Tom Stegall on the FGA Panel Discussion
Following is the report I received this afternoon from Pastor Tom Stegall.
Dear Lou:
Greetings in the Lord. I’ve now arrived home from a profitable last few days at the Free Grace Alliance Conference in Dallas. It was a great opportunity to see many other fellow believers from around the country who are committed to proclaiming and living by God's all-sufficient grace. It was also a chance to meet many new people and establish relationships in the Lord that I trust will continue to grow over the years.
As you and your readers know, there was a panel discussion on the subject of whether explicit knowledge of Christ’s death and resurrection is necessary in order to receive eternal life. I was privileged to be asked to be on the panel and to represent the affirmative view. This was not intended to be a “debate” but a panel discussion. This distinction is important, since a panel discussion of five people tends to reduce the level of rancor and the polarizing hostility that a two-person debate often generates. A panel discussion also lends itself to a greater focus on the issues themselves without turning the event into a public spectacle. So I appreciated the FGA leadership’s wisdom in setting up this kind of format.
I think the panel discussion was spiritually profitable and productive for those in attendance since they were able to hear directly from each participant what they believed. I represented the view that the term “gospel,” though it simply means “good news,” still has a technical usage and meaning in the New Testament where it refers to the particular message of Christ’s death for our sins and resurrection from the dead for our eternal salvation, and thus God requires the unregenerate to believe it.
Others on the panel, who represented the view that explicit knowledge of Christ’s death and resurrection is not required for eternal life, repeatedly emphasized that the whole question is “irrelevant” and a moot point since we all preach the cross and resurrection in our practical, everyday evangelism. *In contrast, I tried to emphasize that it is the requirement for the lost to believe the gospel truth of Christ’s death and resurrection that is the issue, not whether these gospel truth’s are merely presented to the lost. If it is merely presented to the lost but we do not tell them that God Himself requires belief in the gospel truth of His Son’s death and resurrection, then the lost can walk away with a false assurance that they possess eternal life all the while believing in “another Jesus.”
I also tried to underscore that this question of the lost knowing about, and believing in, Christ’s death and resurrection is relevant because GOD says it is in the Bible. It is not a matter of whether WE think it is or isn’t, since God has clearly spoken on this question already in the Bible. He has already made the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection necessary to believe in order to be saved from eternal destruction, as stated in Acts 13:41, 2 Th. 1:8-10, 1 Cor. 1:17-23, 2:2, 4:15 and many other passages.
In addition, I also tried to emphasize with my limited time that the requirement in the Gospel of John to “believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” is not a message of lesser content than the “gospel” of Christ. This is born out through understanding progressive revelation and a correct interpretation of the Gospel of John, which recognizes that the book thematically sets forth a consummate view of the Christ by the time it reaches its evangelistic appeal in 20:30-31.
There were so many passages yet to be covered by us as a panel, especially about the “gospel” and the Gospel of John, that in my opinion, we barely even scratched the surface of this crucial topic. Many more passages and points need to be addressed than could possibly be covered in a 1.5 hour panel discussion. I remain convinced of the necessity to continue writing and printing articles on this subject, which Free Grace believers can look for in future editions of the Grace Family Journal . I am also grateful for the opportunity to have presented what I believe is the biblical position in order for people to see a clear difference; and I trust the Lord will use what was presented to bring biblical clarity among Free Grace believers and most importantly to bring glory to our common Savior, Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:6).
All of the sessions from the conference were recorded, including the particular panel discussion on the cross and resurrection, and they were made available for purchase at the end of the conference to those in attendance. I’m not certain, however, if this means that the FGA has decided to make these recordings available to the public for purchase. People will have to check with them on that question.
On a personal note, it was encouraging to meet the leadership of the organization and to know that there are some very good men providing guidance and direction to the organization who are sincerely committed to the gospel. Please keep the FGA in your prayers as they continue seeking to be vessels of God’s grace in our generation.
Sincerely in Christ and for His glory,
Tom Stegall
* It is vital to grasp the important distinction that Pastor Stegall draws out in this paragraph. The advocates of the “Crossless” gospel frequently attempt to steer discussions toward what they personally believe about the Gospel, and away from what a lost man must believe for the reception of eternal life. When you discuss the issue with a man who holds to the “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel make sure you focus your questions, in regard to their position, on what they believe a lost man must know, understand or believe for salvation. That is the crux of the debate, and around which the controversy revolves.
Greetings to My Guests:
ReplyDeleteThe report from Tom Stegall is both penetrating and gracious.
Just a few moments ago I spoke on the phone with a man who attended the panel discussion.
One of his most vivid recollections was that of the five panel members, only Tom Stegall would begin each of his remarks by turning in his Bible to a specific passage and explaining his position based on the text of Scripture.
LM
Lou,
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Tom Stegall's first-hand report regarding the recent FGA panel discussion, and not wanting to get into another debate about a debate, let me simply say I am glad Tom "made the most of this opportunity" (cf. Eph. 5:16, Col. 4:6).
Jon:
ReplyDeleteI may get back to you on this, but as you noted this was not a debate.
LM
Thanks be to God that Tom was there, that the FGA is being both faithful and open, that we are aware this is all going on.
ReplyDeleteWhat a marvellous thing that we have been made aware of this so we can pray about it! Seriously, I can't emphasize this enough, we have been privileged and burdened by Our Lord with the right and duty to pray for the protection and forwarding of The Gospel of Jesus Christ.
What an incredible time in Church history this is. With the world aligning it's self in what seems to me to be a clear set up for the events of the 70th week and the great falling away happening in several ways... we can actually SEE it happening!
At any other time in Church History movements and changes like this would likely go un-noticed by the rank and file Christians who would only ever feel the results of it after the fact years later from the men standing at pulpits giving messages based on what they had been trained in.
I can't properly put this down here, it just kinda hit me. But right now the Church CAN be aware, and CAN pray and react in a way she never has been able to before.
It's not my intention to be "dramatic" (though I do have a flare for it *wink*) I just really see this. we are accountable because we are ABLE and aware.
Let's not miss this.
Kev
I cannot believe how hard it is to get people to discuss the GES issue directly. Just as you said Lou, when I try to discuss this issue with those who defend GES they very quickly attempt to divert with roughly the same tactic... "we do talk about sin and Jesus' DBR" or "why are you concerned about the minimums, shouldn't we present more than the mins?" I'm not trying to define the mins because I want to actually present the slimmest gospel possible, I'm interested in knowing what someone believes those mins are as a matter of defining their view and determining if we have fellowship in the Gospel or not. Also, it seems odd that a follower of GES', the reigning kings of "the gospel in a verse", would chide anyone else for focusing too much on the min content of saving faith. Huh, what??? It just doesn't make sense.
ReplyDeleteOur church is having a missions conference this week and, because of the BW factor, one of our group has been asking the missionaries in Q&A sessions to define the message they are bringing to their respective countries. One of the missionaries answered very well and answered almost verbatim "Well, you certainly can't just tell them 'believe in Jesus' because many if not most in our target country would say that already. They have a different view of who Jesus is, seeing him as one of many gods, so we have to address that too." AMEN!
Another missionary was asked three times "What message do you present?" and three times they answered vaguely, in this order;
1. We show them what the Bible says.
2. We give them the gospel.
3. We talk to the kids.
Now, I'm not saying this missionary is bad or doesn't actually give a solid gospel presentation, they may very well do so, but it is indicative of the modern state of unclarity about the topic. Many of of us have become so accustomed to summing up in blanket terms that we're no longer certain of what that blanket covers. I'm not judgmental because I might likely have used that same blanket 4 months thinking I had clearly answered the question. Several in our group have commented that studying this topic has sharpened our own ability to present a clear and concise Gospel. I agree wholeheartedly with one of Wilkin's basic premises of keeping the message simple, he's just gone way too far with it.
Hi Knet:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, “I cannot believe how hard it is to get people to discuss the GES issue directly. Just as you said Lou, when I try to discuss this issue with those who defend GES they very quickly attempt to divert with roughly the same tactic... “we do talk about sin and Jesus’ DBR…”
This is the same thing I have had to deal with when speaking to the advocates of Lordship Salvation. They tried to steer discussions to the results of salvation and away from the requirements for salvation. I would not let them.
