Challenging statements about the atonement

[TCassidy]

So, JonC δοῦλος, do you think the influence of Chafer and Scofield is significantly less than the influence of Erickson? I know who Millard Erickson is because I received part of my theological schooling in Minneapolis and was very familiar with Bethel, but I would suggest the average Christian would probably be more familiar with Scofield and Chafer than with Erickson.

 

[JonC]

So, JonC δοῦλος, do you think the influence of Chafer and Scofield is significantly less than the influence of Erickson? I know who Millard Erickson is because I received part of my theological schooling in Minneapolis and was very familiar with Bethel, but I would suggest the average Christian would probably be more familiar with Scofield and Chafer than with Erickson.

I would think that Erickson would have more influence. In my experience this has been the case anyway (I suppose as theological materials were more contemporary than Scofiled and Chafer). But perhaps different generations turned to different sources, so I can only speak from experience. I've never read much Scofield or Chafer, but I have read Erickson.

 

[TCassidy]

Hmmmm. Must be a generational thing. The Scofield Reference Bible has been one of the most popular selling bibles in the US since before WWI.

Oxford Press continues to issue editions under the title Oxford Scofield Study Bible, and there are translations into French, German, Spanish, and Portuguese. In the 21st century, Oxford University Press published Scofield notes to accompany six additional English translations. I don't think Erickson's books can claim that much popularity.

 

[Internet Theologian]

# 2 is wrong . Jesus does not condemn.
Jhn 3:17

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
.

Read the next verse? The world was already condemned. By God, which He is.

 

[JonC]

Hmmmm. Must be a generational thing. The Scofield Reference Bible has been one of the most popular selling bibles in the US since before WWI.

Oxford Press continues to issue editions under the title Oxford Scofield Study Bible, and there are translations into French, German, Spanish, and Portuguese. In the 21st century, Oxford University Press published Scofield notes to accompany six additional English translations. I don't think Erickson's books can claim that much popularity.

Oh....I've had several Scofield bibles....just never paid much attention to his notes. You know, he supported the gap theory....odd that it isn't the prevailing view.

 

[TomLaPalm]

[

QUOTE="Internet Theologian, post: 2208885, member: 12590"]Read the next verse? The world was already condemned. By God, which He is.[/QUOTE]

What? Who?

Jhn 5:22
For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

If the Father didn't judge man and the Son didn't ....
Jhn 3:17
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

How am I condemned already?

 

[JamesL]

C. I. Scofield, was one of the leading popularizers of dispensationalism. Scofield made this statement: “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." (Note on John 1:18, Scofield Reference Bible, Oxford University Press, 1909)

Lewis Sperry Chafer, a leading early dispensationalist, says that the dispensation of Law was a forsaking of a previous dispensation of grace, a reversal in the progress of the dispensations. “When the Law was proposed, the children of Israel deliberately forsook their position under the grace of God which had been their relationship to God until that day, and placed themselves under the law."

Chafer went on to say, "The essential elements of a grace administration – faith as the sole basis of acceptance with God, unmerited acceptance through a perfect standing in Christ, the present possession of eternal life, an absolute security from all condemnation, and the enabling power of the indwelling Spirit are not found in the kingdom administration. On the other hand, it is declared to be the fulfilling of ‘the law and the prophets’, and is seen to be an extension of the Mosaic Law into realms of meritorious obligation." (Dispensationalism p.416).

William Evans (Outline Studys of the Bible, p. 34) says:

"This is sometimes called the Age of the Church, or the Church period. The characteristic of this age is that salvation is no longer by legal obedience, but by the personal acceptance of the finished work of Jesus Christ, who by his meritorious ministry has procured for us a righteousness of God’."

The original “plan of salvation” was pure WORKS (Gen. 2:16-17), and in the Millennium the last plan of salvation is again pure WORKS (Rev. 22:14), contrary to every immature, milksop, Baptist baby in your town or city. Genesis 3:22 corrects the kiddies. (Ruckman, Peter. Ruckman’s Bible References: Personal Notes on Salient Verses in the Bible, p. 7)

In the Old Testament, you find salvation before the Law by grace through faith and under the Law by faith and works… (Ruckman, Peter. Body, Soul, and Spirit. 1986, 1997, p. 12)

If the Lord comes and you remain behind, then start working like a madman to get to heaven, because you’re going to have to. You have entered a period of time called “The Great Tribulation,” and the plan of salvation in the Tribulation is faith in Jesus Christ plus your own good works. (Ruckman, Peter. Millions Disappear. 1989, p. 23)
Before the Rapture, you could have been saved by grace through faith plus nothing (Ephesians 2:8-9), but one minute after the Rapture took place you must get out the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule and start learning them, because you’re going to be judged by them (Matthew 25:31-46). (Ruckman, Peter. Millions Disappear. 1989, p. 23)
It will take faith in Christ’s shed blood, plus works—exactly as in the OT it took faith in shed blood and works. (Ruckman, Peter. Millions Disappear. 1989, p. 26)

Just look at some of the posting right here on the Baptist Board regarding the salvation of the Old Testament Saints and you will see all sorts of differences between OT and NT salvation.

So,
You quote one guy who died 90+ years ago, another who died 60+ years ago, 5 quotes from a wack job, and everyone here is guilty of teaching numerous "plans of salvation"

Isn't that similar to every Dispensationalist being accused of peddling the teachings of Darby? Even those who've never heard of him? I read once that the "escape" rapture was contrived by a Jesuit priest. Who knows?

By those kinds of "guilt by association" standards, shouldn't every Calvinist be rightly accused of espousing infant baptism?

 

[TCassidy]

So,

So, you seem to have missed the point. Nowhere did I, or any of the quoted authors, say all dispensationalists, or even most of them, believed the "many different plans of salvation" theory. The quotes were to disprove the obviously false statement "Dispensationalism never results in more than one plan of salvation." Obviously, in the minds of some highly respected dispensationalists, it does.

 

[TCassidy]

Oh....I've had several Scofield bibles....just never paid much attention to his notes. You know, he supported the gap theory....odd that it isn't the prevailing view.

It is still held by many (too many) people. He also supported Bishop Ussher's 4004 BC date of creation, which is also still held my many (too many) people.

Which, of course, was not the point.

 

[JamesL]

So, you seem to have missed the point. Nowhere did I, or any of the quoted authors, say all dispensationalists, or even most of them, believed the "many different plans of salvation" theory. The quotes were to disprove the obviously false statement "Dispensationalism never results in more than one plan of salvation." Obviously, in the minds of some highly respected dispensationalists, it does.

Oh, i indeed miss the false statement that Dispensationalism never....

That would be false, indeed.

 

[JonC]

The quotes were to disprove the obviously false statement "Dispensationalism never results in more than one plan of salvation."

Throughout history many doctrines have resulted in less than orthodox teachings (e.g., the anti-missions movement, two ways of salvation).

It is still held by many (too many) people. He also supported Bishop Ussher's 4004 BC date of creation, which is also still held my many (too many) people.

Which, of course, was not the point.

You’re right, that wasn’t the point. I don’t belong to either camp, but my point was simply questioning the direction that you chose.

If your reasoning is legitimate, then it should be legitimate for other issues as well. Dispensationalists believe in two ways of salvation because that is what Scofield and Chafer taught. Calvinists believe in paedobaptism because that is what Calvin taught.

I will admit that my reply was initially based on assumption as I believed that you were fully aware of more modern developments away from many aspects original to Dispensationalism. So initially I responded presupposing that you knew better (you, of course, may be unaware of these doctrinal “evolutions”). And you have my apologies for that assumption (but it’s still there nonetheless). Modern scholarship typically reflects modern theology. The dispensationalist authors today would not exist if their theology did not resonate within their audience. How many today advocate two methods of salvation? I listed Hagee…..but I don’t know of many more (and none reputable). Do you know of many today that advocate two methods of salvation?

 

[TCassidy]

Dispensationalists believe in two ways of salvation because that is what Scofield and Chafer taught.

But I never said that and that is neither my position nor my contention.

Unless you are proposing the "he almost said it so it's just like he did say it" school of thought.

 

[JonC]

But I never said that and that is neither my position nor my contention.

Unless you are proposing the "he almost said it so it's just like he did say it" school of thought.

It depends on what the definition if "is" is.....Laugh

You lost me on this one. With your objection to my comment that most would lean to Erickson's view I took your comments to mean that Dispensationalism teaches two ways of salvation, not that some dispensationalists believe that.....So what do you mean?

 

[Darrell C]

"From righteous Abel to those whose faith was so nobly manifested on the very eve of the coming of Christ, they all ‘won their record for faith.’ They lived and died in prospect of a fulfillment which none of them experienced on earth; yet so real was that fulfillment to them that it gave them power to press upstream, against the current of the environment, and to live on earth as citizens of that commonwealth whose foundations are firmly laid in the unseen and eternal order.

Agreed for the most part, though we can see that they awaited that heavenly city. Citizenry in the eternal sense was something promised and not realized by those who died in faith in expectation of that which would come when perfection was accomplished.

That was the point of the quote from Hebrews 12:23, that the Old Testament Saints were made perfect after their deaths at the time of the Cross. Their transgressions were redeemed at that point, thus we see "spirits made perfect," which is contrasted with the Covenant of Law, Hebrews 12:18-21.

But now the promise has been fulfilled; the age of the new covenant has dawned; the Christ to whose day they looked forward has come and by his self-offering and his high-priestly ministry in the presence of God he has procured perfection for them – and for us. ‘With us in mind, God had made a better plan, that only in company with us should they reach their perfection.’ They and we together now enjoy unrestricted access to God through Christ, as fellow-citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem. The ‘better plan’ which God has made embraces the better hope, the better promises, the better covenant, the better sacrifices, the better and abiding possession, and the better resurrection which is their heritage, and ours." (F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 330)

Again, agreed for the most part, the only issue arising being an imposition of faith in Christ as it is revealed when the New Covenant is established. The Old Testament Saint truly awaited their Messiah, however, specific faith in the Cross of Christ was not something they had, and in fact we do not even see that in the first disciple of Christ. It is not until the Spirit of God in the Ministry of Comforter comes that this Mystery is revealed.

But he is correct in pointing out that they were not made perfect/complete. Hebrews makes it clear this was a result of the Sacrifice of Christ. The context centers on Remission of sins, and makes it clear that Christ's Sacrifice was the means for that which was promised to the Old Testament Saint in regards to the Covenant God would one day establish: Hebrews 8:12

But I think David Allen's commentary explains in more depth the difference. Allen links the “promise” in Heb. 11:39-40 to salvation in Christ. None of them received what has been promised. Jesus has “ushered in the telos of biblical history. Perfection here (v. 40) has an eschatological focus, and refers to the entrance into the promised eternal inheritance and consistently has in view the totality of Christ’s ministry on their behalf, in his death and heavenly exaltation."

I would disagree with Mr. Allen, based on the context of Hebrews itself. Entrance into the eternal is not in view at all, it is a matter of Remission of sins in general. The Writer does not center on our eternal state, but the state of believers in regards to remission of sins. He contrasts that which is temporal (the Tabernacle, the Priesthood, and the sacrifices) with the Ministry of Christ in Reconciliation/Atonement. To the New Covenant believer he states "You have not come to (the Covenant of Law)..., but you have come to Christ and the New Covenant."

Throughout the book is exhortation and warning to leave that which was incomplete and "go on unto" that which is complete.

Only those who are under Law can be said to fall into danger of the condemnation that arises from being under Law in this Age, for in doing so they are rejecting Christ and the New Covenant. Of course, it is basically impossible for anyone in this day to say they are keeping the Covenant of Law unless they obey it fully and offer up sacrifice for sins. We see a tendency for modern Judaizers to have created a keeping of the Covenant of Law that is not in fact in keeping with the Covenant as prescribed by God.

But that is nothing new, really, because it is because they did not keep the Law that the New Covenant was promised. Hebrews 8:8-9.

So how I currently see the Atonement, it was not merely God extracting from Jesus a payment due because of our sin debt. It was/is reconciliation. Believers today are "in Christ" where as OT saints were not. This does not mean that OT saints were saved differently (they are now "in Christ"), but that they did not receive what had been promised during their lifetime. Quite simply, OT saints were not reconciled to God during their lifetime as are believers under the New Covenant. I believe that this is the focus point of the Cross, not paying for individual sins so that men can be forgiven but reconciling humanity to God.

Agreed. Men could not be reconciled until the penalty for their sin was accomplished. The remission of sins under the Law (and this has significance because it was the Covenant instituted by God and in effect at the time of the Cross, the System abrogated by the New Covenant) was temporal and temporary, of necessity due to it's incomplete nature repeated often and daily.

** I will say this, what I am telling you is my understanding from study. I have compared my conclusions with several commentators and found that I do not stand alone. But that does not mean I am right and I am open to discussion. But as it stands, I do not see OT saints as being "in Christ" prior to the Atonement, although I do see their faith in Christ as salvific.

You do not stand alone, I too take that position. I think the key in nailing it down is a proper understanding of regeneration and when that began to take place. The Baptism with the Holy Ghost is, according to John the Baptist, a future event at the time of his preaching. We see that this takes place at Pentecost and that Christ taught He had to return to Heaven before He could come.

It is the consistent teaching of both the Old Testament and the New, and helps us to understand Scripture better, in my view.


God bless.

 

[TCassidy]

So what do you mean?

I mean that the entire purpose of my posting was to disprove the false allegation that "Dispensationalism never results in more than one plan of salvation."

That was the one and only motive for posting and the one and only position I took on the subject. The rest has all been smoke and mirrors, a lot of kicked up dust, and a rabbit trail or two.

 

[Darrell C]

Does anyone know what this guy is saying?

Yes, it is the mistaken idea that because Old and New Testament Saints do not receive the same things it implies more than one means of salvation.

An example of why that is not the case would be in the first example, Born Again/Not Born Again. This is true of Old And New Testament Saints, but this does not deny salvation to the Old Testament Saint. The New Birth was promised under the Covenant of Law, and provided in the New Covenant.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I mean that the entire purpose of my posting was to disprove the false allegation that "Dispensationalism never results in more than one plan of salvation."

That was the one and only motive for posting and the one and only position I took on the subject. The rest has all been smoke and mirrors, a lot of kicked up dust, and a rabbit trail or two.

In just touching on one issue that you present as two different salvations, the New Birth (I am out of time), we do not see two different salvations but the same salvation as it progressively unfolds. As discussed before, Christ brought completion to a number of things which were incomplete as well as non-existent under the Covenant of Law.

So the starting point would be in regards as to whether the Old Testament Saints had, in their day, remission of sins from an eternal perspective.

This...


Hebrews 9:12-15

King James Version (KJV)

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


...speaks to Atonement and Remission of sins, both of which are distinguished as different from the previous Ages.

How this ties into Reconciliation might be broached by asking, can one be in spiritual relationship with God on an eternal basis without having had their sins forgiven?

And we understand that the New Birth demands that we be in Christ, which we do not see in the Old Testament.

Sorry for this rushed response, out of time and have to get going.


God bless.

 

[JonC]

I mean that the entire purpose of my posting was to disprove the false allegation that "Dispensationalism never results in more than one plan of salvation."

That was the one and only motive for posting and the one and only position I took on the subject. The rest has all been smoke and mirrors, a lot of kicked up dust, and a rabbit trail or two.

You should take that act on the road….TCassidy, master of illusion Laugh Laugh

I doubt there is any theory that never results in extreme positions.

 

[TCassidy]

Yes, it is the mistaken idea that because Old and New Testament Saints do not receive the same things it implies more than one means of salvation.

Uh, no, that is not what I am saying. I have clearly stated at least twice that it is incontestable that the benefits of the New Covenant greatly exceed the benefits of the Old Covenant.

(The BB needs a "Zoom, right over his head" icon.)

 

[TCassidy]

I doubt there is any theory that never results in extreme positions.

Yeah. That's my point! (Finally!) To say dispensationalism NEVER results in yada yada yada is patently false.