Dismissing Dispensationalism for the Wrong Reasons

Note:  The following is an edit of a comment I left on SBC Impact, and to some degree it still reflects that context.  Rather than see it buried in an old thread, I thought it best to post the main points here.

Too often with discussions in which eschatology is the subject, opposing views are badly misrepresented, whether it is pretribulationists arguing that all other views are liberal or those with other views charging dispensationalists with heresy. The responsible practice of one sincerely seeking the truth is to read primary sources to better understand the various views, and not to simply rely on polemical works by those with whom one is already inclined to agree, although those works can sometimes be quite useful.  If you want to know what pretribulationists teach, read Ryrie, McClain, Saucy, MacArthur, Bock, Blaising etc.  For historic premillennialism (i.e. non pretrib) read George Eldon Ladd, Russell Moore and also C.H. Spurgeon, J.C. Ryle and Horatius Bonar.  For amil, read Venema, Hoekema, Poythress, Riddlebarger, Gaffin, O.P. Robertson, etc. For theonomic postmillennialism, read Bahnsen and Rushdoony. For partial preterism read Sproul and DeMar.  Of course, THE primary source is the Bible itself.

Despite what one might gather from anti-dispensationalist diatribes, every pretribulationist doesn’t agree with every jot and tittle of the Scofield Reference Bible. Also, Progressive Dispensationalists aren’t the only ones who have attempted to make some modifications to their eschatological viewpoint. Dr. Russell Moore notes in The Kingdom of Christ that there has been just as much movement on the part of several recent covenantal amillennialists as there has been by progressive dispensationalists.  Also, the historic premillennialism of George Ladd has some significant differences with the older historic (or covenantal) premils like Spurgeon, Ryle and Bonar.  Yet, it is often assumed that Ladd’s views are representative of older non-dispensational premils.  Theonomic postmillennialism has important differences with the historic Reformed or Puritan view.  Yet pretribulationists are alternately charged with being Scofield clones or are dismissed because modifications and clarifications have been made to dispensationalism since Scofield and Chafer, even though all of the other views have also seen attempts to varying degrees at further development, revision or modification in recent years.

The charge that dispensationalism is a new teaching and therefore to be rejected is often repeated. Ironically some today evidently fail to recognize that their own views, when taken in their totality, often represent a position that is of more recent vintage than dispensationalism. I’m thinking particularly of inaugurated eschatology with its already/not yet emphasis, which is largely a 20th century phenomenon that draws from Ladd in particular as well as other sources. If Ladd’s conception of the Kingdom of God is the only legitimate view, (as some have argued) then there are a lot of other figures in church history that flunk that test as well, including most amils prior to Hoekema, most premils prior to Ladd, as well as postmillennialism, which was the predominant view prior to the 20th Century.  I also find it interesting that many who point to Ladd’s eschatological views as being the way forward also often fail to note his abandonment of inerrancy and to reckon with whether his treatment of OT prophecy was a factor.

The charge of novelty can obviously also be brought against continuationism, particularly with regard to tongues or what has been termed a private prayer language in recent SBC controversies.

Another example is New Covenant Theology in its various manifestations, which is so recent that it arguably does not have a definitive expression or definition beyond being both non-covenantal and non-dispensational. If you are baptistic, non-dispensational and yet do not hold to covenant theology complete with Sabbatarianism as taught in historic confessions like the 1689 London Baptist Confession, the New Hampshire Confession and the 1925 and 1963 versions of the Baptist Faith and Message, you hold to a view that is quite recent, although I realize that exceptions here and there could be named through the years.   (As for covenant theology, given the 2000 years of church history, it is a post-reformation development that does not predate dispensationalism by very much.)

Of course, pointing out that a strong case can be made that the above views can be demonstrated to be more novel than dispensationalism proves little if anything with regard to whether or not they are biblical. The point is that it is folly to simply note that a teaching appears to be novel and just dismiss it out of hand the way that so many attempt to do with dispensationalism. Likewise, it is hardly responsible to simply point to someone on the lunatic fringe, however popular they may be, and thereby dismiss the camp with which they are identified. Recently I was taken aback when a young scholar posted on his blog that he abandoned dispensationalism after seeing an episode of Jack Van Impe’s show. If that’s reason enough to bail, then should amils abandon their view because of Harold Camping’s rantings or because it is the predominant view among many neo-orthodox and liberal scholars who reject the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture?  Should continuationists abandon their view when confronted with faith healers, the Word of Faith “prosperity gospel,” “Holy Laughter” and those who have taught that speaking in tongues is necessary to be saved?  Should non-dispensationalists abandon their identification of Israel with the church because it has often served as the justification for anti-Semitism?

Note on Baptist Why and Why Not

I do plan to begin posting here more regularly, Lord willing.  However, since I don’t plan to maintain the heavy focus on Southern Baptist issues, in all likelihood I will not be posting any more chapters from Baptist Why and Why Not.  This work was published in 1901 by the Baptist Sunday School Board (now called Lifeway.) It was edited by J.M. Frost, who was instrumental in the creation of the Sunday School Board and was its first chief executive.  It is an important work on Southern Baptist faith and practice from the beginning of the 20th century.

Because some of my readers had found the previous posts to be of interest, I wanted to note that several years ago my friend Don Elbourne had posted Baptist Why and Why Not on his website, along with several other historic Southern Baptist writings from the same period that may be of interest.

Phil Johnson on “neo-evangelicalism”

Phil has addressed this issue before,  but this short post is an excellent introduction, especially for those who are not familiar with the term.  What is the result of this movement that began in the middle of the last century?

The average American today thinks evangelicalism is a political position or a religious ghetto rather than a set of biblical beliefs.  The task for the remnant who still believe and teach classic evangelical doctrine is to remain faithful and remember that the gospel—not the combined clout of a large politically-driven movement—is the power of God unto salvation.

Hiatus

I created this site in January, not long before I left a message board that I had been heavily involved in for a number of years.  (The posts prior to 2009 were moved from previous blogs.)  My intention was to cut back on my online interaction, with this site still giving my the opportunity to occasionally post about topics of  interest.  Based on my previous blogging experience in which I had only posted sporadically, I wasn’t expecting for it to receive much traffic or to take up much of my time.

However, in Feburary I commented on several posts about various controversies on other blogs, posted about them here and before I knew it, I was as deeply involved in online discussion as I had been before, if not moreso at times.  While this is hardly a heavily visited site compared to many, blogging (along with social networking) has at times taken up far more of my time than I anticipated or desired.

That being said, I don’t regret expressing a point of view that was largely underrepresented in the blogosphere at the time.  Overall I am thankful for the experience and the opportunity that blogging has afforded me to be able to discuss various issues with fellow Christians, and in some cases, men who are leaders of some note.  I’m very grateful for the public and private encouragement that I’ve received over the past several months as a result of my efforts.  However, I’ve come to realize that I simply need to “unplug” for a while, especially regarding online theological discussions that have little direct relation to my present calling and responsibilities.

I have been known to say that a lot of internet theologians would be much better off doing less typing and more reading, and I believe the time has come for me to take my own advice.  I also have several personal and professional goals and responsibilities that take precedence over this kind of online interaction.  Due to some health issues I had last year, I have been providentially hindered from working outside of the home for most of the past year, but Lord willing, that soon appears to be coming to an end.

It’s been an interesting and at times rewarding ride, but the time has come for me to get off, at least for now.

Don’t Be Fooled, The Pew Won’t Save You! by Bob Jennings

Lest any suspect the previous post of teaching salvation by church membership, (and it clearly is not) here’s a warning against presumption and trust in anything other than Christ:

HT:  Puritan Fellowship

Don Johnson on the Local Church

HT:  Truth Matters

Here is a copy of the tract that Bro. Johnson mentions.

Why Sunday Schools in Baptist Churches

Baptist Why and Why Not (1900)

Chapter 13:  Why Sunday Schools In Baptist Churches

By N. B. Broughton
Superintendent in Tabernacle Baptist Church.
Raleigh, North Carolina

Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes. And ye shall teach them to your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down and when thou risest up. – Deut. 11:18-19.

LET us consider two matters in connection with our Sunday school work as Baptists – first, several reasons for the existence of the Sunday school, and, second, some suggested methods for increasing its efficiency.

Why a Sunday School in a Baptist church?  Several reasons suggest themselves.

I. BECAUSE OF WHAT THE SUNDAY SCHOOL IS.

We must acknowledge with regret that a great many persons have a very mistaken conception of the real nature of its work.  They think that it is merely a place for the care of the children on Sunday morning-a sort of World’s Fair “Baby Room.”  So widespread is this erroneous idea that in almost every community when boys get to wearing long pants and standing collars they think they are “too old to go to Sunday school.”  They accent in speech and thought the “Sunday” and forget that it is a “school.”  The Sunday school in truth is that agency of Christianity to which is especially committed the teaching of the Scriptures. If we fail to thoroughly realize this fact we shall fail in our appreciation of its purpose and power.

II. BECAUSE WE NEED SUCH A TRAINING SCHOOL.

More than any other denomination, we Baptists need a well organized, well equipped Sunday school in every church-indeed in every mission station.  We need the training that it will give.

a. As to Doctrines.

This is emphatically true because of our very polity.  A religious organization without the usual constitution and by-laws, book of discipline or any such thing; a denomination calling no man lord, and without appeal to any earthly court, priest or potentate; a people with but one book and that book the Bible; surely if we fail to “Search the Scriptures” – if we fail to teach God’s Word, there can be no hope or expectation of our occupying that position which it is our duty and privilege to occupy.

b. As to Giving.

A Sunday school in every Baptist church and that school given a proper conception of its true work, would soon supply us with a great host of trained, systematic givers instead of a multitude that no man can number that take pleasure in a freedom they claim to possess.

As Baptists we are to-day facing the great question of how shall we enlist all our people in the financial support of the cause of the world’s evangelization?  On every hand men and women are saying, “Here am I, send me;” but for lack of means in the Lord’s treasury, they are not sent.  Organize a Sunday school in every Baptist church, give to that school the one work of teaching God’s Word, of imparting His commandments-and we shall see such a quickening in the gifts of our people as has never yet been seen.

III. BECAUSE OF ITS EFFICIENCY AS AN EVANGELIZING AGENCY.

The Sunday school is the greatest of all the agencies given to the churches of Jesus Christ for bringing the world to God.  This is true, in the first place, because it is a school, and there must be knowledge before there can be belief.  There must be fact before faith.  It is true, in the second place, because the material upon which it works is usually in the plastic state.

Daniel Webster once asked Thomas Jefferson the patriotic question:  “What is to be the salvation of our nation?”  After a pause, Jefferson replied:  “Our nation will be saved, if saved at all, by teaching the children to love the Savior.”  Solomon’s saying, “Train a child up in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it,” today has the warrant of every century’s experience that has passed since he said it.  “Lycurgus,” says Plutarch, “resolved the whole business of legislation in the bringing up of the youth.”

Statistics gathered by associations and conventions show that more than ninety per cent of all the membership of all our churches have come to us from the ranks of the Sunday school.  It is further clearly established not only as to the organized church, but also as to our mission stations, that without a Sunday school we need hardly hope for increase, for progress, for conversions.

IV. BECAUSE IT IS COMMANDED.

Some persons have an idea that the Sunday school is not a Bible institution, but is purely manmade.  They say that Robert Raikes started the movement.  There never was a more mistaken notion.  Robert Raikes simply revived in England what had been in existence in Palestine before the time of Christ.  Let us remember that preaching the Word is not the same thing as teaching the Word.  The preacher proclaims the truth; the teacher examines it with his students by questions and answer.  Both urge the acceptance-the preacher by general exhortation, the teacher by personal application.  You can preach to trees and stones, but you can’t teach them.  The gospel is meant for men, and so the teaching of it (the work of the Sunday school) is commanded:

a. By Christ’s Example.

Christ was both preacher and teacher, and yet-an examination of some passages in the New Testament will show us that His special, emphatic work was that of teaching.  In Matthew 4:23 and 7:29 we find, he went about all Galilee teaching in their synagogues as one having authority; and in Mark 1:22 that they were astonished at his doctrine for he taught not as the Scribes.  Sometimes it was with one scholar, as Nicodemus or the woman at Jacob’s well, and then again the crowd, as in Mark 10:1.  He not only taught in the synagogue, and by the seaside, but in the streets, as indicated by Luke 13:26.  So important was this teaching work to the Master that he never let an opportunity escape; even during the feast he went into the temple and taught, as in John 7:14, and early in the morning as in John 8:2.  When asked by the high priest of his disciples and his doctrine, he replied, “I ever taught in the synagogue and in the temple.”

b. By the Apostles’ Example.

Among the first of the apostles to be persecuted were Peter and John, and reference to Acts 4:18 and 5:28, 42, shows that it was because of their teaching. In Acts 11:26 we are told that Barnabas and Saul conducted a school of twelve months duration, and as one of the results “The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.”  And a further result was the qualifying of others who became teachers.  This is the first account we have of what in this day we call a normal school, judging from the work that followed.

The apostle Paul, though a great preacher, relied very much upon teaching.  In 1 Cor. 4:17 he says, “I teach everywhere in every church.”  And he means by that the method of asking and answering questions, the only way that true teaching can be done.  Refer to 1 Cor. 14:19 and you see he urges the value of teaching with the voice. In 1 Tim. 6:2 Paul tells the young apostle to teach and exhort, showing that he recognized the value of both and that he did not regard them as one and the same thing.

To the Sunday school is committed this important work begun by Jesus Christ and followed up by his apostles, as to no other agency connected with a church of God.

c. By the Great Commission.

As Baptists, the Great Commission, as recorded in Matthew 28:19- 20, contains our marching orders.  It naturally falls into three parts-making disciples, baptizing them, teaching them.  The first is the mission work, the second the observance of his ordinance symbolizing His death and resurrection, and the third, imparting His commandments.  That is our work, and with us as Baptists the Sunday school is organized for obeying the last or third division of the Great Commission.

To conclude this part of our investigation, we Baptists need the Sunday school because of its efficiency as a training school for our denominational doctrines which we ought either to teach or abandon; because of its efficiency as an evangelizing agency, one command being to evangelize the world; and, lastly, because it is commanded in the Scriptures, indirectly by the example of Christ and the apostles, directly by the words of the Great Commission.  We need it as a denomination.  We need it as Christians.  Being responsible for the use of the best instrumentalities possible, we can not afford to be without it.  Claiming to be followers of the author of the Great Commission we dare not be without it.

HOW SHALL WE INCREASE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE SUNDAY SCHOOL.

Realizing the great value, the incalculable blessing possible to the Sunday school, the demand is upon us as Baptists to extend the work.  How shall we do it ?

1. By a wide reach to interest the people.

We organize all sorts of forces to reach the churches.  We urge the importance of broadcasting our literature in all our homes.  We hold mass meetings, institutes and conventions to stir our people in behalf of missions.  These are good, but have we not gone ahead of the foundation work and erected a structure that could not stand?  In some communities there are many; in most communities there are a few that deeply feel the great importance of a well organized Sunday school.  The work before us as Baptists is that of enlisting our whole people in this great work.

2. By the whole church being concerned for the success of the Sunday school.

Our most serious trouble as Baptists is not in getting a Sunday school organized in every church so much as enlisting the sympathy and cooperation of all the members.  And to this work we believe we need first of all to address ourselves.  The great majority of our churches are content with their ability to report to the association each year the fact that they have a Sunday school, giving but little thought or concern about the work committed to it or how that work is being done.  In too many of the churches the Sunday school is almost a separate organization and is in all respects so treated.  A closer relation is needed, and the more intimate it shall be made the more certainly may we look for an extension of the work.

3. By organization for increased attendance and better methods.

An inquiry in towns, cities and country neighborhoods has revealed the lamentable fact that less than one-fourth of our population in the southern states, not including the larger cities, are outside of the Sunday school.  We are not surprised with the condition in the large cities, but when these are left out, and our small towns, cities and even country districts only are considered the showing is cause for deep concern.

The cause for this is due largely to our want of systematic effort to change it.  And this is all wrong.  One of the very first things to be kept in our view in our Sunday school organization is that of reaching all the people.

As Baptists we have made a great mistake in this matter.  With a church organization so near the people our Sunday schools should swarm with young and old.

House to house visitation, as observed by a few schools, if regularly and persistently pursued by all, would bring into our ranks such a multitude as we have not dreamed of.  The people are all about us. We have said “come” in a very quiet, orderly way but have not gone “out into the highways and hedges and compelled them to come in.”  The house that fails to do this will be empty.  The house that obeys the command “may be filled.”

An illustration of this comes to us as we write.  A little over one year ago there was a Baptist Sunday school in the little town of P. with 45 to 60 members enrolled.  The superintendent of the school attended an Institute that was held in a neighboring village and during its sessions became deeply concerned for the extension of the work at his home.  House to house canvassing was freely talked about at the Institute and on returning to the village of P. he at once organized this work in the interest of his own school.  As a result of that effort, in less than one month the little school of 45 to 60 had run up to 175, and soon to over 200.  As a further but natural result, a revival of religion soon began in the church and over 150 persons professed faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Not only do we need to organize for largely increased numbers, but also for better methods of management and teaching.  We must at once come to understand that the Sunday school demands the very wisest management and the most devoted and efficient teaching.

We are demanding these things for our day schools but we have sadly lost sight of their greater necessity for the Sunday school.  And this accounts for so much of our work that is weak, unstable, not to say almost wholly wanting in attractive, holding power.

It was a great supper that had been prepared for those in the highways and hedges, streets and lanes – not a scanty, uninviting meal.  There is abundance in the Gospel out of which to provide such a feast that all may be fed; and when they have freely and joyously partaken they will come again.

We need the most efficient and godly members of the church for the officers and teachers of the Sunday school – men and women who realize something of the great possibilities of the Sunday school, and who will give of their time, their talents and their means for its success.  And we need organized methods for the training of these teachers.  Just as a Normal school, the Teachers’ Institute and the Summer school are being established in all our states in easy reach of the day school teachers, so we must organize for the enlightenment and helpfulness of the Sunday school teachers and workers.

4. By making the Sunday school work a part of our educational system.

Not only are special chairs for technical education being added to private and state schools but the same is true of our denominational schools and colleges, and therefore it is not necessary that our boys and girls shall go away from home in order to be trained for preaching, teaching, dentistry, law, mining, milling, mechanics, etc.  “They can be trained in these various lines here in the south by the very best instructors.”  But how about Sunday school teachers?  So far as we remember, not a school in the south, outside of our Theological Seminary, pretends to prepare students for teaching the Bible.

A few of the schools have added what is called “A course in Bible Study,” or a “Chair of the Bible;” but not in one of these, so far as we know, do they pretend to instruct in the work of teaching the Bible.

But some will say a person can not teach what he does not know, and can teach if he knows what to teach.  The last part of that proposition is a mistake.  There are plenty of people that know much of the Bible and yet are not able to impart that knowledge.  Many of these with a little special training would make splendid teachers in our Sunday schools.  The truth is, for lack of training we have but few competent teachers in these schools.  Once realize the great possibilities of the work and we shall find preparation for doing it in the most efficient way possible being furnished in all our Normal and Pedagogical courses.

Yes, we need a Sunday school in every Baptist church and then from these churches we ought to plant one in practically every community of people throughout the world, and use every effort within our power to increase their efficiency, because in this God-given work is presented the opportunity for doing that personal work so necessary and so helpful to the development of the Christian and so indispensable in the work of winning souls for the Master.

Conrad Murrell on Baptism and Church Authority

The doctrine of Church authority for baptism does not have its roots in the scriptures, but in Rome’s tradition.  That is where Protestant churches got it.  And some churches which say that they never came out of the Roman Church are still cursed with this doctrine, because, though they never came out of that Church, some things came out of that Church that got in them.  There is not the slightest hint anywhere in the Bible that water baptism is ever authorized by either a local church or a larger church concept.  The error is part of a larger heresy, also spawned by Rome, which is the idea of the supremacy of church authority.  It is clear from the scriptures that God never put authority in a corporate body of any kind.  He puts it in two places:  In the written scriptures and in a man.  Of course all authority is in the Lord Jesus Christ, but He is the incarnate Word and His ambassador bears His authority.  There is a sense in which authority is in the church to do the work of the body of Christ, since it is His body.  But this is a working authority, not a decision making authority.  The whole body works, but decisions are made by the Head.  As the Head sent letters to the churches of Asia in Rev. 2-3, He addressed the messenger and held him responsible for what should be told to the churches.

A church which holds this doctrine usually defines itself as the only valid church and, therefore, the only authority for true baptism.  It considers all other baptisms “alien.”  When this is coupled with its ultimate companion error, that baptism is essential for salvation, then that church has made itself the door of salvation which is a blasphemous idolatry usurping the place of Christ.  The only other alternative to this is the “bride versus guests” theory which puts two classes of people in heaven:  The bride (those who are members of “the” Church) and the wedding guests (those who were saved but not a part of the church).  The absurdities that men will believe to accomodate their doctrinal errors are amazing.

The authority for water baptism is singular:  The Name of Jesus.  By virtue of His command to me to baptize, I baptize under and in His authority.  That which He commanded us to do, we have no warrant to vote on whether we shall do it or not.  He is Lord and as Lord is to be obeyed without question.  His commands are not for our consideration, examination and debate.  They are for our obedience.  Can you imagine this situation:  I tell my son Timothy, to cut the grass each week.  In a few days I hear a conference in session in my living room.  Motions are being made and seconded, and debate is being heard.  “What is going on in there?”  I ask.  “Oh, we are voting on whether Timothy is going to cut the grass or not.  James is for it and so is Pam, but Bill objects and Kenneth is undecided.”  Now if such a thing should happen in my house I can assure you that I would find a paddle and decide the election in short order.  Can the Lord be any less grieved with our phony “play church” elections about whether a person shall be received for baptism or not?  Into what Church was the Ethiopian eunuch baptized, and what church authorized Cornelius’ baptism or the Philippian jailor’s?

Conrad Murrell, Spiritual Baptisms and Gifts.  (Pineville:  Saber Publications, pp. 42-44.)

Leonard Verduin on the Diversity in Non-Catholic, Non-Protestant Christianity

The dissent against the medieval order was in 1517 already a millenium old and extremely widespread.  Because it had been obliged to carry on under cover, so that conference between the dissidents was quite out of the question, it had gone in all directions.  The “medieval underground,” as it has been called, was unable to have its “town meetings” to discuss and then come to consensus; hence the endless variety.  The Church called all its foes by one and the same name, “heretics,” who “like the foxes of Samson, have diverse faces but are all tied together at the tail.”  The Church had no desire to differentiate between group and group; they were all guilty of one and the same sin, that of challenging her monopoly; and she vented her spleen on them indiscriminately.

This will go far to explain why the “Left-wing of the Reformation” or the “Radical Reformation,” or whatever one wishes to call the camp that developed the Second Front, shows such bewildering diversity.  The Church had long had a sort of catch-all, a kind of wastebasket into which she thrust everything she didn’t want; when the Reformation failed to satisfy there was again and at once the same multifariousness; Menno and Muntzer, Schwenkfeld and Servetus, and many more, all clubbed together under a single label.

Fortunately for us, the record shows that there were great polarities right within the camp of the “heretics,” in medieval times and also in the days of the Reformation.

Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren (Sarasota:  Christian Hymnary Publishers, 1991.  p. 15.)

S. Lewis Johnson on Dispensationalism and Multiple Ways of Salvation

The following is taken from the transcript of this sermon.

The Ad Interim Committee of the Presbyterian Church in the United States in their report to the General Assembly of the Southern Presbyterian Church in 1944 said that Dispensationalists, “do not hold that God has one plan of salvation for all men but that he has had various and diverse plans for different groups.”

Now, in my opinion that is the result of a great deal of confusion. I think, it is fair to say that it is also the result of a bit of ignorance. It’s the result of perhaps deliberate misrepresentation on the part of some and to my mind it’s a bit unworthy of scholarship not to mention Christianity. But I’d like to say this; Dr. Chafer was not always clear on this point. Dr Chafer it so happen was an individual who had a lot of affinity for ultra dispensationalism. That’s not often realized, but if you would read his systematic theology through you would find some statements that would make it very plain that he had affinity for what has come to be called ultra Dispensationlism. Let me read you something Dr. Chafer wrote in his theologies right there for you to read if you like. He says this, “A distinction must be observed between just men in the Old Testament and those justified according to the New Testament. According to the Old Testament men were just because they were true and faithful in keeping the Mosaics Law. Micah defines such a life after this manner, “he hath showed the old man what is good and what doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God.” Men were, therefore, just because of their own works before God or for God, whereas, New Testament justification is God’s work for man in answer to faith. That’s quite evident from that.

Now Dr. Chafer was well in my way of thinking he was confused over Old Testament salvation. Just preceding this he has said manifestly to be justified before God is his that is God, is his own undertaking. But he was talking about New Testament justification when he said that. When he talks about Old Testament justification he talks differently. Further Dr. Chafer made the difference between the age of the kingdom and the age of grace. Present age writing, there are his words, “the sermon on the mount is the expansion of the full meaning of the personal righteousness which is required in the kingdom.” The great words in this age the present age are believe and grace. Not once do these words appear in connection with the kingdom teaching of Matthew.

Now the implication to that, I think, is very plain. Finally he says “Under grace the fruit of the Spirit is” which indicates the present possession of the blessing through pure grace. While under the kingdom the blessing “shall be such as merited by their own works.” So you can see that Dr. Chafer believed that in the Old Testament men were justified by what they did and they will be justified by what they do in the kingdom to come. But in the present day they are justified by grace through faith.

Now, in fairness to Dr. Chafer I will say that he wrote with a bit of confusion. And when I was in the class with him he expressed a great deal of, I don’t want to use the wrong word here because I greatly admired this man he was a man of faith, but he manifested a great deal of doubt as to what the Bible taught about Old Testament salvation. And later on I will point out one or two of the things that he said. But, I think, you can see that it’s not without some justification that people have said that Dispensationalists, of whom he was the leading one in his day, have taught more than one method of salvation. Now, in fairness also Dispensationalism today — practically every Dispensationalist that I know — makes a point of saying there is just one method of salvation. It is by grace through faith. The object of faith changes as the divine unfolding of the history of salvation takes place so that in the Old Testament men do not have has the object of faith the precise object of faith and the fullness of it that we have in the New Testament times. Some of them fell that it is not really true to say the Old Testament men looked forward to the coming of a personal redeemer. But then again I personally think that they stand in the minority but unfortunately in this area there are some that imbibe that particular teaching.