Dr. Chafer On Covenant Theology

[BlessedinHim]

FOREWARD: by blessedinHim

This is starting a new thread off of the Pauline dispensationism thread for further study. Posting these does not mean I agree or disagree with these statements, I am comparing them to what does the bible have to say about these statements. From the Pauline thread, I believe we have come to the conclusion that there is but one gospel, the 12 preached as well as did Paul. Paul may or may not have had a more clear understanding of what the gospel is. As we saw in the Book of Acts, there was some contentions that came about because some Jews could not accept the simplicity of the gospel and wanted the gentiles to follow the Jewish laws before they were to receive salvation. Of course and thankfully, the Holy Spirit said otherwise.

So, the law we follow is simply this: Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind and soul: the 2nd is like unto it, love your neighbor as yourself.



DR. CHAFER ON COVENANT THEOLOGY
Dear Dispensational friend

With his Presbyterian background, Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer understood that Covenant Theology constitutes a danger to the Church, and faithfully sought to alert the Church as to its doctrinal dangers. Dallas Theological Seminary, founded by Dr. Chafer, has failed to warn the Church of that danger.

All too many dispensational leaders are seeking dialogue and fellowship with Covenant theologians, seemingly unaware of the risk they are taking, and the adverse example they are setting.

True, when Covenantism attacks Dispensationalism polemically, there is still a dispensational leader here and there who will stand up and meet the challenge. See John A. Witmer's strong two-part refutation of John Gerstner's Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, Bib Sac, April-June and July-Sept., 1992.

But when Covenantism is presented in soft, irenic tones, as does Dr. Vern S. Poythress in his book, Understanding Dispensationalists, it becomes an afternoon of the fawn--dispensationalist leaders fawning over the formidable foe. For example, see Bock and Blaising's Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, as well as "Dispensational Study Group," in Grace Theological Journal, Fall, 1989, pp. 123-182.

Dallas Seminary is warning neither her students nor the Church of the doctrinal, and therefore personal, menace of Covenant Theology. Actually, the school is producing many Covenant-oriented graduates. Heed Dr. Chafer in what he wrote about Covenant Theology below. Then, anyone who is not convinced that it constitutes a danger to the Church, he himself is in danger!

We share here what Dr. Chafer wrote in his Systematic Theology concerning the errors of Covenant Theology. To let him loose on the subject is an awesome thing to behold. Be warned!

Resting in Him,
Miles J. Stanford

[BlessedinHim]

SANS PAUL -- A clear recognition of that which, through divine grace, the Church is, of the supreme position she occupies as the Body of Christ, and of the glory and exaltation which awaits her as the Bride of the Lamb, is indispensable if a worthy perspective of God's plan and purpose is to be gained. The all but universal disregard on the part of theologians for the Pauline revelation respecting the Church has wrought confusion and damage to an immeasurable degree.

I am not sure what SANS PAUL means.

I have come to believe that that statement is very true. Rightly dividing the word vs. not rightly dividing the word causes great confusions and arguments. God never intended the church to have so many denominations and splits. What a sad day it is that the church is so split up and at the same time it is still a sad day that today it seems ecumenical efforts are on the rise, but their efforts are not uniting under the true doctrine presented in the bible. Only uniting for the sake of uniting under a false banner of Peace and unity. For what does darkness have to do with light?

REFORMATION RESTRAINT -- Two factors serve as paramount causes of this deplorable neglect of Paul, namely: (a) the Reformation did not recover this truth as formerly it was held by the early Church; (b) that attitude of the theologians, being bound and confined within the limitations of Reformation truth, has been one of avoidance of what to them seems new.

I believe this statement hits the nail on the head.

[Aliya]

FOREWARD: by blessedinHim

This is starting a new thread off of the Pauline dispensationism thread for further study. Posting these does not mean I agree or disagree with these statements, I am comparing them to what does the bible have to say about these statements. From the Pauline thread, I believe we have come to the conclusion that there is but one gospel, the 12 preached as well as did Paul. Paul may or may not have had a more clear understanding of what the gospel is. As we saw in the Book of Acts, there was some contentions that came about because some Jews could not accept the simplicity of the gospel and wanted the gentiles to follow the Jewish laws before they were to receive salvation. Of course and thankfully, the Holy Spirit said otherwise.

I would say if you based this conclusion, in bold above, on the book of Acts, you are cutting yourself short. Acts contains very little doctrine. So you might have concluded that, but I only deepened my conviction of how much I thought I knew and did not, and how wonderful and amazing the gospel revealed to Paul really is.

I am avoiding systems of theology right now while I am studying the bible, so I'll let you all go at it here. Have fun! :)

[CarolLyn]

As I mentioned in another thread, I am a member of a church that holds to the covenant theology view of scripture. I don't agree with their view of doctrine. I am there for personal reasons. But I think most of them are sincere in their faith, believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He died for their sins. I think it is sad when Christians, who love the Lord, view other Christians as "foes" because we differ in what we view as "truth" of the scriptures. Personally, I am a traditional dispensationalist. But I don't think Covenant Theology is "dangerous", it is simply in error.

[BlessedinHim]

I would say if you based this conclusion, in bold above, on the book of Acts, you are cutting yourself short. Acts contains very little doctrine. So you might have concluded that, but I only deepened my conviction of how much I thought I knew and did not, and how wonderful and amazing the gospel revealed to Paul really is.

I am avoiding systems of theology right now while I am studying the bible, so I'll let you all go at it here. Have fun! :)

I dont think the book of Acts has all the "theology" in it that helps us to live out our Christian life, what I do say, is that acts tells the basics of what the Apostles did.

The Epistles and letters that were written resulted because of the travels written about in the book of Acts.

If you read through and think about each verse as you read it, you will see that the book of corinthians came about because in Acts, Paul travelled there. In the book of Acts you see the 12 and Paul working together in several places, preaching together. If there were 2 different gospels, them preaching in the same place would have left behind a quake of confusion. Over and over, Paul is preaching in the synagogues to the Jews in the book of Acts.

Paul preached the Kingdom of God. Paul preached about Repentence, baptism, grace, justification, the whole gospel was preached in the book of Acts, perhaps it wasnt put in the book of Acts in depth, but the basics of the gospel are there. All of it. I demonstrated that in the Pauline thread going through the book of acts verse by verse, chapter at a time.

Im not smarter than the people who wrote the commentaries, but God didnt have the bible written in such a way that you need a degree to understand it either.

Peter preached the same message. It is there.

[BlessedinHim]

As I mentioned in another thread, I am a member of a church that holds to the covenant theology view of scripture. I don't agree with their view of doctrine. I am there for personal reasons. But I think most of them are sincere in their faith, believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He died for their sins. I think it is sad when Christians, who love the Lord, view other Christians as "foes" because we differ in what we view as "truth" of the scriptures. Personally, I am a traditional dispensationalist. But I don't think Covenant Theology is "dangerous", it is simply in error.


I think it would be safe to say that most of what man has written about theology is in error in some point to some degree.

In this thread we can examine the covenant theology held up to what the word says. This is why we are to study as the Bereans did, to see if those things were so.

[BlessedinHim]

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.

From the teachings of John Darby and his associates what is known as the Plymouth Brethren movement sprang. These highly trained men produced an expository literature covering the entire Sacred Text which is not only orthodox and free from misconceptions, but assays to interpret faithfully the entire field of Biblical doctrine--that which theology confined to the Reformation failed to do.

I will have to look into this. Does anyone know anything about J.N. DARBY & COMPANY? Is there a church that goes by their writings?

Found a website: http://www.plymouthbrethren.com/index.htm

it is very interesting how they came about. I can relate to these who stepped out of the traditional for what was of God, pure and true. These came about because they did not trust in the theology of men.

[CarolLyn]

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nelson_Darby

Evidently, he's credited with being the father of modern dispensationalism.

[BlessedinHim]

http://www.brethrenonline.org/faqs/Brethren.htm

This is a FAQ page about the above link. It answered several questions that I had.

[BlessedinHim]

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nelson_Darby

Evidently, he's credited with being the father of modern dispensationalism.

something like that, but Paul was the original dispensationalist. There are many positions on dispensationalism. I would have thought that a dispensationalist is a dispensationalist is a dispensationalist, but I have come away with a different view of that now. I want to be biblical dispensationalist or that of Paul's view. Digging in is quite an experience.