This tactic is relatively new coming from “Crossless” men. They are trying to present themselves as though their interpretation of the Gospel and view of evangelism is no different than what those of us believe and practice who reject their doctrine and methods.
They want to be able to say, “We all believe the same thing you do,” and lead the general Christian public in our circles to believe that, then question what thr fuss is over. It is a diversionary tactic, and it will not work.
The truth is that their interpretation of the Gospel is a departure from the faith once delivered (Jude 3). Their departure has been exposed; now they are laying down a smoke screen of sorts. Just look back a few weeks ago when Wilkin deleted the articles and threads at his GES blog that were addressing their interpretation of the Gospel.
I can tell you from my experience in the Lordship debates you will have to keep focusing and refocusing the discussion, as Brother Stegall noted, on “…the requirement for the lost to believe the gospel truth of Christ’s death and resurrection that is the issue, not whether these gospel truth’s are merely presented to the lost.”
LM
More to follow...
Another missionary was asked three times “What message do you present?” and three times they answered vaguely, in this order;
ReplyDelete1. We show them what the Bible says.
2. We give them the gospel.
3. We talk to the kids.
Now, I'm not saying this missionary is bad or doesn't actually give a solid gospel presentation, they may very well do so, but it is indicative of the modern state of unclarity about the topic.
Knet:
Answers like those leave no degree of certainly as to exactly what Gospel message they will present. An unwillingness to define terms in an unambiguous way is a caution sign.
As you get more involved with this issue you learn what questions to ask that are not easily dodged. For example, if I had heard those replies I would have asked,
“From your Bible please define the gospel as you see it, and please explain exactly what truths of the gospel a lost man must believe in order to be born again?”
LM
Answers like those leave no degree of certainly as to exactly what Gospel message they will present. An unwillingness to define terms in an unambiguous way is a caution sign.
ReplyDeleteI'm not convinced that they were "unwilling" to give a clear answer, I think rather they and many other Christians are "unaccustomed" to having to give a clear answer about something they assume we already agree on. It's lazy, yes, but not the same as unwillingness. As we become more experienced asking focused questions I will become more critical of vague/dodged answers.
as you get more involved with this issue you learn what questions to ask that are not easily dodged.
Yes, we're gaining that experience now, and our group was talking about this very thing just last night... how to ask a focused question that begs a real answer, reveals an obvious dodge, or exposes inattentiveness/laziness at the very least. :-) The wording we have come up with so far is very similar to your example though we haven't yet agreed, as a group, on exact wording.
These are defining times and refining times. May we all welcome the growth.
Hi Knet:
ReplyDeleteI'll have to get back to you later. Thanks for the notes.
Lou
To All:
ReplyDeleteLater I am going to post a review of the FGA panel discussion from the perspective of Pastor Dennis Rokser .
LM
”I'm not convinced that they were ‘unwilling’ to give a clear answer, I think rather they and many other Christians are ‘unaccustomed’ to having to give a clear answer about something they assume we already agree on. It's lazy, yes, but not the same as unwillingness.”
ReplyDeleteHi Knet:
By way of preface I was a missionary to South Africa. I had a good board and before being accepted by the board there was, among other things, a doctrinal exam. It was not as deep and comprehensive as my ordination counsel, but it did cover the majors, such as the Gospel, and some contemporary theological issues.
In the case of the missionary question time you are dealing with there is a difference between “unwilling” and “unaccustomed.”
“UNWILLING” In recent weeks it has become obvious that there are some men who are in fact “unwilling” to discuss their doctrine. Both in on line and open, public venues, they (Bob Wilkin being a prime example) will not answer simple, unambiguous questions about some elements of his/their theology. Recent examples from Wilkin include:
1) Deleting articles and threads at the GES blog, and before deletion, refusing to respond to questions/comments about issues in the articles.
2) At the Washington GES conference he refused to answer a question from the audience. The question was: Does a lost person need to believe in Christ's deity and death for salvation; yes or no? Wilkin refused to give a clear answer!
So, it is not all that uncommon for men to have a definite “unwillingness” to give a direct answer to a direct question. Wilkin is a clear example of such, and he can’t keep this up for ever.
“UNACCUSTOMED” In the case of a missionary one would have to assume that the missionary has had some level of theological training. One must assume a local church and/or mission board approves of this missionary (doctrine and character) for overseas service. Therefore, the missionary has been accustomed to asking and answering theological questions. A Bible college education and being recognized as qualified for missionary service should certainly be evidence that the missionary is not unaccustomed to answering questions about his/her theology.
A CAUTION: I always approach these issues by initially giving the benefit of the doubt. If, however, there are some indications that there may be a doctrinal error, it must be investigated. Usually, one will have an idea of the missionary’s doctrinal stance by virtue of the doctrinal statement of the sending church and mission board. That usually clears up any concern one may have before inviting a missionary for a deputation meeting.
If there is an affiliation with some organization and/or movement that would indicate the possibility of a potential doctrinal concern, then it must be investigated. No church wants to financially support a missionary if the missionary’s personal theology is in opposition to the church’s statement of faith. I am thinking of the majors. There must always be room for differences on the non-essentials, but the Gospel is not one of them.
More to follow…
LM
Some good insights, I truly appreciate them. I don't want to let people off too easily.
ReplyDeleteTo be clear, none of our group is on an official panel that's interviewing them, we're just members of the congregation, seeing their presentation, and then some Q&A at the end. The setting of these Q&A sessions makes it difficult to press for details without seeming combative, perhaps we should learn to not let that bother us as our aim is only to get a clear answer. If I was on a panel, it would be easy to ask direct questions and press for clear answers.
My wife just reminded me that "the missionary" that gave the vague answers I quoted above were actually from the wife, not the man himself. I see them both as missionaries but she is not the one who went to school for it and she is not the one who has been drilled theologically. While I think you gave excellent tips for general analysis I think that should shed some light on why we are willing to let her off the hook more easily.
I talked to another of the missionaries this morning, a Wycliffe translator, and asked him "What does Wycliffe believe is essential to translate to another language before they believe they have given that language enough to be used to start saving them?"
ReplyDeleteHe answered that they don't have a specific list but they consider the Apostles' Creed a general guideline. I bring this up because the AC mentions the virgin birth. As part of refining my own thoughts, is the VB a necessary belief that one must accept for salvation? I think the VB is an extremely important doctrine but I don't believe it's a necessary component of the saving message. It's not mentioned in 1 Cor 15:3,4 for example which is what I'm operating on as the eseentials for the gospel. Any comments on the VB as it relates to justification?
Interestingly, he said one of the first books they frequently try to translate is Luke because of it's unique info. about Christ. His quote, "Luke gives us more bang for our buck."
I tend to think if you can choose only one Gospel to read it should be John.
ReplyDeleteI love Luke, the doctor definitely had it going on and all... but John is much more evangelical and clear in it's presentation of the Gospel of Christ. IMO.
Kev
Hi Knet/Kevl:
ReplyDeleteI am taking the day off from posting. I'll check back in Monday with some thoughts and replies.
BTW, I am posting Pastor Dennis Rokser's evaluation of the FGA panel discussion tonight or tomorrow.
See you then,
Lou
Knet,
ReplyDeleteI agree the virgin birth is important (because the Bible teaches it), yet it is neither a ground of our redemption nor a part of "the gospel" the lost must believe to be saved.
Some people have asked whether it is possible for a person to be saved while denying the virgin birth. The answer is yes.
-- Greg
I should clarify about my above statement that it is essential to believe in Christ's incarnation. That is a ground of our redemption, part of the gospel, and an essential truth to identify Jesus Christ (1John 2:22; 4:2-3; 2John 7-8). A person must believe in the Christ who already came as a man - not some spirit yet to come. But belief in the fact He was conceived and born of a virgin is not required for salvation.
ReplyDelete-- Greg
Greg:
ReplyDelete"You wrote, "I agree the virgin birth is important (because the Bible teaches it), yet it is neither a ground of our redemption nor a part of "the gospel" the lost must believe to be saved."
Agreed. Because the virgin birth is not specifically included in 1 Cor. 15:3-4, for example, I would not find it necessary for explicit belief in that specific doctrine for salvation.
Lou