Dr. Chafer on Covenant Theology

[Bronconagurski]

The link below has Chafer commenting on the fallacies of C.T.

http://withchrist.org/mjs/chafonct.htm

 

[OldRegular]

The book Prophecy and the Church by Oswald T. Allis comments on the fallacies of Dr. Chafer and classic dispensationalism.

 

[Bronconagurski]

The book Prophecy and the Church by Oswald T. Allis comments on the fallacies of Dr. Chafer and classic dispensationalism.[/Quote

Fine, start your own thread then instead of trying to hijack mine. TIA

 

[Yeshua1]

The book Prophecy and the Church by Oswald T. Allis comments on the fallacies of Dr. Chafer and classic dispensationalism.

is it refuted by rightly dividing the Word, or else by relying upon spiritualising the prophetic element of the Bible?

 

[Yeshua1]

The link below has Chafer commenting on the fallacies of C.T.

http://withchrist.org/mjs/chafonct.htm

good! Shows that we can be a Dispy without 'leaving our brains at the door!"

 

[OldRegular]

Chafer is the one who taught:

The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity [Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism ].

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The link below has Chafer commenting on the fallacies of C.T.

http://withchrist.org/mjs/chafonct.htm

I closed up the link as soon as I read..."Dear Dispensational Friend" so he aint speakin ta me. Best move on.

 

[Revmitchell]

The link below has Chafer commenting on the fallacies of C.T.

http://withchrist.org/mjs/chafonct.htm

Thank you for this post.

 

[Yeshua1]

I closed up the link as soon as I read..."Dear Dispensational Friend" so he aint speakin ta me. Best move on.

Pity, for he wrote one of the best modern Systematic theologies!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Pity, for he wrote one of the best modern Systematic theologies!

That requires one to maintain a certain belief system about the way the world will end. Im really not concerned nor convinced.

 

[OldRegular]

Chafer says in the Reference!

KINGDOM GOSPEL VS. GRACE GOSPEL -- Strong objection is offered by Covenant theologians to a distinction between the Gospel of the Kingdom as preached by John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Disciples, and the Pauline Gospel of the Grace of God. One Covenant theologian states that to make such a distinction is "unfortunate," and "dangerous."

He with others contends that the Kingdom Gospel is identical with the Gospel of divine Grace. Here nevertheless will arise an absurdity which does not deter this type of theologian, namely, that men could preach the Pauline Grace Gospel based as it is on the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ when they did not believe Christ would die or be raised again (Lu. 18:31-34) (VII:176).

***************************************************************
In his letter to the Church at Rome the Apostle Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit tells us:

Romans 1:16, 17
16. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

The Apostle even quotes the Old Testament prophet Habbakuk:

Habbakuk 2:4. Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

******************************************************

Again under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the Apostle Paul tells us in his letter to the Church at Galatia:

Galatians 1:6-9
6. I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Paul tells there is one Gospel, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet Chafer would have us believe there are two Gospels. So who do we believe, the Apostle Paul or Chafer?

I believe Paul since he is writing as God spoke!

************************************************************

What Gospel did Jesus Christ preach?

Mark 1:14. Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

The Gospel of the Kingdom of God.

**************************************************************

What Gospel did the Apostle Paul preach to the Jews?

Acts 28:20-24
20. For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.
21. And they said unto him, We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came shewed or spake any harm of thee.
22. But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.
23. And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
24. And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.

The Gospel of the Kingdom of God!

******************************************************************

What Gospel did the Apostle Paul preach to the Gentiles?

Acts 28: 28-31
28. Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.
29. And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.
30. And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,
31. Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

The Gospel of the Kingdom of God!

********************************************************************
The Gospel Paul preached the same Gospel that Jesus Christ preached, the only Gospel there is, to both Jew and Gentile.

*******************************************************************
What Gospel did Peter preach to the Gentile Cornelius?

Acts 10:34-
34. Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35. But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
36. The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all
37. That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
38. How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
39. And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40. Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41. Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
42. And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48. And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

The Apostle Peter makes an unusual statement. Please note:

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

The prophets witnessed, not of a Messianic Kingdom, but the forgiveness of sins to all believers!

The Apostle Peter preached the same Gospel that the Apostle Paul preached, the same Gospel that the Apostle John preached, the same Gospel all the Apostles preached, which is the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the only Gospel there is!

 

[Benjamin]

The Apostle Peter preached the same Gospel that the Apostle Paul preached, the same Gospel that the Apostle John preached, the same Gospel all the Apostles preached, which is the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the only Gospel there is!

Aww, :love2: makes me remember all those battles we had here back in the day about “One Gospel” the “Church” and “Literalism”.

For those who don't know I lean toward Progressive Covenantalism myself – because God, in His wisdom, progressively revealed the Gospel in that way, (1Cor 2) “fulfilling” His plan to save all those that would believe the Truth. The church is the body of Christ, one people of faith. All men are saved by faith, both OT and NT; the blood of bulls and goats wasn’t what saved the OT people and neither will it save any in the futurists’ view according to Dispensationalism.

Aw yes! The sparks used to fly over "literalism" and “allegorical interpretation” and I would describe the opposing position as holding to their "fly away escapist doctrine" through a misguided development of systematic intellectual principles which result in nothing more than “selective” force to fit literalisms, and then there was all that dogma that others don’t compare scriptures to scriptures literally. BTW, I take ALL the following literal:

(Rom 1:16) For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

(Rom 10:12) For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

(Gal 3:28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

(Col 3:11) Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.



(1Co 10:1) Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

(1Co 10:2) And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

(1Co 10:3) And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

(1Co 10:4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.



(Eph 4:4) There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

(Eph 4:5) One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

(Eph 4:6) One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

(Gal 3:23) But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

(1Co 2:7) But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

(1Co 2:8) Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.


Moreover, I’m reminded of how irritated I used to get about being told the root proof text of Scofield, (2Tim 2:15) by the "Hyper-Dispies" and how I must fit in separate gospels as we are commanded. :laugh: And my oft reply, “I take “rightly dividing” literally to mean making a straight clean cut into the Word and examining it as a whole, rather than to systematically chop it to pieces and force separations to fit a systematic theology.”

R J Prince (wonder how he is doing) Pastor Larry and DPT amoung many more. MAkes me feel like I have some serious history here.

Those were the days! :flower:

Today, I can't fathom even beginning to beat that dead horse some more and bringing all that dogma back to life...

:laugh:

 

[OldRegular]

Dr. Chafer also tells us in the Reference:

APOCRYPHAL COVENANTS -- The essential error of Covenant Theology is mentioned at this point only as it bears on human responsibility before God. The theological terms, Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace, do not occur in Scripture. If they are to be sustained it must be wholly apart from Biblical authority.

What is known as Covenant Theology builds its structure on these two covenants and is, at least, a recognition--though inadequate--of the truth that the creature has responsibility toward his Creator. Covenant Theology has Cocceius (1603-1669) as its chief exponent. He taught that before the Fall, as much as after it, the relation between God and man was a covenant. The first was a Covenant of Works. For this was substituted, after the Fall, the Covenant of Grace.

Of course Dr. Chafer is correct. The Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace are not mentioned in the Bible. It should also be noted that the following dispensations are not mentioned in Scripture:

1. The dispensation of Innocence.
2. The dispensation of Conscience.
3. The dispensation of Human Government.
4. The dispensation of Promise.
5. The dispensation of Law.
6. The dispensation of Grace.
7. The dispensation of Kingdom.

The Apostle Paul does mention his stewardship of Grace given to him by God in which the Greek word "oikonomia " is translated dispensation rather than stewardship. The word dispensation does not occur in the Old Testament and one cannot find them unless he is schooled in dispensationalism.

As to covenants in the Old Testament we read of several. Covenants are what a new convert will fond as he reads Scripture.

God only deals with mankind because of and through His Grace. Furthermore, I believe the truths of the Covenant of Grace are clearly taught in the Scripture. This Covenant is best understood as a covenant in which the three Divine Persons in the Godhead cooperate in man’s salvation [Psalms 2:8; 40: 6-8; 59:3; Isaiah 49: 3-12; John 17:6; Hebrews 13:20; Titus 1:2] and is summarized as follows:

1. God the Father before the foundation of the world foreknew and chose a people to be His own[Ephesians 1:4].

2. God the Son humbles Himself, takes upon Himself the form of man, and dies on the cross to pay the penalty for the sins of those whom the Father has chosen to salvation so that none are lost [John 17; Philippians 2:6-10].

3. God the Holy Spirit applies the work of the God the Son to those chosen by God the Father by the regeneration and effectual calling of those whom God the Father has chosen unto salvation [John 6: 37, 44; Ephesians 2:1-10].

 

[Benjamin]

Of course, I believe Progressive Covenantalism goes along very nicely with the free will of men and the revelation of the promise based on ability of real faith of all men. Pre-selected Grace through pedigreed salvation such as that of literal physical Israel would seem much more in tune with the Determinist view of predestination, IMO.

 

[OldRegular]

Dr. Chafer tells us:

J.N. DARBY & COMPANY -- While there were occasional references to the Church universal in post-Reformation literature, it was not until the middle of the last century (1830-50) that this extensive and important body of teaching was formed into a doctrinal declaration. It was given to J.N. Darby of England to achieve this distinctive ministry.

I thought it was the dispensationalists who always and most adamantly rejected the Doctrine of the Universal Church and here I discover it was J.N. DARBY & COMPANY who resurrected that doctrine. Just goes to show one!

Dr. Chafer would have us believe that God left His Church ignorant of indispensable truths for 1800 years until along came Darby, or was it Margaret MacDonald?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Of course, I believe Progressive Covenantalism goes along very nicely with the free will of men and the revelation of the promise based on ability of real faith of all men. Pre-selected Grace through pedigreed salvation such as that of literal physical Israel would seem much more in tune with the Determinist view of predestination, IMO.

Now I am curious......In your opinion, just what is a "Determinist" & what exactly are their view of predestination. & while your at it, please define....in your view of course, what "Predestination" really is?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Dr. Chafer tells us:



I thought it was the dispensationalists who always and most adamantly rejected the Doctrine of the Universal Church and here I discover it was J.N. DARBY & COMPANY who resurrected that doctrine. just goes to show one!

Not in Bennys opinion however..... "Pre-selected Grace through pedigreed salvation such as that of literal physical Israel would seem much more in tune with the Determinist view of predestination, IMO" :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Benjamin]

Now I am curious......In your opinion, just what is a "Determinist" & what exactly are their view of predestination. & while your at it, please define....in your view of course, what "Predestination" really is?

I believe it more likely you hope to engage in a circular rabbit chase of semantic ambiguity on these words while in an attempt to avoid actually addressing my premise in a practically reasoned way,...sigh...... but I’ll humor you, just this once:

A Determinist – one whose soteriological view must necessarily, logically and systematically hinge on all human actions leading to salvation as being strictly determined, such as needed to support all points of the TULIP, this view is usually expressed by dogmatic rambling phrases that God must be Sovereign to be in control.

Determinist Predestination – a view which consists of a belief that a pre-determined divine act upon a person is the sole cause of that person’s salvific outcome; therefore, it involves an unavoidable conclusion being cast upon a person who has been pre-destined by divine determination and this logically necessitates any and all the results, thereby it negates any true creaturely volition, real responsibility to respond, and logically denies true judgment or any possibility for the outcome to happen any other way. IOW’s a person’s destiny was determined for them before they existed based on absolutely nothing more than a whim of God, such as God went – “Eenie meenie miney moe this one stays but that one’s got to go!” And then it happened.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I believe it more likely you hope to engage in a circular rabbit chase of semantic ambiguity on these words while in an attempt to avoid actually addressing my premise in a practically reasoned way,...sigh...... but I’ll humor you, just this once:

A Determinist – one whose soteriological view must necessarily, logically and systematically hinge on all human actions leading to salvation as being strictly determined, such as needed to support all points of the TULIP, this view is usually expressed by dogmatic rambling phrases that God must be Sovereign to be in control.

Determinist Predestination – a view which consists of a belief that a pre-determined divine act upon a person is the sole cause of that person’s salvific outcome; therefore, it involves an unavoidable conclusion being cast upon a person who has been pre-destined by divine determination and this logically necessitates any and all the results, thereby it negates any true creaturely volition, real responsibility to respond, and logically denies true judgment or any possibility for the outcome to happen any other way. IOW’s a person’s destiny was determined for them before they existed based on absolutely nothing more than a whim of God, such as God went – “Eenie meenie miney moe this one stays but that one’s got to go!” And then it happened.

Well, thanks for humoring me. Then who do you think holds to these outlined beliefs?

 

[Benjamin]

Well, thanks for humoring me. Then who do you think holds to these outlined beliefs?

Pay close attention to the key words, "necessarily, logically, true and real", and you should be able to figure that out.

:thumbs: