Lewis Sperry Chafer ( 1871-1952 )

I don't suppose you could provide a quote or something to back this assertion up, could you?

 

I'm not sure how many times we can run around this bush, but let's go for one more time anyway.

I actually said earlier that "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." The use in Mark 1:5 is an example of an imprecise use of the word. It should be obvious to anyone reading that not every single person in Judea went out to John. But as I also said earlier, "whether imprecise use of the word 'all' is legitimate in some other context is irrelevant."

Let me try to boil down the objection:

• when Calvinists say that God does all in salvation they mean precisely "all"; that is, they mean that He does everything without exception, including determination
• when anyone agrees with that Calvinist proposition they are not allowed to change to an imprecise "all"; if they do so then they actually disagree with the Calvinist proposition

This is what Warfield charged Chafer with doing. You say that to do this would have been OK. I still don't see why you think so.

I am also still curious to know your opinions about what Warfield meant by "curiously" pretentions and shallow.

 

As I said, it is because Chafer apparently did not claim to be a Calvinist. Warfield said Chafer had Calvinism in his system, but that's all anybody has set forth so far. If Chafer didn't label himself such, he is free to use "all" in the Arminian sense.

I agree with you that, when a person claims to be a Calvinist, he needs to be consistent and not start monkeying with terms.

I still object to your use of the term "imprecise," but so long as you are holding the Holy Spirit to the same standard as you hold me and Chafer, I'll just let it go.

I would understand such usage to indicate something unexpected, as in "Chafer usually writes like he has some sense, but he attributes all of salvation to God while denying effective grace; now that's curious..."

Am I missing something important?

 

I don't happen to have any words of Chafer's own to use, but lots of people are under the impression that he was Calvinist in some form. See http://fide-o.blogspot.com/2006/02/lewis-chafer-and-southern-baptist.html for one example.

Again, please remember that I do not deny that imprecise use is appropriate in certain contexts. I am objecting to Chafer's use in this specific context, not all such uses in any context.

This just goes back to your earlier assertion that Warfield called Chafer pretentious and shallow by claiming that his mixture of conflicting beliefs was pretentious and shallow. I think the word shows Warfield's belief that Chafer was neither pretentious nor shallow, and so this inconsistency was out of character. You seemed to take it as an attack on Chafer, but I don't think it was an attack on the man, but instead on his beliefs. I just wanted to see if you saw something there that I didn't.

 

Well, there's the rub. Quite obviously it is illegitimate to call someone something and then accuse him of not living up to it.

Fair enough, but I think that the insult still remains. "Y'know, I'm surprised that you would say something that stupid" is hardly ameliorated just because I confess to being surprised.

Warfield is actually my favorite theologian, and I'm an Arminian. I appreciate the grace with which he flays his opponents. In this case, though, I think he erred, for reasons noted above.

 

So how is L.S. Chafer a quasi-calvinist?And what exactly is a quasi-calvinist?Asking these questions for informational purposes only.

 

He was a Christmas Calvinist, or a 4 pointer (no L).

 

I think you are probably correct.

After Vol. 3, Chpt. 10, pgs 183-205 For Whom Did Christ Die? of his Systematic Theology, in his conclusion he says (prays).

"May the God who loved a lost world to the extent that that He gave His own Son to die for that world, ever impart that passion of soul to those who undertake to convey the measure of that measureless love to men"

HankD

 

Nothing like a pejorative 'free shot', is there? Regardless of whether or not I agree with the 'system' in question.

Ed

 

Main Entry: pejorative
Function: adjective
...: having negative connotations; especially : tending to disparage or belittle
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Hmm, Ed, why do you consider Whatever's phrase "Christmas Calvinist" (not adhering to "Limited Atonement") as having a "negative connotation" or belittling?

Just curious.

HankD

 

It was just a stupid joke. "No L" - Noel - Christmas - get it? I'm not sure why you think that was an attempt to disparage or belittle.

 

OH!, Now I get it! LOL! That's not disparaging, it's cute (IMO).

HankD