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!

Discussion

Dennis, et al.,

Part Three and Part Four of Bauder’s Nick series on the gospel may be helpful here. The Gospel of the Kingdom is a gospel of the same kind (but different); in Galatians, Paul is talking about a gospel of a different kind.

Father of three, husband of one, servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. I blog at mattolmstead.com.

… but “two distinct gospels” means that at least one of them is different. If one does not include repentance from sin and dead works and faith in Jesus Christ, it is different.

Dennis The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. ~ Proverbs 18:17

Folks, OT saints could not have put their faith in Jesus Christ since they did not know who he was. I say again, traditional dispensationalism teaches that salvation is always by God’s grace, it is always on the merits of the shed blood of Jesus Christ, and it is always through faith, but the content of that faith changes.

This is not different gospels, although I agree that Shower’s wording is unfortunate. I do not believe that Bauder or any McCunian dispenstionalist would call this multiple gospels.

Scott Aniol
Executive Director Religious Affections Ministries
Instructor of Worship, Southwestern Baptist

Where in church history do we find anyone making a distinction between the “Gospel of the kingdom” and the Gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection on our behalf? Do any of the church fathers speak of this? Any of the reformers? Any of the men of the first or second Great Awakenings? Bunyan? Spurgeon? Is this not a new doctrine? Christ is King and Head of His church now, and He will demonstrate that publically when His people come back with Him to destroy the earth and universe (Revelation 19:16; 2 Peter 3:9-13). The Gospel of the kingdom was “at hand” when Christ came. He announced it. He inaugurated it at His own resurrection (Acts 2:29-31). Showers’ distinction between two gospels is seriously confusing at best. But Showers gets at a point that needs pondering. Is the centerpiece of God’s plan to glorify Himself the setting up of an ethnic kingdom? Can we call Christ’s church His kingdom? Is not the centerpiece of God’s plan instead the death and resurrection of Christ in the establishment of the new covenant, with God demonstrating His justice and mercy in Christ on the Cross, reconciling a people (both OT and NT saints) to Himself? Or is that just a parentheses in God’s main plan for a future earthly kingdom for Israel? If a Jewish kingdom is a gospel, why am I not preaching that in the apartment complexes near our church? I believe Christ’s kingdom refers to Christ’s people. All born again people are citizens of that kingdom. Are we not a royal priesthood right now? Are we not reigning with Christ in the heavenlies at this moment? My hope is not set on any earthly kingdom, but on the heavenly kingdom which is being added to each day.

The earth shall soon dissolve like snow,

The sun forbear to shine;

But God, who called me here below,

Will be forever mine.

—John Newton, “Amazing Grace”

"Taste and See that the Lord is Good!" Ps. 34:8

Matthew S. Black, Pastor, Living Hope Bible Church of Roselle, Illinois

http://www.livinghopechurch.net

Scott, OT saints did put their trust in Jesus Christ, though they did not call Him by this name. We know that Isaiah saw Christ seated on a throne high and lifted up (Isaiah 6, cf. John 12:41). Isaiah 44:6 reveals the Redeemer who is the LORD of hosts as “the first and the last” (cf. Revelation 1:17). Obviously Christ is Jehovah of the Old Testament (I’m sure you have several books on this topic on your shelf). He is the Creator God. To say that they could not have put their faith in Him because they did not know who He was is not quite accurate. They did not know his name as the God-man, but they knew Him. Jacob wrestled with Him, and any one who wanted to be saved had to trust in Him. The gospel was preached to Abraham. Peter said all the prophets were “Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow” (I Peter 1:11). If the writers of Scripture knew they were writing and communicating of Christ in the very Scriptures, how can you say they did not know of Him? As Jesus said, “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39). This is where dispensationalism shoots itself in the foot. Certainly Christ is more clearly revealed as the God-man in the NT, but do you deny that the only Savior and Redeemer that OT saints looked to was Christ in the many ways He was revealed throughout the OT?

