July 21, 2007

Renald Showers Turns Down Debate with Charles Cooper

Pretribulationism is in a no-win dilemma. On one hand they know that ever since the Prewrath position emerged, by far, most of the Prewrath adherents came over from the pretrib position. So the immediate response in the 90's from the pretrib teachers was not an attempt to engage Biblically with the Prewrath position, but mainly to discredit Rosenthal and Van Kampen personally.

This approach may have worked in the mind of the most die-hard pretribber, but it did not bode well for many pretrib thinkers who were more concerned with what the Bible teaches than attacking godly men for challenging the tradition of pretribulationism. And consequently, many of these pretribbers embraced prewrath--and continue to do so.

The other side of the dilemma from pretrib teachers is just as demonstrable. When they actually do attempt to engage with Prewrath literature, writings, and exegesis, they have notoriously misrepresented the Prewrath position. Their modus operandi is extensive. They have built as many strawmen to feed cattle on a thousand hills. Frequently they read their pretrib assumptions back into the prewrath position and thereby avoiding prewrath premises. I even came across two pretrib books that could not even get the most basic prewrath chart reproduced correctly!

These misrepresentations cannot be accounted by simply mistakes. They have had the facts before them for twenty years; not to mention they have been corrected many times over. Why can they not represent the Prewrath accurately and fairly? Honest research and scholarship should strive to not only address the best arguments the other side has, but to represent them accurately. Failing to do so, is the sign of an untenable position.

This brings me to Renald Showers recent decline of a debate challenge with Cooper. For those who may not know, Showers wrote one of the more popular books critiquing the Prewrath position, The Pre-Wrath Rapture View. Sadly, though this book attempted to address the prewrath view in a meaningful manner, it failed on a number of levels. (We hope to have a critique review of the book here on the blog in the near future.)

One common error of the book was reading back pretrib assumptions into the prewrath position. This is simply called begging the question, or assuming the conclusion as a premise, or others know it by another term, circular reasoning.

You will also find a lack of any meaningful interaction of the actual exegesis of prewrath interpretation. This is very important to note. In other words, good research requires one to not only explain what they believe, but why. Therefore, you will frequently see in their writings statements such as, "The Prewrath position believes XYZ." Then they proceed to just skip right over the very reasons, arguments, and exegesis of why we believe what we do, and then they go right into what they believe. Sorry, but that is not how you critique and engage in any meaningful fashion an opposing viewpoint.

So would Renald Showers have any desire to defend his pretrib claims under the scrutiny of cross-examination in a public moderated debate? Nope. It is one thing to write books and articles, but the medium of a public debate with cross-examination would not allow pretribbers to get away with their misrepresentations, assumptions, and errant exegesis. This is why the medium of public debate in my opinion is the most glorifying to God because falsehood and tradition is held accountable, and truth can be revealed and communicated in this orderly manner, which is often evaded in the written medium.

“The first to state his case seems right, until his opponent begins to cross-examine him.” (Proverbs 18:17)

Case in point. Although I would have liked to see a one-on-one debate and with cross-examination, this rapture debate in Dallas a number of years ago demonstrated that pretribulationism fails on the platform of public debate, and prewrath demonstrates to be a cogent Biblical position when it is given a hearing.

The prewrath position is willing to place their claims under the scrutiny of a public moderated debate. And for the record there still has not been any significant pretribulational teacher that is willing to defend their position one-on-one in public with a prewrath teacher.

In my correspondence with Showers, I want to note and respond to a few of his reasons for his decline to debate, which I do not find legitimate.

1. One of the reasons he gave for his decline was that the ministry demands will not allow him to have the time to debate.

Ok... I can understand that we are all busy with the demands of our work and ministry, but surely it took hundreds of hours to write his book critiquing the prewrath position, not to mention that he took time to even write a second edition. Participating in a moderated debate that is planned in advance is nominal compared to the time it would take to write a book and a second edition.

Further, this is an opportunity for him to debate one of the most articulate and influential prewrath exponents. Here is a chance to discredit the prewrath position on a significant public platform (audio and videotaped as well), and to defend publicly those same pretrib claims that are made in the book. But this lack of willingness on his part is indicative of the inconsistency and resistance to allow believers to evaluate Pretribulationism and Prewrath side-by-side. But this observable fact only bodes well for the Prewrath position.

2. Another reason he gave was, "My observation has been that in that format of debate most people walk away forgetting the arguments that both debaters have presented and, therefore, often misquoting the arguments, and misrepresenting what each debater said."

i. Apparently Showers has a low view of the compentency of believers who would be in the audience. To be sure, individuals may forget specific arguments, but substantially they are able to follow an argument and can discern when one of the debaters is evading an argument or making a bad argument.

ii. And the same could be said about sermons and conferences. Should church members stop going to church and wait for the sermon to be transcribed?

iii. As far as misquoting and misrepresentation, the debate would be audio recorded, which would deter individuals from misquoting. And using the sermon example again: Individuals can misquote and misrepresent sermons as well. So the reason does not follow.

3. "In my estimation the best way to avoid those problems is to have the arguments of both views in written form that people can resort to repeatedly in order to have a more accurate understanding of the opposing views."

i. Audio recording accomplishes the same thing.

ii. Also, the written format does not have the benefit of cross-examination. Here is where misrepresentation is held accountable. Written form allows a degree of immunity from criticism, whereas in a debate someone cannot get away with certain arguments as they can in writing.

4. "I have already debated the Prewrath Rapture View in written form in my book The Pre-Wrath Rapture View : An Examination And Critique."

That is not "debate" in any meaningful sense of the term. He can call it a "critique" but certainly not a debate, since a debate requires two sides interacting with each other's views. And as explained above, the written format is limited. It has its benefits, but indeed, only one perspective is given.

I would like to conclude this article with a very revealing statement that Showers concluded our correspondence with. Regarding what prompted him to write his book against the prewrath view, he says,

"A few years after that book was published [a different pretrib book], a Christian leader who speaks at pastors' conferences told me that pastors were telling him that the Pre-Wrath Rapture View was coming into their churches and causing confusion, conflict, and divisions. They said, 'We need help, and no one is addressing this view.'"

What do you find most amazing about that statement? Two observations. First, all these "confused" pastors who are supposed to know the Bible admitted they could not defend the pretribulational position themselves! They could not go to their Bibles and correct these so-called "divisive" prewrath laity. Rather, they needed someone to "write a book." That is very telling.

Second, and just as much disturbing was the implicit admission that these pastors did not have a Berean spirit to find out if the prewrath position was Biblical in the first place. They were reactionary by assuming that their laity was wrong and they were right--without any desire to understand the position. All the pastors knew in their mind was that it was not pretrib; therefore let's not engage it Biblically ourselves and provide any meaningful interaction. Rather, let's find someone to write a book against it so we can tell the laity to read it and quit being "divisive" and causing "conflict."

Indeed, Tradition nullifies the Word of God.