Lewis Sperry Chafer ( 1871-1952 )

No, just trying to make a joke.

Well, I believe that "all" means "all" in both of those passages, if that's what you're asking.

 

OK thanks, and yes I believe as well that in both cases it means "all", just don't ask me to eloborate because I'm at a loss for words especially with the Timothy passage.

HankD

 

Since Bro bob must of had a late service today I guess I'll fill in. Jn 3:16 For God so loved the world etc... There is on qualifier like elect world or saved world, it says world.

My favorite is that we believe that all men fell because of Adam sin yet only some were saved by Christ blood. I guess Adam was just better than Christ??? </sarcasm>

Ro 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

 

Yes, yes, we've been made well aware of that sometime in our history. But I never claimed that Calvinism was false-- at least, not in the last week. What I alleged was that a noncalvinist using the word "all" is not being inaccurate. To call such a person shallow and pretentious is, well, ironic.

 

I was guessing that it was an oral address from the name Keswick. My only exposure to "Keswick teachers" are from the one Keswick conference I attended, and at that time we were told that Keswick conferences were held only every four years, and the one I went to was more like a bible conference, with teachers every night for a week or so. Possibly there are other types, I don't know. But if I'm right, then the only way for Warfield to hear a Keswick teacher would have been at an oral address. Chafer would have been at most 40, more likely sometime in his 30's. I'll give the man the benefit of the doubt that he could grow in his understanding over 35 years.

Chafer may not line up 100% with Warfield, I'm not sure. But he's much, much, much closer to Calvinism than Wesleyism, by a long shot, and the portions I posted on page 1 show it. So much so that Chafer would be tossed from most SBC churches I'm familiar with for being Calvinist.

I understand that you did not call him a heretic. I did not intend to come across like I thought you did.

 

Dr. Chafer's theology texts were a very popular read among the early Baptists I knew, and especially among the Plymouth Brethren.

I liked his simple style of writing, yet depth of understanding. In later writing he did advocate that election was based on foreknowledge, but I can't remember the title of the book. Then, there were some strong Calvinist theologians who said much the same and they were misunderstood by outsiders. They meant that foreknowledge was a natural attribute of God and not the cause of election.....Some read this as foreknowledge being the "reason" for election.

Keswick used to meet every year in both Keswick, England, where it started, and in Canada. I didn't agree with all that was taught at Keswick meetings, but I did learn a great deal about the spiritual aspects of Christianity.

Cheers,

Jim

 

You know that there's a difference between calling a person shallow and pretentious and calling that person's inconsistent beliefs "curiously pretentious and curiously shallow", right? Don't you? I think you do.

I would love to see a proof for your claim that:

All - Determination = All

Would you care to try?

 

Sorry, I don't understand your question.

If you're asking me to prove Arminianism, save your keystrokes.

 

No, I am asking you to prove that doing all except for the determination part is still doing all.

 

And what would you accept as proof that the word "all" is legitimate in such a case?

Would you quibble over the use of "all" in the examples I originally gave? Forget the question of whether or not they picture biblical salvation correctly; just look at the use of the English. Could the saved people legitimately use the word "all" to describe their rescuers' actions?

If you say no, then there's nothing more I can say. If you say yes, then you've answered your own challenge. This is not a question of doctrine, it is a question of English usage. "All," like all words, has a semantic range.

 

Nope. He called the combination shallow and pretentious. Combinations do not exist outside of the combiner. It is a statement about Chafer, one of the milder of the sneering pomposities that predictably pollute predestinarian apologetics.

 

Pardon me sir, your prejudice is showing. He did call the combination of beliefs shallow and pretentious, as I said. Why do you suppose Warfield saw this combination of beliefs as "curiously" pretentious and "curiously" shallow? Why "curious"?

 

I know that you would like to forget it, but the question hinges on this point.

Sure it does, and we all (every single one of us) use language imprecisely at times, but our imprecise use of a word does not actually change the meaning of that word.

When we Calvinists say that God does "all" in salvation we include determination. When you say that God does "all" in salvation you do not include determination. Therefore, when we say that God does all and you say "we believe that too", but you use "all" to mean "all except determination" then your statement is false - you try use the same words to affirm something other than what we affirm. Whether imprecise use of the word "all" is legitimate in some other context is irrelevant.

 

You are exactly right, and anyone who tries to pass himself off as believing something other than what he believes is blameworthy. That does not include me, however, since I am an admitted Arminian and would never say that I believe what you believe.

You asked earlier how one can say "all" and not define it your way. My examples are not instances of imprecision. The word's semantic range easily accomodates those uses. To repeat my original statement, Calvinists, of all people, should know that "all" can be used in various ways, all of them correct.

My doctrine may be in error, but my (and Chafer's) vocabulary is correct.

 

According to the OP Chafer called himself a Calvinist and held to a Calvinistic view "so that he and his coterie of evangelists and Bible teachers often spoke of God's grace doing all", but he also held to a view that "made God's gracious working subject to human determination". If these propositions are true then I contend that Chafer would have been blameworthy, to use your word. Now I do not know whether those propostitions are true because I haven't read enough Chafer to know, but if they are true then Chafer was being imprecise, at best.

How about this - can you show me where a Calvinist argues that "all" really means "all except ..."?

 

Here is apparently the point where we diverge. The OP did not say that Chafer called himself a Calvinist, and I have been proceeding on that basis since my first post. Maybe that was mentioned in the earlier thread?

We both know quite well of instances where a Calvinist uses "all" in ways that surprise normal people. One of them is in the interpretation of "and that he died for all" (2 Cor 5). Normal Christians (i.e., Arminians) see General Redemption here as clearly as a dead jellyfish on the beach, yet Calvinists somehow get "all" to mean "all of us elect folks."

To argue for your doctrine is one thing; to claim that detractors are misusing the word "all" is--well, I went over that in my OP.

 

From monergism.com the different views of ordo salutis:

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Verdana]Historically in the Church there has been disagreement about the order of salvation, especially between those in the Reformed and Arminian camps. The following two perspectives of God's order in carrying out His redemptive work reveals the stark contrast between these two main historic views. Keep in mind that both viewpoints are based on the redemptive work which Christ accomplished for His people in history[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, Verdana][/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, Verdana, Arial]:[/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Verdana]In the Reformed camp[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, Verdana], the ordo salutis is 1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification,
8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30) [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua,
Verdana]In the Arminian camp, the ordo salutis is 1) outward call 2) faith/election,
3) repentance, 4) regeneration, 5) justification, 6) perseverance, 7) glorification.[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Verdana, Arial]Notice the crucial difference in the orders of regeneration and faith. While the Reformed position believes spiritual life is a prerequisite for the existence of the other aspects of salvation, the Arminians believe that fallen, natural man retains the moral capacity to receive or reject the gospel of his own power. Even with the help of grace he still must find it within himself to believe or reject Christ. This has broad implications and raises questions like why does one man believe and not another? You might also notice that, according to Arminians, election is dependent on faith, not the other way around. This is no small matter ...understanding the biblical order, while keeping in mind its unitary process, is crucial and has a profound impact on how one views God, the gospel, and the Bible as a whole.[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, Verdana]
[/FONT]

 

You are correct - the implication is there in the OP ("He might have considered himself as a Calvinist") but it doesn't explicitly say it. I have read elsewhere that Chafer called himself a "moderate Calvinist", rejecting limited atonement.

Here's the passage:

For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

So why is it unfair to ask "all of what", when the text does not explicitly say? Besides, defining the extent of the "all" is not the same thing as changing the meaning of "all".

 

I wouldn't say that it is unfair, but I and quite a few others believe that the passage is clear because it doesn't add qualifications. You would, too, if your system didn't preclude it.

You accused noncalvinists of changing the meaning of the word, i.e., using the word incorrectly. I maintained that the word has a range of meanings that are all correct (so long as they consist with the context).

For example, Mark 1:5, "And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea." To use the criteria you have outlined above and ask "all of what?" one would have to answer "all of Judea--duh!" (Well, I guess he could leave off the "duh.") Defining the extent of the "all" doesn't yield the correct interpretation, which is "pretty much all." You have to do that with common sense.

It isn't changing the meaning of the word, it is identifying the range of meanings and choosing the correct one. If Chafer chose one that differs from yours, he may have been wrong, but he wasn't being shallow and pretentious.

 

So we are told by many people that the same author in the same verse is supposed to be telling us that "all" means "all" and then "all" means "some".

I've found it to be a curious hermeneutic indeed that that can have the same verse mean two opposite things. I agree that the word "all" can have more than one usage, as Pipedude pointed out earlier. But I find it very difficult thing to swallow when our brethren tell us that this single sentence is supporting two senses of the word, especially when the context is obviously drawing a parallel.

Never let your theology interpret scripture.