"Taste and See that the Lord is Good!" Ps. 34:8

Matthew S. Black, Pastor, Living Hope Bible Church of Roselle, Illinois

http://www.livinghopechurch.net

Matthew, in a quote above you cited Rev. 19:16. Keep reading a few verses and you’ll find that after Christ destroys his enemies, He sets up his kingdom on earth for 1000 years. This is the kingdom that he announced in the Gospels but was rejected.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

[Greg Long]… after Christ destroys his enemies, He sets up his kingdom on earth for 1000 years. This is the kingdom that he announced in the Gospels but was rejected.
Rejected by whom? The Jews, right? So why does he specifically refer to the nations (Gentiles) in the binding of Satan if this is about a Jewish kingdom?

To the earlier point, it was Showers himself that used the term two distinct gospels. Are we really so at odds about other matters that we refuse to call heresy what it is? Despite any differences, we should be united to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered. I’m not calling Showers a heretic, necessarily. But what he said is heresy, there’s no 2 ways about it.

Dennis The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. ~ Proverbs 18:17

[Dennis Clemons]
[Greg Long]… after Christ destroys his enemies, He sets up his kingdom on earth for 1000 years. This is the kingdom that he announced in the Gospels but was rejected.
Rejected by whom? The Jews, right? So why does he specifically refer to the nations (Gentiles) in the binding of Satan if this is about a Jewish kingdom?

To the earlier point, it was Showers himself that used the term two distinct gospels. Are we really so at odds about other matters that we refuse to call heresy what it is? Despite any differences, we should be united to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered. I’m not calling Showers a heretic, necessarily. But what he said is heresy, there’s no 2 ways about it.
Did you listen to the audio of Bauder? I think Bauder does a superb job of discussion God’s plans for the nations.

Father of three, husband of one, servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. I blog at mattolmstead.com.

Greg,

Are you a proponent of the “kingdom postponement theory”? I haven’t heard anyone propound that in years.

Also, if you believe that Christ sets up a literal, physical kingdom on earth, would you please answer a few questions?

1. If our Lord comes before a literal 1,000 year kingdom, what will be left of the earth for Him to reign on if the elements melt with fervent heat and the heavens are rolled back as a scroll (i.e. no universe and only a scorched earth)? (2 Peter 3:9-13; Revelation 6:14)? Is it a restored earth? Is there a sun and stars? How do you explain Peter’s Apocalypse in 2 Peter 3:9-13?

2. Also, if Christ comes as a thief in the night and takes vengeance on those that know not God, who will be left upon the earth? [2 Thessalonians 1:8]. Who will He reign over that eventually rebel against Him at the end (Revelation 20:8-10)?

3. If Christ does not destroy the earth when He comes, does this not radically alter the nature of Christ’s second coming? Isn’t His coming also called the “consummation”?

4. If the Bride of Christ is consummated and completed at His coming, is there another resurrection for believers after the 1,000 year reign? If so where is this in Scripture? When is the Bride presented to Christ if not at the resurrection (Revelation 19:7-8; Ephesians 5:27).

Concerning dispensational premillennialism…

5. Can you trace dispensational premillennialism back before 1830? Perhaps you will name the Jesuit priest Ribera in 1591 or the Jesuit priest Manuel de Lacunza in 1811. Of course, Lacunza’s book “The Coming of Messiah” was translated into English by a Scottish radical named Edward Irving in 1827 where Lacunza suggested a rapture followed by a 45 day tribulation period. Darby admitted that he had been influenced by the writings of the Lacunza. It wasn’t until 1870 that Darby began to propose a rapture separated from the Second Coming by a seven year tribulation. This was the first time in human history that this was proposed. By the way, Spurgeon gave his opinion of this new doctrine at the time as it related to ecclesiology: “Distinctions have been drawn by certain exceedingly wise men (measured by their own estimate of themselves), between the people of God who lived before the coming of Christ, and those who lived afterwards. We have even heard it asserted that those who lived before the coming of Christ do not belong to the church of God! We never know what we shall hear next, and perhaps it is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed at one time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement. Why, every child of God in every place stands on the same footing; the Lord has not some children best loved, some second-rate offspring, and others whom he hardly cares about… Before the first advent, all the types and shadows all pointed one way—they pointed to Christ, and to him all the saints looked with hope. Those who lived before Christ were not saved with a different salvation to which shall come to us. They exercised faith as we must; that faith struggled as ours struggles, and that faith obtained its reward as our shall. [Charles Spurgeon. Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 15, Sermon 848, “Jesus Christ Immutable” (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1869), 1.]

