[We are] not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. (Romans 1:16)

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer uses Refined (Consistent) Free Grace Theology phraseology

by Antonio da Rosa

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder and first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, in his book, Salvation: God's Marvelous Work of Grace, states:

Thus salvation can be accomplished, even by the infinite God, only through Jesus Christ. Hence it is that a simple trust in the Savior opens the way into the infinite power and grace of God. It is "unto every one that believeth," "For there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved." This one word "believe" represents all a sinner can do and all a sinner must do to be saved... [Jesus] is a living Savior to all who put their trust in Him. It is quite possible for any intelligent person to know whether he has placed such confidence in the Savior. Saving faith is a matter of personal consciousness. "I know whom I have believed." To have deposited one's eternal welfare in the hands of another is a decision so definite that it can hardly be confused with anything else. On this deposit of oneself into His saving grace depends one's eternal destiny. To add, or subtract, anything from this sole condition of salvation is most perilous.


Thus, for Dr. Chafer, the "sole condition of [eternal] salvation" is "simple trust in the Savior" whereby the lost "deposit... [their] eternal welfare in the hands of" Jesus. One's "eternal destiny" "depends" "on this deposit". He finishes off by saying that "to add" to saving faith is "most perilous". Interestingly enough he includes in this quotation the fact that one is conscious of exercising saving faith. There is noone in the world who believes in Christ savingly, salvifically, soterically, who is unaware that this act of faith is saving faith. This would disclude any idea that saving faith can be some belief about Jesus that does't include the idea that Jesus guarantees eternal life through faith, in other words, that Jesus is the Savior. For L.S. Chafer, saving faith is trusting in Jesus to save you, and as such, is done with the full recognition of the mind.

Antonio

43 Comments:

  • A great quotation.

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:57:00 AM  

  • Who is this Savior? Who is this Jesus? Who is this Christ?

    Dr Chafer says "I know Whom I've believed" Who is He?

    Early God identifies Himself with the attributes of Himself, His promises, or the things He has done. He never simply claims a name. In Ex 6 we see that God had never before shared His Name, and we see that He reveals His attributes in His Name there.

    In Ex 20 we see that God commands that they honor Him alone, the God who had taken them out of Egypt.

    And we see the same thing in Acts, quoted by Dr. Chafer that the Name Jesus is associated with what He had done. His name is qualified by what He had done. They don't believe in Jesus. They believe in The Christ, named Jesus who died and rose again.

    In 1 Cor 15:1-10 Paul declares the Gospel to the Corinthians again, because they had been led astray on the Resurrection. He claims this is the Gospel that saves. He doesn't use the name "Jesus" instead He uses the Title Messiah or Christ. And Names Him by saying what He did.

    No where in Scripture is someone told to believe in some guy named Jesus. Jesus is always associated with the Gospel.

    You have taken Dr. Chafer's words out of context. He is not saying that one should not identify Who Christ is, or that one does not need to know Who He is. Dr. Chafer is saying to add to simple faith in this God Man who Died for our Sins and rose again for our life is to add to the Gospel.

    For example. Imagine a furniture salesman explaining a chair to some deep jungle native who had never seen one. He tells the native that the chair will hold him up, and that it's very important for the native to believe this. The native assures the salesman that yes he does in fact that the chair is guaranteed to hold him up. That he'd love to have the chair.

    The salesman is greatly encouraged! He's won yet another customer. He can't wait to tell his wife.

    The salesman says, "right then you go pick the one you like and we'll send you on your way!" The native rushes over picks up what he fancies and brings it back to the salesman. Turns out the native walked past the chair and picked up a bucket. He turns it up side down and stands on it and gleefully says "You were right!! You were right!!"

    The native, having never been introduced to the Chair didn't even know he had the wrong item. Such is the problem with any so called "gospel" that doesn't identify the Christ with what He has done.

    There are many Jesus' There are many gods. There are many religions. There is only one Christ Jesus who died on a cross for my sins, was buried, and rose from the dead three days later. Just one. No problem of confusion. It's not all that hard to understand, but it sure separates the difference between professing faith and having it.

    Kev

    By Blogger Kevl, at Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:20:00 PM  

  • "There are many Jesus' There are many gods."

    Yes.

    But the Gospels refer to only one Jesus.

    And only one Jesus offers eternal life.

    God Bless

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:55:00 PM  

  • Matthew you said

    But the Gospels refer to only one Jesus.

    And only one Jesus offers eternal life.

    God Bless


    If the Evangelistic Letters of the New Testament tell us Who He is in order that we would believe and have eternal life then why would we not tell people Who He actually is? It seems this information is important enough to fill most of the NT it ought to fill most of our Gospel presentation as well should it not?

    Peace and grace in the Lord,
    Kev

    By Blogger Kevl, at Thursday, January 17, 2008 2:46:00 AM  

  • I have no problem with telling people who Jesus is.

    But the idea that one has to believe some imaginary list of doctrinal requirements in order to posess saving faith is destructive of the nature of grace.

    God Bless

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Thursday, January 17, 2008 8:11:00 AM  

  • Hi Kevl

    There isn't any of us that wouldn't give the full gospel message for the purpose the person has more evidence why Jesus can give them eternal life simply by believing His promise. But if you aren't precise on what one needs to believe to go to heaven your hitting everything but the bulls eye! Which can be proven has been the case in most churches. They have believed in Jesus death, burial and resurrection but still believe they have to work their way to heaven. And this is because the one who gave them the gospel message gave them everything but the essential part that saves. We are focusing on the essential part. And that is that anyone who believes in Jesus as the Christ the One who guarentees their eternal destiny is born again based solely on Jesus promise(John 3:16;5:24;6:47;11:25,26). And assurance is part of that promise, the one believing in Him has eternal life and knows it. If they don't know then they haven't believed Jesus simple promise to the one who believes.

    take it freely
    alvin

    By Blogger alvin, at Thursday, January 17, 2008 11:07:00 AM  

  • It is a good quote and so true. I think Kevin may have a point about the title of the post, though. :~)

    By Blogger Rose~, at Thursday, January 17, 2008 11:41:00 AM  

  • Rose
    Regardless of whether Chafer was or was not (and I am sure he was not), the reasoning in the quotation fits in nicely with consistent FG theology.

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:03:00 PM  

  • Matthew you said I have no problem with telling people who Jesus is.

    But the idea that one has to believe some imaginary list of doctrinal requirements in order to posess saving faith is destructive of the nature of grace.

    God Bless

    Matthew


    How do you tell someone Who Jesus is without the Gospel? And if you tell them the Gospel, but they don't believe it how can they be believing in the Savior? What part of the Gospel declared by the Apostle Paul is "imaginary"?

    Kev

    By Blogger Kevl, at Thursday, January 17, 2008 1:18:00 PM  

  • Antonio you quote Dr. Chafer as though the quote supports your Crossless Gospel, but it does not.

    As was pointed out in a comment today at my blog by Brother Glenn, Dr. Chafer defined belief in Jesus as believing the record God gave of Him.

    http://onmywalk.blogspot.com/2008/01/chafer-was-proponent-of-crossless.html

    Please explain this inconsistency with your interpretation of Dr. Chafer's words.

    Kev

    By Blogger Kevl, at Thursday, January 17, 2008 1:20:00 PM  

  • Kevl,

    The quotation used from Rev. Chafer was not produced to prove that Chafer was an all out advocate of Consistent Free Grace Theology. On this point, he would waffle. I will show how in a moment.

    The quotation was produced to show that the phraseology of Consistent Free Grace theology is not something that does not have precedent. I was specifically interested in the terms "eternal welfare" and "eternal destiny" along with the ideas of depositing such into the Savior's hands. Furthermore, I was interested in his phraseology of showing that saving faith is something that does not escape the mind, but is cognizantly recognized by it when it is exercised, which would preclude the idea of some who used to be or claim to be Free Grace yet nevertheless state that someone can beleive something about Christ and neither know they are exercising saving faith nor know they have everlasting life.

    You say that I take his quote out of context. I have done nothing of the sort. When Chafer says, "I know whom I have believed" the emphasis was on the mind's recognition of exercising saving faith. This is how he used this verse.

    The one who has believed the bare minimum that is required for eternal life also can state that they "know" whom they have believed as well. Who they have believed is the sole Person in the universe who guarantees eternal life to the believer. Quite the Person!

    Chafer states that saving faith, the sole condition of everlasting life, is "simple trust" in the Savior. It is depositing one's eternal destiny into His hands. It is placing confidence into the Savior.

    This is somewhat removed from the language of Traditionalistic FGers who employ laundry checklists upon the lost.

    Chafer writes:

    -------
    This one word "believe" represents all a sinner can do and all a sinner must do to be saved. It is believing the record God has given of His Son. In this record it is stated that He has entered into all the needs of our lost condition and is alive from the dead to be a living Saviour to all who put their trust in Him.
    ----------
    You see, he waffles a bit here. The bottom line at the end of this quote is that Jesus is "a living Savior to all who put their trust in Him." It isn't that Jesus is a Savior to all who assent to a slippery slope of doctrinal stipulations, but all who simply trust in Him.

    But he remains unclear. I have no problem with his quote here. You see, it is virtually impossible for the lost to "put their trust in Him" unless they first believe that "He has entered into all the needs of our lost condition and is alive from the dead".

    So again, the point of this post was not to show that Chafer was a Consistent FGer. As I have shown here, he is a bit ambiguous and inconsistent.

    The point was that this brilliant man used phraseology that was the precursor to the developing Refined Free Grace position. And in doing do, he is in somewhat variance to checklist evangelism.

    The bottom line for Chafer?

    "simple trust in the Savior"
    "[Jesus] is a Living Savior to all who put their trust in Him"
    "confidence in the Savior"
    "the deposit[ing] of one's eternal welfare in the hands of [Jesus]"
    "[the] deposit[ing] of oneself into [Jesus'] saving grace"

    Upon these things, "depends one's eternal destiny," says Chafer. And "to add" to this "sole condition of salvation is most perilous".

    Notice that he doesn't say "to add to THESE sole conditionS of salvation"

    For Chafer, there is only one condition. Not the multiple conditions that checklist evangelism heaps upon the lost.

    Antonio

    By Blogger Antonio, at Thursday, January 17, 2008 8:10:00 PM  

  • Rose,

    the title of this article is unambiguous. Chafer used Consistent FG terminology and phraseology. That was the point of this post. Not to show that Chafer was Consistent FG. He was Inconsistent FG, yet brilliant for his time. Since the time of the Reformation, FG thought has been progressing and refining.

    Chafer's word's are beyond his time.

    Antonio

    By Blogger Antonio, at Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:07:00 PM  

  • It is enough to know that there is one called Jesus Christ who can give eternal life.

    Is there another Jesus who has this power?

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Friday, January 18, 2008 7:09:00 AM  

  • Matthew,
    Good afternoon - I hope you are well today. :~)
    Just out of curiosity - I don't think you and I have ever discussed this and I am sure you ahve an answer - what do you think this means when it says "another Jesus"?

    2 Corinthians 11:3-5
    3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it!

    By Blogger Rose~, at Friday, January 18, 2008 7:18:00 AM  

  • Antonio,
    It isn't that Jesus is a Savior to all who assent to a slippery slope of doctrinal stipulations

    I can't get over this - knowledge about WHO HE IS is not a slippery slope of doctrinal stipulations.

    Trusting that babysitter - Do you need to know something about the babysitter to trust her? Yes. I know what you you say about this:

    all those things about her are needed to bring you to a point where you do trust her, but the simple fact is that you are trusting the babysitter to babysit.

    (or something close to that)

    But... don't you have to also trust that she is who she says she is? Don't you also have to trust that she lives where she says she lives so you can go and pick her up? Yes. There is a context for every trusting of a person and knowing and believing who they are is part of that trust - it is not extra. The babysitter is more than a name in a phonebook. Jesus is more than a name - He is a person with definite attributes - his attributes are not extra - they ar who He is.

    Antonio,
    I think maybe the point of your post was not in regards to the "crossless" (hate that term) aspect of the refined FG movement, but that eternal security is the essence of saving faith. Am I right about that?

    By Blogger Rose~, at Friday, January 18, 2008 7:27:00 AM  

  • Antonio, you did quote Chafer out of context. He was not talking about how to identify the Person of Christ, he was talking about the response to this knowledge.

    To make me explain this to you twice is not becoming. You know very well that you took his quote out of context.

    This quote is not consistent with the Crossless Gospel you propose in language, content, intent or any other way.

    The portion of Chafer's work you ignore makes this all-together clear.


    This one word "believe" represents all a sinner can do and all a sinner must do to be saved. It is believing the record God has given of His Son. In this record it is stated that He has entered into all the needs of our lost condition and is alive from the dead to be a living Saviour to all who put their trust in Him.


    Chapter Five: The One Condition of Salvation http://blueletterbible.org/Comm/lewis_chafer/salvation/salv05.html

    As you can see, Chafer neither waffles nor is unclear or uncertain what he means when he affirms that one must believe in Christ for Eternal Life.

    You say that to "know Whom" you've believe in is enough. Well Who is He? How do you identify Him?

