tweets, you targeted dispensationalists as those who read the NT back into the OT. However, if you want to insist that Abraham, for instance, knew anything about Jesus Christ or even the coming Messiah as an object of his faith, it is you who have to really read NT back into Abraham’s narrative to get that! :)Scott,
This assertion that the object of faith changes is not multiple gospels. Salvation is and has always been on the merits of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and it is and always has been acquired by faith.
But if you read through the timeline of Scripture without reading NT back into the OT, you have to come out with the fact that the object of the faith is only the promises of God that have been revealed up to that point. Certainly truth about the Messiah was progressively revealed in the OT, but to insist that OT saints had any conception of Jesus Christ or what he was going to do is difficult to prove. Certainly some understood more than others, but it was not until the person of Jesus Christ himself came to earth that God’s plan was fully revealed. Even his disciples didn’t understand!
I don’t have much time … the morning session is beginning. I do want you to know that Showers himself used the terminology of “different” or multiple “gospels.”
A quote from his notes: “The message of God that Abraham believed for salvation was not the same as the gospel message that Paul defined for salvation … The gospel of the kingdom [the gospel Jesus preached] was not the same as the gospel message that Paul defined for salvation.”
So the terminology of multiple or different gospels is not mine; it’s Showers’.
Acts 4:12 still applies. If not, we fall into the trap of theological liberals and moderates like Rick Warren who use Romans 4 as evidence that someone can go to heaven without believing on Christ. As long as they believe in a single God (often used in relation to people living in Africa who never hear of Christ) in a single God like Abraham … and if they understand that He is a God who keeps His promises … God will save them apart from faith in Christ. If it happened with Abraham, what would keep it from happening today … that’s their logic, and its foundation appears to be in this brand of dispensational teaching.
In Abe’s day, the Messiah had already been prophesied (Gen. 3:15). Job had already proclaimed, “I know that my Redeemer lives.” There is no salvation apart from Christ. Ever.
Again, the multiple and different gospels (Showers is asserting there are three different gospels people have believed that procured salvation for them) is Showers’ own terminology. Needless to say, it has caused a bit of a raucous amid various dispys who are present here at the conference.
Finally, consider Galatians 3 … it seems very clear Abraham’s faith is a response to the “promise by faith in Jesus Christ given to those who believe” (verse 22, compare with verse 18).
Sorry for the convoluted response. More later.
Ken Fields
Ryrie’s contention is absurd for several reasons. First, one has to ask what Adam, Abel, and especially Enoch had to believe to be saved. Obviously, as time goes on, it must be either the same or more, not less. Second, there is no rationale for the idea that believing a generic promise of God should bring salvation. Abraham was saved by believing God would give him temporal blessings? That’s the gospel we’re fighting against in America. Third, you’ve already alluded to statements that testify to the contrary. Another one is Hebrews 11:26.Obviously, the early peoples of God knew a lot more than is explicitly contained in the Biblical history, as Job alone proves.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Scott Aniol] However, if you want to insist that Abraham, for instance, knew anything about Jesus Christ or even the coming Messiah as an object of his faith, it is you who have to really read NT back into Abraham’s narrative to get that! :)quote]
This is a New Testament verse, but I think Jesus explains pretty clearly that Abraham did indeed know something “about Jesus Christ or even the coming Messiah.” Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. John 8:56
Ken, I read all the tweets. I wonder if anytime during the conference, a speaker will get on millennial animal sacrifices, priestly system, etc. I took our church family through Ezekiel, and then back to Isaiah, and now we are in Jeremiah, chapter by chapter. It has been a fabulous adventure over the past several years. This week, we are in Jeremiah 31, coupling this with Hebrews 8-10, which is softening even more in my heart a strict grip on a classic dispensational hermeneutic.
“For the sake of the gospel, though, it would be reassuring to hear some praise for the CT‘ers high view of Scripture, their call for a pure gospel, and their love of truth. I have heard this courtesy from the other side of the aisle, but it seems slow to come from this side.”