6. Do you think Edwards, Whitefield, Wesley, Luther, Calvin, all the Puritans, Bunyan, etc. also misread their Bible concerning end times? If so, is it just because you think you are right or because you have actually worked through their understanding of Scripture? Would you put Darby, “Dr.” Scofield (Scofield gave himself his own doctorate by simply calling himself “doctor”), and Edward Irving, the principle founders of dispensational thought, on the same level of theological, spiritual, and devotional depth as the Reformers, the Puritans, and the preachers of the Great Awakening?

7. Are you willing to entrust your theological system to a founder who was confused about the way of salvation for OT saints? Scofield wrote: ”As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ….The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation”. (page 1343 of the Scofield Reference Bible). Obviously no one believes this today, but the very moorings of your system were shaped by Scofield. He had many other serious errors, ethical problems, and moral deficiencies as well, but that is for another time. See Joseph Canfield’s The Incredible Scofield and His Book (Ross House Books, Vallencito, CA, 1988) to substantiate these claims.

For full disclosure, I hold to an a-millennial eschatology similar to Dr. Peter Masters of Spurgeon’s Metropolitan Tabernacle in London.

"Taste and See that the Lord is Good!" Ps. 34:8

Matthew S. Black, Pastor, Living Hope Bible Church of Roselle, Illinois

http://www.livinghopechurch.net

[Dennis Clemons]
[Greg Long]… after Christ destroys his enemies, He sets up his kingdom on earth for 1000 years. This is the kingdom that he announced in the Gospels but was rejected.
Rejected by whom? The Jews, right? So why does he specifically refer to the nations (Gentiles) in the binding of Satan if this is about a Jewish kingdom?

To the earlier point, it was Showers himself that used the term two distinct gospels. Are we really so at odds about other matters that we refuse to call heresy what it is? Despite any differences, we should be united to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered. I’m not calling Showers a heretic, necessarily. But what he said is heresy, there’s no 2 ways about it.
Dennis, Scott already addressed your charge of “a different gospel” and “heresy” in his quote above, and I concur with what he said.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

[Matthew_Black] Scott, OT saints did put their trust in Jesus Christ, though they did not call Him by this name. We know that Isaiah saw Christ seated on a throne high and lifted up (Isaiah 6, cf. John 12:41). Isaiah 44:6 reveals the Redeemer who is the LORD of hosts as “the first and the last” (cf. Revelation 1:17). Obviously Christ is Jehovah of the Old Testament (I’m sure you have several books on this topic on your shelf). He is the Creator God. To say that they could not have put their faith in Him because they did not know who He was is not quite accurate. They did not know his name as the God-man, but they knew Him. Jacob wrestled with Him, and any one who wanted to be saved had to trust in Him. The gospel was preached to Abraham. Peter said all the prophets were “Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow” (I Peter 1:11). If the writers of Scripture knew they were writing and communicating of Christ in the very Scriptures, how can you say they did not know of Him? As Jesus said, “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39). This is where dispensationalism shoots itself in the foot. Certainly Christ is more clearly revealed as the God-man in the NT, but do you deny that the only Savior and Redeemer that OT saints looked to was Christ in the many ways He was revealed throughout the OT?
But Matthew this is not the point. Of course salvation has always been because of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the Son of God. But you admit the very thing we dispensationalists are saying—OT saints didn’t believe in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the salvation because they didn’t know His name! Yes, they believed God’s promises to send a redeemer, etc, etc.

