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
What do you make of Acts 4:12, in which Peter states, “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
If I’m going to press non-dispys on this matter in the same way they are pressing dispys, I would say that Peter clearly says there is no salvation at all except through the name of Jesus Christ. So how can you say that Old Testament saints were saved without any knowledge of the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth?
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
I will address one Scripture passage in Scott’s copy-paste.
1 Peter 1:10-12 10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, 11 inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. 12 It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.
It seems evident to me that the prophets did understand the kernel of the message, Christ’s suffering and glory. They were unclear about the “who” and “when.” Showers (quote above) seems to me to caricature the issue. Once again, no Reformed theologian has ever insisted that Moses knew Jesus’ name or even that he must be the Son of God. However, substitutionary atonement is clearly prefigured by the sacrificial system, which dates back to Adam. The Messianic promise is given in Genesis 3. I insist that Old Testament faith was always Messianic in character - no one gets to heaven by believing that God will save them from a flood or give them a piece of land. That is Pelagianizing in character.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Charlie] Greg, I really don’t understand your point. I’m sure I interpret Acts 4:12 the same way you do, meaning that in the present dispensation the Messiah has been identified by name, and he must be believed in for salvation. I don’t think that tells us anything about what Old Testaments saints believed. Would you clarify your position? Earlier, you said, “Yes, they believed God’s promises to send a redeemer, etc, etc.” That’s about all I’m saying - that Old Testament religion from Adam was always about belief in one who was coming, but that the details of that coming were progressively revealed.Then we are in more agreement than disagreement. And perhaps dispensationalists are not preaching another, heretical gospel.
[Charlie] I will address one Scripture passage in Scott’s copy-paste.Once again, we are in agreement in essence.
1 Peter 1:10-12 10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, 11 inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. 12 It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.
It seems evident to me that the prophets did understand the kernel of the message, Christ’s suffering and glory. They were unclear about the “who” and “when.”
[Charlie] Showers (quote above) seems to me to caricature the issue. Once again, no Reformed theologian has ever insisted that Moses knew Jesus’ name or even that he must be the Son of God. However, substitutionary atonement is clearly prefigured by the sacrificial system, which dates back to Adam. The Messianic promise is given in Genesis 3. I insist that Old Testament faith was always Messianic in character - no one gets to heaven by believing that God will save them from a flood or give them a piece of land. That is Pelagianizing in character.Now I think you’re caricaturing the dispensational position and minimizing the nature of the Abrahamic Covenant. It wasn’t just God saying, “Hey, Abraham, I’m going to give you a piece of land” and Abraham saying, “Cool! I believe you!” and God saying, “All right then, you’re also justified!” But I really don’t see how Romans 4 and Genesis 15 could be any clearer. Perhaps God had revealed to Abraham more than what we read in Genesis, but I don’t see how we can be dogmatic about that. And it seems to ignore the NT passages that stress the new way in which God was revealing Himself through Jesus Christ (e.g., Heb. 1:1-2).
Scott’s post (copy and paste or not) had some extremely salient points, IMO, and I’d like to see you address them.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Scott Aniol] 1. No.I would suggest, my brother, that you are naively ignoring the fact that seeing Christ in the OT has been absolutely essential for Christianity since its inception, and was an essential element of patristic exegesis and understanding of Scirpture. Literalists like Marcion were the heretics in the early church, precisely because they would not see Christ in the Old Testament. No typology, no Christ fore-shadowed, in short, no Christ in the Old Testament means no Christianity. Your position is only supportable through an ignorance of the early church and its understanding of Scripture.
2. No.
I would suggest, my brother, that you are naively ignoring the nature of progressive revelation and reading NT revelation back into the OT.
Biblical interpretation has fallen apart since the Reformation, and positions like Dispensationalism are only possible because of the hermeneutic transformations that tooks place in the Enlightenment and thereafter, as they are brillianty described by Hans Frei in The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative.
Dispensationalism does not entail ignorance and a devaluation of historical theology, church history, and pre-modern exegesis, but it could only have occured where these factors were present, prevalent, and plausible, and it is largely only accepted within contexts in which the norm is to suspect or not see the essential need for historical theology, attention to historical exegesis, etc. Where that need is recognized, Dispensationalism becomes incredibly implausible.
I would always bet that if I know the trajectory of someones attitude towards and knowledge of the history of the church and its thought, I can tell you the trajectory of their belief in dispensationalism. That also allows backwards inferefence from the kind of attitude and belief a person has with respect to dispensationalism, and the kind of attitude and beliefs they have with respect to church history, theology, etc.
I think it’s those issue that conditions people’s positions, and they are not issues about which one can simply argue.
Please explain to me, Joseph, who said anything about not seeing Christ in the Old Testament?
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
In short, I believe John 14:6 to be applicable to all ages.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Greg Long] The condescension towards dispensationalism reaches a new low. But of course, I can’t argue with it.I think that the only statement that could reasonably be construed as condescending is the opening statement, which I borrowed from Scott, so you’ll have to take up the issue of condenscion with him.
Please explain to me, Joseph, who said anything about not seeing Christ in the Old Testament?
I used it to parallel his opening statement.
[Joseph] I would suggest, my brother, that you are naively ignoring the fact that seeing Christ in the OT has been absolutely essential for Christianity since its inception, and was an essential element of patristic exegesis and understanding of Scirpture. Literalists like Marcion were the heretics in the early church, precisely because they would not see Christ in the Old Testament. No typology, no Christ fore-shadowed, in short, no Christ in the Old Testament means no Christianity. Your position is only supportable through an ignorance of the early church and its understanding of Scripture.Joseph, not one person on this thread has said anything to the effect of the OT does not point forward to Christ. To accuse Scott of that is crazy. Did I misread your post?
Biblical interpretation has fallen apart since the Reformation, and positions like Dispensationalism are only possible because of the hermeneutic transformations that tooks place in the Enlightenment and thereafter, as they are brillianty described by Hans Frei in The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative.
Furthermore, a literal hermeneutic should be an essential characteristic of Fundamentalists. Are you saying that people who hold to a literal hermeneutic are in error?
"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
[Greg Long] As Scott said, I would not use the wording Showers did of “two distinct gospels.”If Showers was correctly quoted, he called it “two distinct gospels”, not one to contemporaries of Abraham juxtaposed against His own contemporaries but 2 for differing groups who were contemporaries of each other. That is astounding. So what were the 2 gospels that Christ was giving? One to the Gentiles based on His future death, burial and resurrection and one to the Jews based on something else? Why not one gospel to all?
Greg, I can respect a dispensationalist like MacArthur who will call out heresy when he hears it but you are coming across as defending Showers’ heresy because he is dispensational.
DennisThe first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. ~ Proverbs 18:17
Discussion