That’s strange, because I hear almost nothing from CTers but disdain for dispensationalism.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Todd Wood] Ken, I read all the tweets. I wonder if anytime during the conference, a speaker will get on millennial animal sacrifices, priestly system, etc. I took our church family through Ezekiel, and then back to Isaiah, and now we are in Jeremiah, chapter by chapter. It has been a fabulous adventure over the past several years. This week, we are in Jeremiah 31, coupling this with Hebrews 8-10, which is softening even more in my heart a strict grip on a classic dispensational hermeneutic.Todd,
Nothing thus far, and I’m not sure Showers is going to get there. And I’m rather sure that Bauder isn’t going there, either.
Ken Fields
[Greg Long] Sorry, Ken, can’t let this one slide…Greg,
“For the sake of the gospel, though, it would be reassuring to hear some praise for the CT‘ers high view of Scripture, their call for a pure gospel, and their love of truth. I have heard this courtesy from the other side of the aisle, but it seems slow to come from this side.”
That’s strange, because I hear almost nothing from CTers but disdain for dispensationalism.
Yes, I have correctly stated my experience. One specifically comes to mind: Sam Waldron’s critique of MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto at a recent (2 or 3 years ago) Shepherd’s Conference.
I have heard others (even Mike Horton of The White Horse Inn) caveat their concerns with dispensational theology by praising the dispy’s high view of Scripture, love of truth, etc.
I’m sorry your experience may be different than mine, but I am am being truthful and honest.
Ken Fields
[Greg Long] Ken, Robert, and others, please help me understand your position. Are you saying that Abraham and Adam, and Enoch, and all OT saints placed their faith in Jesus Christ of Nazareth and His death on the cross to save them from their sins?No, but I am saying that the object of their faith was more than a mere mental assent that the promises of God would come to pass. Even Job stated, “I know that MY REDEEMER LIVES … and that one day He will stand on the earth … and my eyes shall see HIM!” Also, note Hebrews 11:26.
Certainly the OT saints did not understand Christ and redemption as clearly as we; but their faith was not blind. Even Isaiah understood … along with David … that the Messiah would suffer … and ultimately die. Job understood the same thing … and he lived prior to Abraham (I think).
Acts 4:12 still applies here: there is no salvation apart from Christ and outside of Christ — regardless of when a sinner lived!
Ken Fields
[KenFields]Then I’m not sure where you disagree with what I understand the dispensational position to be. No one that I know is arguing there is salvation outside of Christ. But Rom. 4 coupled with Gen. 15 is quite clear: “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness.” Abraham believed God’s promises concerning His covenant with Abraham. As much as God had revealed to him, Abraham believed.[Greg Long] Ken, Robert, and others, please help me understand your position. Are you saying that Abraham and Adam, and Enoch, and all OT saints placed their faith in Jesus Christ of Nazareth and His death on the cross to save them from their sins?No, but I am saying that the object of their faith was more than a mere mental assent that the promises of God would come to pass. Even Job stated, “I know that MY REDEEMER LIVES … and that one day He will stand on the earth … and my eyes shall see HIM!” Also, note Hebrews 11:26.
Certainly the OT saints did not understand Christ and redemption as clearly as we; but their faith was not blind. Even Isaiah understood … along with David … that the Messiah would suffer … and ultimately die. Job understood the same thing … and he lived prior to Abraham (I think).
Acts 4:12 still applies here: there is no salvation apart from Christ and outside of Christ — regardless of when a sinner lived!
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Here is my problem: that means Abraham believed less than Job. So what was the object of faith God required for salvation in the OT? Was it different for everyone?
Job understood that God was his redeemer … and that he himself needed redemption … he needed to be purchased with a payment by God Himself. This presupposes suffering and the giving of a life.
So Job believed this, but Abraham believed God’s promise about giving him a son?
So what did Adam believe? And Joseph? And Moses?
The object of their faith was Christ … regardless of whether they knew His name or the particulars of His life and ministry. God had already revealed enough about Christ for them to place their faith in a coming Redeemer: Genesis 3:15.
Ken Fields
—Renald E. Showers. There Really Is A Difference (Belmawr, NJ: Friends of Israel, 2002), 3.
"Taste and See that the Lord is Good!" Ps. 34:8
Matthew S. Black, Pastor, Living Hope Bible Church of Roselle, Illinois
[Galatians 1:6-9] 6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel: 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
DennisThe first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. ~ Proverbs 18:17
Discussion