As Scott said, I would not use the wording Showers did of “two distinct gospels.”

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

I would really like clarification on this point. Protestant Christianity, outside Dispensationalism, has taught that men of all ages were saved by a personal faith in the person and work of Christ. In pre-Christian times, this person was not known by a name and this work was not connected with the details of a Roman cross and (perhaps) a bodily resurrection. Yet, non-Dispensational Protestants affirm that they personally trusted in a Someone who would do something to save them, because they knew they could not save themselves. Now, if all Scott meant was that these OT saints did not know him by the name “Jesus” and were unaware of the details of his life, I don’t know why he even bothered to say it. Such an obvious point has never been contradicted in the history of Christianity. So, I am taking Scott’s comments to mean he believes Old Testament saints were justified by a faith other than one in a Messiah who would atone for sins.

The evidence for this is, in my opinion, quite plenteous. First, the Genesis 3 promise combined with the institution of sacrifice (God himself first clothing them) taught them that atonement must be made for sin, and that only God could provide such atonement. Moving on, there is Enoch, through whom God revealed at least some doctrines related to final judgment of the ungodly. For that to make any sense, Enoch must have known the difference from the ungodly and the godly, and that it was more than just a lifestyle.

Next there is Job. Job (the person) is almost universally dated either in the pre-patriarchal or patriarchal period by conservative scholars. Yet, a theology of the book of Job will show most of the features of OT religion, even though there was no written revelation at that time. Obviously, God was communicating quite thoroughly in other ways. One common quote will suffice: “Job 19:25-27 25 For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth. 26 And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God, 27 whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another. My heart faints within me!” Here we have God identified as the “Redeemer,” the affirmation of God’s future reign on the earth, and the hope of a bodily resurrection. Kind of hard to believe he would know all that and not have an inkling about Messiah.

Next is Abraham. There is much to say about Abraham, but I will simply appeal quickly to Romans 3-4. In Romans 3, Paul concludes that the result of Christ’s work is that “[God] might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (v. 26). In chapter 4, Paul says Abraham is the “father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised” (v. 12). In other words, even in the Christian era, Jews who believe in Christ are Jews who have (essentially) the faith that Abraham had. Obviously, Abraham recognized the spiritual dimensions of the covenant more than some interpreters give him credit for.

Moses, too, had a faith in Christ. Hebrews 11:24-26 24 By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, 25 choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward. Here we see that before Moses ever saw the burning bush or led the Exodus or received the 10 commandments, he had a personal cognizance of Christ. At least, I don’t see how he could have “considered” Christ without knowing about him.

By David’s time, the Messianic prophecy is simply too great to come to any conclusion other than that Israelite religion was focused on a coming Messiah who would deal with sin and reign in righteousness.

Isaiah stands, as it were, beneath the cross.

So, if someone wishes to say that Abraham was justified before God simply by believing he would have a child or find a city, I deny it. There is no reason why that sort of faith should save. Why should a person be accounted righteous for believing that God would give them temporal blessings? That’s the gospel we’re fighting against all over the world. Surely there is such a thing as insufficient faith. Not just any statement or promise from God carries with it eternal life.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

I am not interested in engaging in a prolonged debate over the merits and demerits of DT vs. CT. at this point. It seems outside the scope of this thread at any rate.

But I do want to stress that the theology in question is not advocating multiple ways of salvation.

To make this point, I’ll quote from Allen P. Ross, “The Biblical Method of Salvation: A Case for Discontinuity” in Feinberg, Continuity and Discontinuity.

“… there is no discontinuity between the Testaments in the method of salvation; that is, salvation has always been by grace through faith. Any discontinuity that exists comes in various aspects of salvation – notably the content of faith, the expression of faith, the work of the Holy Spirit, and the prospect of the saved” (161).