    Is He unique, oh yes He is! Because He is the only one who ever died for my sins and rose again! That's Who He is. He is the embodiment of Humility, such humility that He died on the Cross for us.

    There are many "gods" that will guarantee my eternal life. The only One Who can, is the only One who died and rose again. We are to worship Him and no other.

    Your "checklist evangelism" and "laundry list" are cute... but they fail to accomplish anything more than a to cause chuckle. You've deleted some items from your list and then mock the Apostle's clearest instruction.

    Please come to your senses. God promises to save those who believe in His Son, Who He gave. Not in some made up Jesus.

    If one does not believe the Gospel they are not saved. There is no more clear and simple teaching in the Bible than this.

    Kev

    By Blogger Kevl, at Friday, January 18, 2008 8:33:00 AM  

  • Rose, you said "crossless" (hate that term)

    It is a terrible term. But it accurately describes the supposed gospel being discussed.

    I know you are in a rough spot.

    Kev

    By Blogger Kevl, at Friday, January 18, 2008 8:36:00 AM  

  • Hi Antonio

    Here is a few of my thought's and a little of Zane to start off with.

    The Greek tenses in John 4:10 would permit the following interpretation of the NKJV rendering:

    If you [now] knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink’, you would [already] have asked Him, and He would [already] have given you living water”.

    The “water of life” is the life-begetting truth that “Jesus is the Christ.” She asked Him for this (v.25) and He gave it to her (v.26). Her statement in verse 25 is clearly a functional question which implies: “Are you perhapes the Messiah?” When Jesus replied that He was, her reception of this great truth in faith - that is, her persuasion that it was true – brought salvation. Once she knew this truth by faith (see John 20:31; 1 John 5:1), the asking and giving had already occurred. Zane Hodges

    Most want to get the confession in there and the repentance from sin in there and the rest of their checklist before someone can have eternal life. But Jesus would have already given the women at the well eternal life if she would have: (1) Known what the gift of God was (2) Who Jesus was (3) Asked (believe)

    Notice there is NOTHING about repentance, sin, or confessing.

    (1) Jesus told her what the gift of God was “whoever drinks the water that He gives would never thirst” (v. 14).
    (2) Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am He.” (v.26).
    (3) The women said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When He comes , He will tell us all things.” (v.25)

    She had met Jesus three requirements, she knew what the gift of God was (everlasting life), she knew who Jesus was, that He was the Messiah (the Christ). And she asked (believed) He was the Christ the One who gives eternal life.

    Is this offer still available today, or do we have to have more information? I would summit that Jesus hasn’t changed and the gift hasn’t changed and if one desires they can take the living water freely!

    And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires let him take the water of life freely. (Rev 22:17)



    Take it freely
    alvin

    By Blogger alvin, at Friday, January 18, 2008 10:19:00 AM  

  • Rose, I take that verse at face value.

    Paul is not talking about a wrong idea about Jesus, he is talking about a completely different person, a false messiah.

    God Bless

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Friday, January 18, 2008 11:46:00 AM  

  • Antonio, I don't want to get ahead of the conversation. But it was noted by Lou at my blog that the way you quoted and interepreted Chafer has a name as a practice.

    I used to work in the media. What Antonio did to the selection from Chafer is called “censorship by omission.” The deleted portion, which references the Lord’s resurrection, was an important note in understanding Chafer’s position. Antonio deleted it because it undermines what he wanted to accomplish in his article.

    I quote this here, to show that I'm not just "seeing things" when I see how you have treated Chafer's words. I'm not just picking on you. I truly do want to get through to you on this whole subject.

    The stakes are high, if the Free Grace group runs off ignoring scripture the danger is that it makes people like John MacArthur seem much more credible.

    Kev

    By Blogger Kevl, at Friday, January 18, 2008 2:20:00 PM  

  • Hi Rose

    Kev made this statement:
    Rose, you said "crossless" (hate that term)
    Kev made this statement:
    It is a terrible term. But it accurately describes the supposed gospel being discussed.

    I know you are in a rough spot.

    Rose I think you’re in the best spot you could be and that’s between two men that believes the truth!!!

    This is something I’ve noticed on these ones who accuse us of preaching a “crossless gospel.” I’ve went to their blogs and checked out their invitations and the biggest issue seems to be sin, not life. I have yet to see one site where the living water is offered freely to anyone who desires. I’ve come to the conclusion that these ones who are attacking believe there is a barrier between man and God and until one realizes they are a sinner they cannot be saved. They seem to be noble in their cause “fighting for the cross” but in truth have not believed it themselves. They MUST have the cross as an essential because they got to get "sin" in there somewhere. I don’t believe that they believe these verses below:

    John 1:29b Behold the Lamb of God who TAKES AWAY the sin of the world.

    2 Cor 5:19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD to Himself, NOT imputing their trespasses to them

    John 4:10 If you [now] knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink’, you would [already] have asked Him, and He would [already] have given you living water.

    Rev 22:17b Whoever desires take the water of life freely.

    According to there blogs you can’t just do this but sin is an issue that has to be dealt with first!

    Jesus said speaking of the Holy Spirit: And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and judgment: of sin, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN ME

    See with Jesus disciples sin wasn’t the issue because they had believed in Him for eternal life. Jesus told them they were clean (John 13:10). This is why sin is NOT the main issue believing Jesus promise of eternal life is!!! These checklist salvationist have it backwards, they put sin as the main issue so they have to make the cross an essential because they really don’t believe in what Christ accomplished for everyone on the cross.
    This could only be the reason why such an invitation can be given at the end of the bible without referencing sin in any way. Everyone is invited to come and take of the water of life freely.


    Take it freely
    alvin

    By Blogger alvin, at Friday, January 18, 2008 4:57:00 PM  

  • kevl -

    Antonio said:
    "The quotation used from Rev. Chafer was not produced to prove that Chafer was an all out advocate of Consistent Free Grace Theology. On this point, he would waffle. I will show how in a moment.

    The quotation was produced to show that the phraseology of Consistent Free Grace theology is not something that does not have precedent."

    Are you reading the comments in this thread? Your remarks appear disingenuous.

    By Blogger Jon Lee, at Saturday, January 19, 2008 7:58:00 AM  

  • Joe,

    Antonio used an incomplete quote of Chafer speaking about one topic and applied it to a topic Chafer was not discussing.

    Chafer does not "waffle" on the subject at all.. .the methodology of Antonio's quotation is abusive to Chafer's intent. Antonio does not go on to discuss the use of language. He goes on to discuss his theology.

    You said The quotation was produced to show that the phraseology of Consistent Free Grace theology is not something that does not have precedent."

    Of course this "phraseology" has precedent. People have been abusing God's Word since the Garden. This tactic that Antonio uses, and that you are currently using as well has it's first ever use in this planet recorded in the infallible Word of God.

    Gen 3:1 NASB
    Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"


    Kev

    By Blogger Kevl, at Saturday, January 19, 2008 8:23:00 AM  

  • Kevl -

    You said:

    "Joe,"

    It's Jon - not a big deal, I'm kind of an average joe.

    "You said The quotation was produced to show that the phraseology of Consistent Free Grace theology is not something that does not have precedent."

    I didn't say this and explicitly quoted Antonio.

    "This tactic that Antonio uses, and that you are currently using as well"

    Again, I'm not using this so-called tactic.

    Do you see why it's important to actually read what others are saying and who's saying it?

    In Christ,

    Jon (joe)

    By Blogger Jon Lee, at Saturday, January 19, 2008 9:00:00 AM  

  • Hi Kev
    Did Jesus really say you could simply believe in Him for eternal life and be saved?

    Some would have us believe:
    NO! You have to come by way of the cross because you are a sinner and that’s how sinners are saved!

    Thus our churches are filled with people who believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus but think they have to work their way to heaven.

    What saith the scriptures?


    Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.

    Please don’t misunderstand me! I believe that the majority who are saved WILL come by the way of the cross by conviction of sin and repentance. They will open their Bibles or go to a Church, but the pressure of sin will push them to the Savior. But they could have simply believed His promise of eternal life and been born again, because the gift is free and can be taken freely!

    Take it freely
    alvin

    By Blogger alvin, at Saturday, January 19, 2008 9:48:00 AM  

  • I'm sorry Jon, you quoted Antonio's words.

    By Blogger Kevl, at Saturday, January 19, 2008 12:14:00 PM  

  • As for the tactic... you are indicating that I am not responding in context... when I actually am. You appear to be deliberately mistaking what I'm writing to forward your presentation.

    This tactic is exactly what Antonio does with Dr. Chafer in his post...

    Kev

    By Blogger Kevl, at Saturday, January 19, 2008 12:16:00 PM  

  • Alvin,

    Why don't you actually quote the Lord? Instead of putting words in His mouth quote Him. Debating theology with someone who relies on proof-texting is a fool's game.

    Kev

    By Blogger Kevl, at Saturday, January 19, 2008 12:18:00 PM  

  • Hi Kev
    Did Jesus really say: Most assuredly I tell you he who believes in Me has eternal life John 6:47

    Some would have us believe:
    NO! You have to come by way of the cross because you are a sinner and that’s how sinners are saved!

    Thus our churches are filled with people who believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus but think they have to work their way to heaven.

    What saith the scriptures?


    Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.

    Please don’t misunderstand me! I believe that the majority who are saved WILL come by the way of the cross by conviction of sin and repentance. They will open their Bibles or go to a Church, but the pressure of sin will push them to the Savior. But they could have simply believed His promise of eternal life and been born again, because the gift is free and can be taken freely!

    Take it freely
    alvin

    By Blogger alvin, at Saturday, January 19, 2008 1:36:00 PM  

  • Kev,
    I don't really feel like I am in a hard spot, but I do appreciate the generosity of your comment. :~)

    For me, if I were convinced that I need to turn on my friends here and attack their thoughts virulently, I would. I have not been convinced to date that their thinking warrants this.

    Another factor is that I am not of the testosterone persuasion. I sit back and think and think before I react.

    Questioning and opining is a different story. I have been questioning their approach for some time. We are not in complete agreement as to how conversion takes place, but I am sure they preach the same gospel as I know, even though they theorize that a minimal amount of information would do the job. They have assured us all that they give all the information that we would, so I don't find it that difficult to stay around them peacably at this time. I hope you and those who see it your way can understand that we all have to be convinced of these things in our own minds and not do this or that based on peer pressure.
    Thank you.

    By Blogger Rose~, at Monday, January 21, 2008 7:40:00 AM  

  • Hello Rose,

    I'll save you the quoting of your post (for the most part anyway) *smile*

    It's often said that proponents of a "crossless" gospel will present the Gospel to someone. This will sound harsh (and maybe it is) but that's exactly like how John MacArthur claims that he believes in Salvation by Grace through Faith. It's mouth service to the truth, not practice and reliance on it.

    The focus isn't on what is presented, it's on what a person believes. We've been commanded to believe in Christ Jesus to be saved. The content of that belief actually is important. The presentation can include any number of facts, illustrations, encouragements, stories... but in the end the Apostle Paul tells us what the "news" is that saves.

    The lost sinner, in order to have faith in The Christ, must believe the Gospel. The transference of trust is repentance unto life.

    We are told to believe in Christ Jesus. Not believe in Him for eternal life.

    The often quoted John 6:31 is easily understood when it rightly follows John 6:30

    30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

    Jesus did a lot of things, but John recorded these particular things so that you would believe He is the Christ. It is these things that mark Him as the Christ. The Christ is identified by them. He alone has fulfilled the things that the Christ would do. The Christ had previously been identified by Prophecy of what He would do, but is now identified by the things He did do.

    If one says that a person can be saved without knowing Who the Christ is, or believing that He did the things the Christ had to do then one is preaching a different gospel. Just like John MacArthur preaches a different gospel even though he claims to believe in "salvation by grace through faith"

    Finally, the quote - because it's a good one. :)

    You said I hope you and those who see it your way can understand that we all have to be convinced of these things in our own minds and not do this or that based on peer pressure.

    It is the effects of peer pressure that I am arguing against. I hold no special position, I have no unusual influence, I TRULY am just another wretch saved by Grace - and incredibly thankful for the new life I have. I am not the peer of most whom I argue against on this issue by a long shot. Sorry for the rant..

    What I'm saying is, I would not even want that sort of a conversion to happen. One MUST be convinced in the Scriptures of truth. Any "truth" that comes from anything else is but opinion and consensus. The Church has much more than enough of both already. I would not wish to add to it.

    So, check the Scriptures. What is the Gospel? Reasonings cause us to eliminate our dependence on Scripture, they raise us to a level of authority we have no right to attain. We can play out scenarios to see if what we believe matches Scripture, but we can not play out scenarios to see what would be "reasonable" to believe.

    God Bless!
    Kev

    By Blogger Kevl, at Monday, January 21, 2008 3:18:00 PM  

  • Antonio,

    I am still waiting for your replies here.

    Kev

    By Blogger Kevl, at Monday, January 21, 2008 3:19:00 PM  

  • Kevl,

    I think that Jon Lee sufficiently answered you in the way that I would have. The intent of this article was not to show that L.S. Chafer was a Consistent Free Gracer, but that his language foreshadows its development. The sentence that I ommitted, which I have since posted in this thread, was irrelevant to my discussion. Therefore, I did not feel any reason to include it. Notice that I did not include the first part of the paragraph.

    The intent of the post was clear in its title. I intended to show that L.S. Chafer used Consistent Free Grace theology phrases and ideas. And that I did from the quotes of him.

    Antonio

    By Blogger Antonio, at Monday, January 21, 2008 4:10:00 PM  

  • Kevl,

    you said:

    "We are told to believe in Christ Jesus. Not believe in Him for eternal life."

    I have argued against this false idea here:

    http://unashamedofgrace.blogspot.com/2007/12/do-you-believe-this-amalgam-of.html

    Where I show conclusively that to "believe in" Jesus is to believe in Him for everlasting life.

    Furthermore, have you never read this Scripture:

    1 Timothy 1:16
    "However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe in Him [Jesus] for eternal life"

    Antonio

    By Blogger Antonio, at Monday, January 21, 2008 4:14:00 PM  

  • Hello Antonio, thank you for your reply.

    I would ask you to read the post to which we are adding comments to see if your intent was as the title might suggest or not.

    Thus, for Dr. Chafer, the "sole condition of [eternal] salvation" is "simple trust in the Savior" whereby the lost "deposit... [their] eternal welfare in the hands of" Jesus.................For L.S. Chafer, saving faith is trusting in Jesus to save you, and as such, is done with the full recognition of the mind.

    Your title is about how he uses "phraseology" but your post is about the content of what he thought saving faith was. The injustice you do to Dr. Chafer's words is to pervert that content into what you wanted to present, not what he himself defined it as.

    You said The intent of the post was clear in its title. I intended to show that L.S. Chafer used Consistent Free Grace theology phrases and ideas. And that I did from the quotes of him.

    The title of your post may have suggested such an "intent" to talk about his phraseology but the content of your post was the twisting of his words to suggest that "saving faith" comes from a Crossless gospel and that to "add to it is most perilous"

    You reinterpreted his "phrasology" and inferred what is not there.

    Kev

    By Blogger Kevl, at Monday, January 21, 2008 6:35:00 PM  

  • Antonio,

    I said we are not told to "believe on Christ Jesus for eternal life" we are told to believe in Him and receive it. This is the clear teaching in every instance in the NT.

    1 Tim 1:16 is not an instruction on how to get saved.. as evidenced by the language.

    Further the word "eis" is rightly translated "to" not "for" here.

    http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=1Ti&chapter=1&verse=16&version=KJV#16


    Kev

    By Blogger Kevl, at Monday, January 21, 2008 6:41:00 PM  

  • According to Daniel B. Wallace, in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, the preposition, "eis" when used with the accusative (which it is in this case!), as it is here, can have the "basic use" of "purpose" with the translations of "for, in order to" and even "to", which would be a rough translation in English in this situation, yet still denotes purpose.

    Even more peculiar, and telling, is that in his list of 8 basic uses of the prepoposition "eis", the translation "to" ONLY is listed under "purpose" along with "for"! It is not listed under any other usage of that preoposition (see pg 369).

    In interpretation, context is king, right? Well in the context of 1 Timothy 1:16, we note that Paul states something that is worthy of all acceptance, that Jesus Christ came to save sinners, of whom PAUL WAS CHEIF. Paul believed that Jesus came to save him, Paul! Paul entrusted Jesus with the salvation that He came into the world to provide. Thus, Paul believed in Jesus for the purpose of receiving eternal life! And as such, he has become a pattern for those who will ALSO believe in Jesus for the purpose of receiving everlasting life.

    The purpose of the faith is to receive everlasting life. These main English translations take it as purpose. (And, any translations that use "to" would also take it as purpose, seeing that the translation "to" of the Greek "eis" only denotes purpose with the accusative (as shown in Wallace above).

    NASB: "believe in Him for eternal life"

    NKJV: "believe on Him for everlasting life"

    ESV: "believe in him for eternal life"

    RSV: "believe in him for eternal life"

    Antonio

    By Blogger Antonio, at Monday, January 21, 2008 7:57:00 PM  

  • Kevl,

    these are the words of Chafer:

    "simple trust in the Savior"
    "[Jesus] is a Living Savior to all who put their trust in Him"
    "confidence in the Savior"
    "the deposit[ing] of one's eternal welfare in the hands of [Jesus]"
    "[the] deposit[ing] of oneself into [Jesus'] saving grace"

    I wholeheartedly agree to these.

    I think that you are reading between the lines. I have not stated that L.S. Chafer is Consistent Free Grace. He is inconsistent.

    As he writes, being inconsistent as he is, (yet brilliant for his time), he can state that saving faith is "simple trust". He hasn't yet thought through that such an idea of saving faith is inconsistent with checklist evangelism.

    Chafer's language is lightyears away from the checklist evangelism of the traditionalists. They just do not employ Chafer's language.

    But remember. Chafer is only a foreshadow and precursor to a developing Free Grace theology that he had learned and refined himself from C.I. Scofield and others.

    Antonio

    By Blogger Antonio, at Monday, January 21, 2008 8:04:00 PM  

  • Antonio, you said Thus, Paul believed in Jesus for the purpose of receiving eternal life! And as such, he has become a pattern for those who will ALSO believe in Jesus for the purpose of receiving everlasting life.

    There is a HUGE difference between believing Christ Jesus for Eternal Life, and believing in Christ Jesus for the purpose of receiving Eternal Life.

    This is the difference the word "to" or "for" makes in 1 Tim 1:16. Yes eis here is for the purpose of.

    If I believe in a cow for milk, I need not know anything about the cow except that it gives milk. - This is the same as the Crossless gospel you propose about Christ Jesus.

    If I believe in a cow for the purpose of receiving milk. Then I am believing in what the cow is, and thus being assured of getting milk. My purpose is to get the milk, but what I'm believing is different.

    Thus, the first statement is not "consistent" with the rest of Scripture, but the second is.

    We believe on Christ Jesus to Eternal Life. Not believe Christ Jesus for Eternal Life. We are to believe in the Son. The Person and Identity of. We are to Trust Him, not the gifts.

    When asked how to be saved (how do I get Eternal Life? My purpose is to get Eternal Life, how do I do that?) the answer is Believe in Christ Jesus. Not "Believe Jesus for it!"

    Kev

    By Blogger Kevl, at Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:57:00 AM  

  • Antonio you said I think that you are reading between the lines. I have not stated that L.S. Chafer is Consistent Free Grace. He is inconsistent.

    I think you are building a straw-man argument. I am not saying you are saying he is a Crossless gospel supporter - he was anything but. I am saying you are taking a statement about one thing, and twisting it into a form of support for your practices.

    He did not support your practice, in phraseology or otherwise. He supported salvation by Grace through Faith in the finished work of Christ Jesus on the Cross. He IS consistent with Scripture. You can not take his statements about adding to faith, and twist them in to any sort of consistency with reducing the Gospel.

    When a man says boxes can be stacked in his factory it is not the same "phraseology" as the person who is saying that dangerous chemicals can be placed on top of each other in another factory.

    You know your post is that twisted and ridiculous that I can't even imagine a scenario that matches what you've tried to accomplish.. it is neither logical nor relevant. It shows the incredible lengths that people will go to try to bring credibility to their attacks on the Gospel.

    Kev

    By Blogger Kevl, at Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:04:00 AM  

  • 1 Cor 15:1-11

    from "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,[b]by which also you are saved[/b]....

    to

    Whether then it was I or they, [b]so we preach[/b] and [b]so you believed[/b].

    This is the declaration of Paul about the content of saving belief. It can't be dismissed because this is the message that saves. It can't be added to, or taken away from because - this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

    Kev

    By Blogger Kevl, at Tuesday, January 22, 2008 4:05:00 PM  

  • No more answers Antonio?

    By Blogger Kevl, at Saturday, January 26, 2008 11:00:00 AM  

  • Kev:

    That your entire position is false is proved by a simple FACT.
    WHEN Jesus Christ told people that "whoever believes in ME HAS eternal life," He had not yet been crucified. Not only that, even His disciples, who had believed in Him and already were saved, did not believe that He would be crucified and die and be resurrected!
    You should be ashamed of speaking of a "crossless gospel," and someday maybe the Lord will convict you.
    Not only did those who had "believed IN HIM," in the way that HE specified, not believe in the death burial and resurrection, they didn't even believe it after being TOLD! They had to go and see.
    The bottom line is that you simply DO NOT BELIEVE Christ and the Holy Spirit. You rather believe the traditions you've grown up with.

    I don't blame Antonio for not casting any more precious truth your way on this.

    Gary

    By Blogger Biblicist, at Sunday, June 08, 2008 7:27:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home