“… proponents of each view have not always listened carefully to or presented accurately the other side. For example, most scholars are no doubt familiar with the poorly worded statement in the Scofield Reference Bible that says: ‘The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ… .’ This statement opened up all dispensationalists to the charge of teaching two methods of salvation: salvation by works under the Old Covenant and salvation by grace under the New. It apparently did not matter that Scofield himself and other dispensationalist writers affirmed elsewhere that salvation was by grace int he OT, and that no one was ever justified by works, for the charge of teaching salvation by works has remained” (162).

“It should be acknowledged at the outset of this discussion that both covenant theologians and dispensationalists affirm that there has always been but one method of salvation; but it should also be acknowledged that neither side has always expressed the relationship between law and grace precisely enough to harmonize with the affirmation” (162).

“There is always the danger of reading NT soteriology back into passages wherever words for salvation occur. Biblical theologians must recognize that there are differences between the Testaments in the ways the words are used” (163).

He quotes Ryrie: “The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirements for salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations. It is this last point, of course, which distinguishes dispensationalism from covenant theology, but it is not a point to which the charge of teaching two ways of salvation can be attached. It simply recognizes the obvious fact of progressive revelation” (164).

“Many biblical scholars have stressed the uniformity of the method of salvation to such an extent that they make NT revelation the necessary content of the faith of OT believers” (169).

“If the writers [he quotes Hodge and others] mean by [their statements such as ‘the Redeemer is the same under all dispensations’] taht the person and work of Jesus Christ was literally revealed to OT believers as the content of saving faith, then their position is untenable. The OT shows no evidence of such revelation and the NT witnesses against it. It took the work of Jesus Christ himself to reveal fully (Heb 1:1-2) how all the OT prophecies and types would come together in God’s redemptive plan (1 Pter 1:10-12). This is not to say that individuals in the world of the OT could not have discerned the fuller meaning of some of the passages, for that is certainly possible, especially if we are speaking of an Isaiah. But it is most improbably that everyone who believed unto salvation consciously believed in the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (170).

“Thus, we may affirm that according to the eternal purpose of God salvation in the divine reckoning is always by grace, through faith, and rests upon the shed blood of Christ; but we must acknowledge that it was historically impossible that OT saints should have had as the conscious object of their faith the incarnate, crucified Son, the Lamb of God, and that it is evident that they did not comprehend as we do that the sacrifices depicted the person and work of Christ” (171).

“Ultimately the content of saving faith in any age must be God and his revelation concerning participation in his covenant (what we call salvation). Believers were ultimately taking God at his word when they responded to the truth in their situations. But as revelation continued, the content of faith grew” (172).

He lists from Gen. 12:1-3 what he believes the content of Abraham’s faith was: (1) God is alive. (2) God is the sovereign Lord. (3) God is the righteous judge. (4) God is gracious. He then goes on to say,

“From this brief sketch it may be observed that Abraham had a good general knowledge of the person and plan of God, but it is not the NT gospel. Basically Abraham believed the promise of blessing that the living God graciously gave to him. The content of his faith, and of his descendants’ faith, would grow; but his initial act of faith meant simply that he took God at his word, the word that God had given him” (172-173).

Scott Aniol
Executive Director Religious Affections Ministries
Instructor of Worship, Southwestern Baptist

Scott, I will honor your desire not to be involved in a prolonged discussion. I will ignore the fact that you addressed none of my Scripture and proceeded to copy-paste multiple passages that did not really address the concerns expressed in this thread. I will simply ask two quick questions:

1. Is there any definite unchanging content of saving faith, other than its being directed toward Yahweh?

2. Is saving faith necessarily Messianic, that is, believing that personal sin will be/was dealt with by a Messiah?

I answer yes to both. Really, #2 is my answer to #1. If you cannot affirm #2, then to my perspective, that is “multiple ways of salvation” even if professed otherwise. One cannot establish a consistent Biblical basis for why man should be justified by any sort of faith. If there is no Christ in the faith, it makes the OT religion an essentially different religion from ours.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin