Quote
HenryL
Very good post Liberty. You are absolutely on the mark with your comments about about the Greek, Septuagint, and Hyper-Calvinists.

Thank-you for your kind remarks, HenryL. Good to meet you.

In Christ,
Liberty

Quote
yasmin
I agree with you Spiritualiberty. Wasn't the bible originally based down by word of mouth for over 200 years? Seems that quibling over single words in the Kione Greek OT is a little questionable.
If I remember correctly , Jesus when asked what were the most important two commandments was pretty clear, in Greek, Hebrew and English, that one of them was love your neighbour as yourself. Turning the other cheek 7x7x7 times was in there too, i think. And suffer the little children to come unto me..Interpreting that to mean "we should kill rebellious children" and" lets' bomb Hanoi?" Hmmm.

Thank-you, yasmin, and you’re right...Thieme’s method of slicing and dicing a Greek word to try to come up with some kind of support for a doctrine is just a game he plays to make the Bible say what he wants. This Greek Game is nothing more than an excuse for rewording Bible passages to make them fit one’s own personal pet doctrines. The truth is, God can preserve His Word in any language He pleases. He is not limited to Hebrew or Greek or any other language. There were two major translations completed in the second century, in Latin and Syrian (generally referred to as the Old Italic and Old Syriac). As Christians were dispersed by the Roman persecutions, they took the Gospel to other regions, including the Piedmont region of northern Italy and southern France (ancient Gaul). Their Latin translation was completed by A.D. 157, only about 67 years after John finished writing Revelation. No one can know for sure, but it is actually possible that their translation was done directly from the original scrolls penned by the apostles themselves, or at least first-generation copies. This was the Bible of the Waldensians (the ancient Christians I talked about in a previous post), and this was the primary Bible used by God to preserve His Word during the Dark Ages, until the time of the Protestant Reformation, when much of Europe was freed from Catholic persecution and the common people reclaimed the right to read the Bible for themselves. The Bible has since been translated into many languages, and the Bible most used by God throughout the world for the last 500 years has been the English Bible, which began with the work of men like William Tyndale and Miles Coverdale, resulting in the eventual publication of the King James Bible in 1611. God has always ensured that His Word would be preached to the world, whether in Greek, Syrian, Latin, English, etc. God allowed the koine Greek language to decline rapidly after the time of the apostles. He obviously did not depend exclusively on koine Greek to proclaim His Word, and neither should we. This is nothing more than a deceptive tactic to take the Bible out of the hands of common Christians (who don’t know koine Greek), and force them to rely completely on the man behind the pulpit.

You are also right that our Lord told His disciples to love their neighbor, turn the other cheek, and forgive someone who wrongs them 70 x 7 times in a day. Thieme may have said these commands were given to Jews who were anticipating the Lord’s earthly Kingdom, and this may even be true, but we are given nearly identical commands in the epistles, such as:

[b:0b38619ab8]Rom 13:8[/b:0b38619ab8] Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

[b:0b38619ab8]Rom 13:10[/b:0b38619ab8] Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

[b:0b38619ab8]Gal 5:14 [/b:0b38619ab8]For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

[b:0b38619ab8]Eph 4:32[/b:0b38619ab8] And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.

[b:0b38619ab8]Col 3:13 [/b:0b38619ab8]Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.

[b:0b38619ab8]Rom 12:18-20[/b:0b38619ab8] If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

As far as who America should go to war with, and who America shouldn’t go to war with, that’s a matter of the individual’s own political opinion, and the pastor’s political opinions should not be preached from the pulpit as if they were “Bible doctrine.”

Nice to meet you, yasmin...

Peace in Christ,
Liberty

To the Forum:


I would like to note that Dr. Wall, in his dissertation, appears to be using very soft "boxing gloves" when being critical of Thieme. For example when comparing "The False Teachings Of Pastor R. B. Thieme, Jr." and Dr. Wall's dissertation "Bob Thieme's Teachings On Christian Living" I noticed one pulled punch. Dr. Wall states

Quote

"23 Walter refers to Thieme's statement, that Christ bled very little and did not bleed to death...

Dr. Wall however, offers no critique of how Walters and Dr. Waite do quote Thieme on John 1:7 where Thieme stated

Quote

"Immanuel is the Incarnate Christ, God with us. And the blood from his veins was a little bleeding from his hands and a little bleeding from his feet, and[u:c576c6030d][b:c576c6030d] it doesn't save you and never will[/b:c576c6030d][/u:c576c6030d]"

I see this as Dr. Wall being "critically soft" on Thieme, [u:c576c6030d]by not mentioning [/u:c576c6030d]quotes from Walters and Dr. Waite ""The False Teachings Of Pastor R. B. Thieme, Jr"

Again all the doctrinal statements from DTS from 1924, 1952, 1976, and current all state "We believe that Satan is the originator of sin, and that, under the permission of God, he, through subtlety, led our first parents into transgression, thereby accomplishing their moral fall and subjecting them and their posterity to his own power; that he is the enemy of God and the people of God, opposing and exalting himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped; and that he who in the beginning said, “I will be like the most High,” in his warfare appears as an angel of light, even [b:c576c6030d]counterfeiting the works of God by fostering religious movements and systems of doctrine, which systems in every case are [u:c576c6030d]characterized by a denial of the efficacy of the blood of Christ[/u:c576c6030d] [/b:c576c6030d]and of salvation by grace alone (Gen. 3:1–19; Rom. 5:12–14; 2 Cor. 4:3–4; 11:13–15; Eph. 6:10–12; 2 Thess. 2:4; 1 Tim. 4:1–3).


I highly suggest spending the money for ""The False Teachings Of Pastor R. B. Thieme, Jr." by Rev Robert G. Walter, edited By Dr. D A. Waite. [www.biblefortoday.org]

This way, you can do your own comparisons and share them with your friends.

Note * Dr. Waite was Dallas Theological Seminary valedictorian class of '52. Dr. Waite was in the same class/timeframe when Thieme attended DTS.

More on Dr. Waite's description of the "blood of christ"

VI. THE LORD JESUS CHRIST--HIS BLOOD
We believe that the doctrine of the Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ is of great importance in the Bible; that Christ's Blood has been under attack in centuries past as well as in recent decades by modernist apostates, Mary Baker Eddy, R. B. Thieme, Jr., John MacArthur, Jr., and others; that Christ's Blood is not a mere figure of speech or "metonym" to be equal to "death"; that Old Testament sacrifices had two distinct parts: (1) the death of the sacrifice; and (2) the application of the blood of the sacrifice; that death was not sufficient, but the blood had to be applied properly (Exodus 12:6-7; Leviticus 16:6, 14, 15); that it is the blood that makes "atonement for the soul" (Leviticus 17:11); that Christ's Blood was "shed for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:28); that Christ's Blood "purchased" the Church (Acts 20:28); that Christ's Blood was from God, as to its source, hence, it is Divine (Acts 20:28); that Christ's Blood provides redemption (Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; 1 Peter 1:18-19; Revelation 5:9); that Christ's Blood is incorruptible (1 Peter 1:18-19); that Christ's Blood propitiates God the Father; that Christ's Blood justifies us (Romans 5:9); that Christ's Blood brings us near to God (Ephesians 2:13); that Christ's Blood gives us peace (Colossians 1:20); that Christ's Blood provides forgiveness (Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; Hebrews 9:22); that Christ's Blood provides reconciliation to God (Colossians 1:20); that Christ's Blood purges the conscience (Hebrews 9:14), purifies the heavenly things (Hebrews 9:23), cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7), and washes us from our sins (Revelation 1:5; 7:14); that some of Christ's Blood was taken by Him to heaven and placed on the heavenly mercy seat thus cleansing the heavenly tabernacle (Hebrews 9:12-14, 18-24; 10:19-22); that Christ's Blood is now in heaven as the "Blood of sprinkling" (Hebrews 12:22-24); that Christ's Blood gives us boldness and access to the holiest in heaven (Hebrews 10:19); that Christ's Blood makes us perfect in every good work to do His will (Hebrews 13:21); and that Christ's Blood overcomes Satan (Revelation 12:11).

[www.biblefortoday.org]


Truthtesty

To the Forum:

brainout quote

Quote

Short-take #2, about whether Blood of Christ was DTS teaching. In the original thesis by Dr. Wall, Dr. Walvoord had a lengthier preface speaking to that question. This has been excised from the revised copy of the thesis which you can get on the internet. Which means, you cannot get the original and use it. So although I know what the original says versus the revision, it would violate the thesis copyright to reprint the original. Only DTS or Dr. Wall, would have that right.

My suggestion is that anyone who wants to verify the DTS position, should just write to DTS for clarification. What Thieme has had to say on it for 53 years, is on tape for anyone to acquire without cost.

Truthtesty: Ok your suggesting that Thieme might be right, but you really don't know. Go find out brainout. I did. Thieme is wrong on his spiritual death only theory. You've been taught wrong for 53 years.


brainout quote

Quote

My stronger suggestion is to review Bible on the topic, testing whichever of the two ideas (spiritual death payment or physical death payment), before the Lord.

Truthtesty: You still think it's a matter of spiritual death [u:12dc7e4c8c][b:12dc7e4c8c]or[/b:12dc7e4c8c][/u:12dc7e4c8c] physical death. It's not. You say that, because that's what Thieme told you. Thieme misled you. It's both deaths(spiritual and physical) and the shed literal blood. Everyone except Thieme agrees on that.


Truthtesty: Brainout you have been misled. Dr. Wall (Bob Thieme's teachings on christian living) and Rev. Walters, and Dr. Waite (The False teachings of R. B. Thieme Jr) [u:12dc7e4c8c][b:12dc7e4c8c]ALL agree [/b:12dc7e4c8c][/u:12dc7e4c8c]that it was the spiritual death, shed blood, and the physical death that is required for salvation. They all agree Thieme's spiritual death only theory is wrong. This is published in thier critiques of Thieme, which you apparently haven't read carefully. Dr. Walvoord also agrees that Thieme's spiritual death theory is wrong also.


genez quote

Quote

"The Blood of Christ as Thieme taught it, originated at DTS."

Truthtesty: Again this is the common lie at Berachah. Check it out for yourself. Review Chafer's teachings on soteriology Chafer taught the literal shed blood, physical death, and spiritual death. I know it's hard to believe, but it's the truth. Or you can call or e-mail DTS they will tell you Chafer taught both deaths and the shed blood.

Truthtesty

[b:f97ab0206a]1 John 5:7-8[/b:f97ab0206a] (King James) [i:f97ab0206a]For there are three that bear record [u:f97ab0206a]in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth[/u:f97ab0206a], the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.[/i:f97ab0206a]

[b:f97ab0206a]1 John 5:7-8 [/b:f97ab0206a](New American Standard) [i:f97ab0206a]For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.[/i:f97ab0206a]

The modern Bible versions omit 1 John 5:7b-8a on the basis that it is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts, especially those of early date. However, there is more evidence to be considered than the Greek manuscripts themselves, such as the writings of early theologians and early translations. The following outline (from [www.jesus-is-lord.com] ), illustrates how the King James reading of 1 John 5:7 is well supported throughout Church history:

● A.D. 200: Tertullian quotes the verse (Gill, An exposition of the New Testament, Vol. 2, pp. 907-08 ).
● A.D. 250: Cyprian…writes, “And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: ‘and the Three are One’” (Vienna, Vol. III, p. 215).
● A.D. 350: Priscillian cites the verse (Vienna, vol. XVIII, p. 6).
● A.D. 350: Idacius Clarus cites the verse (MPL, Vol. 62, col. 359)
● A.D. 350: Athanasius cites the verse (Gill)
● A.D. 415: Council of Carthage appeals to the verse as a basic text proving a fundamental doctrine when contending with the Arians (Ruckman, History of the New Testament Church, Vol. I, p. 146)
● A.D. 450-530: Several Orthodox African writers quote the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
○ Vigilius Tapensis (MPL, Vol. 62, col. 243)
○ Victor Vitensis (Vienna, Vol. VII, p. 60)
○ Filgentius (MPL, Vol. 65, col. 500)
● A.D. 500: Cassiodorus cites the verse (MPL, Vol. 70, col. 1373)
● A.D. 550: Old Latin manuscript R has the verse.
● A.D. 550: The “Speculum” contains the verse.
● A.D. 750: Wianburgensis cites the verse.
● A.D. 800: Jerome’s Vulgate includes the verse.
● A.D. 1150: Miniscule manuscript 88 [has the verse] in the margin.
● A.D. 1200-1400: Waldensian Bibles have the verse.
● A.D. 1500: Manuscript 61 has the verse.
● Various witnesses cited in Nestle’s 26th edition for a replacement of the text as it stands with the Comma: v. l: 2318 vg [cl]; 629, 61, 88, 429 v. l; 636 v. l, 918; L; R; and other important Latin Manuscripts.

From the extant citations of 1 John 5:7, we see it being used as early as A.D. 200 by Tertullian. Also, the Waldensian Bibles contain 1 John 5:7 as it reads in the King James Bible. The Waldensians, the ancient Christians of the Piedmont region, were also known as the “Vaudois.” In his book [i:f97ab0206a]Answers to Your Bible Questions[/i:f97ab0206a], David Daniels relates the importance of the testimony of the Waldensians’ Bibles: [i:f97ab0206a]“Now the 'Waldensian' or 'Vaudois' Bibles stretch [b:f97ab0206a]from about 157 A.D. to the 1400’s A.D.[/b:f97ab0206a] The fact is, according to John Calvin’s successor Theodore Beza, the Vaudois [b:f97ab0206a]received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120’s A.D. and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 A.D.[/b:f97ab0206a] This Bible was passed down from generation to generation, until the Reformation of the 1500’s, when Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they [b:f97ab0206a]preserved the Christian faith[/b:f97ab0206a] for the Bible believing Christians today”[/i:f97ab0206a] (emphasis mine).

History tells us that the Roman Catholic religion was relentless in its efforts to destroy the Vaudois and their Bible. It took them until the 1650’s to finish their merciless attacks. But the Waldensians were successful in preserving God’s Word to the days of the Reformation. They received their Latin Bible from faithful Christian missionaries from Antioch of Syria. Irenaeus himself used the Old Latin and may have even been one of the missionaries to Piedmont. The Old Latin (not to be confused with Jerome’s Vulgate) contains the full text of 1 John 5:7-8 as it reads in the King James and its Greek text, the [i:f97ab0206a]Textus Receptus[/i:f97ab0206a].

1 John 5:7 is supported by the Old Latin manuscripts which read, [i:f97ab0206a]“Quoniam tres sunt, gui testimonium dant in coelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unim sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: Spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis; et hi tres unim sunt.”[/i:f97ab0206a] This Latin wording (which matches the KJB) is important because of the same wording used by Cyprian, who writes, [i:f97ab0206a]“Dicit Dominus: ‘Ego et Pater unum sumus,’ et iterium de Patre et Filio et Spiriu sancto scriptum est: ‘Et tres unim sunt.’”[/i:f97ab0206a] (The Lord says, “I and the Father are One,” and again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: “And the three are One.”) This reading is not only found in the Old Latin manuscripts, but was also cited by Cyprian around A.D. 250.

The Old Latin was the Bible of the Waldensians, and history undeniably records the great antiquity of the Waldensian Christians. (For an excellent book on the Waldensians, see [i:6607f7e1da]The Waldenses [/i:6607f7e1da]by Alexis Muston, complete text posted online at [www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org] . For a shorter description, see [www.studytoanswer.net] .) Their Latin Bible predates the [i:6607f7e1da]Vaticanus [/i:6607f7e1da]and [i:6607f7e1da]Sinaiticus [/i:6607f7e1da]manuscripts (the primary basis for modern Bible versions like the NASV that omit 1 John 5:7) by about 200 years. [i:6607f7e1da]Vaticanus [/i:6607f7e1da]and [i:6607f7e1da]Sinaiticus [/i:6607f7e1da]were the work of Eusebius (around A.D. 350), who was commissioned by Emperor Constantine to make 50 copies of Greek Bibles for his “churches.” These “churches,” unfortunately, were far from Christian. Constantine remained a pagan worshipper of Roman gods till the day he died, and Eusebius was a heretic who supported the Arian cult (who denied the deity of Christ and the Trinity), and he certainly would not have wanted a verse like 1 John 5:7 in his Greek “Bibles.” Since previous Roman emperors had failed to destroy Christianity by violence, Constantine decided on a more subtle course—the paganization of Christianity. He welcomed Christians into the large, ornate pagan cathedrals and incorporated Christianity into the pagan rituals. The worship of the goddess Isis became the worship of Mary, the ritual of worshipping the sun god Baal became the “sacrifice of the mass,” the symbolic gesture of the name of Tamuz became the “sign of the cross,” and on and on it goes. Thus was born the Roman Catholic Church (with Constantine as its first “pontiff”). (For an excellent book on this, see [i:6607f7e1da]A Woman Rides the Beast [/i:6607f7e1da]by Dave Hunt.) It is no wonder that both [i:6607f7e1da]Vaticanus [/i:6607f7e1da]and [i:6607f7e1da]Sinaiticus [/i:6607f7e1da]are riddled with corruptions, such as the removal of a crucial verse like 1 John 5:7. Jerome’s corrupt Catholic Vulgate generally follows the [i:6607f7e1da]Vaticanus [/i:6607f7e1da]text (although many changes have been made to the Catholic Vulgate over time). The Waldensians, however, retained their ancient Latin Bible, and rejected the corruptions of Eusebius, Jerome, and the apostate Roman Catholic Church. This was a pivotal issue of the great Protestant Reformation—the rejection of the corrupt Catholic “Bible,” in the texts of the Vulgate and [i:6607f7e1da]Vaticanus[/i:6607f7e1da], and the defense of the true Bible by the Protestants, who translated it into German, French, Italian, English, etc. This was a crucial factor in the overthrow of Catholic tyranny and the liberation of millions of people from the pope’s persecution.

There is solid evidence from the quotes of the early “church fathers” to support 1 John 5:7. The evidence from the ancient Latin translations is even greater. Again, the evidence goes beyond the Greek manuscripts, and must include the ancient versions and writings of Christian leaders living in different regions. Unfortunately, “In the minds of the modernistic textual critics, the Greek manuscriptual evidence is [b:6607f7e1da]THE [/b:6607f7e1da]centre of debate, to the seeming exclusion of nearly everything else” ([www.studytoanswer.net]). As John Burgon says, [i:6607f7e1da]“Speaking generally, the consistent testimony of two, four, six, or more witnesses, coming to us from widely sundered regions is weightier by far than the same number of witnesses proceeding from the same locality, between whom there probably exists some sort of sympathy, and possibly some degree of collusion [/i:6607f7e1da][acting together or copying from each other][i:6607f7e1da].” By examining the variety, we are able to render a better judgment as to the independence of the witnesses. Since the above stated witnesses vary geographically from North Africa to Italy to Asia, and vary in source from Fathers to Versions to manuscripts, the text of 1 John 5:7 passes this test also”[/i:6607f7e1da] ([www.jesus-is-lord.com]). 1 John 5:7 as it stands in the King James Bible is found in a variety of sources such as early translations, lectionaries, and citations from a variety of geographical areas. Again, to quote Burgon: “Among the witnesses listed, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, the orthodox African writers, and the Waldensian Bibles would stand out as respectable to most objective critics, and some of the Latin as well. On that basis, the text again passes.”

Last but not least, for you Greek lovers, the removal of 1 John 5:7 in the modern versions and the modern Greek text creates a serious grammatical problem. When the verse is included, as it is in the King James Bible and the Greek text of the [i:6607f7e1da]Textus Receptus[/i:6607f7e1da], the Greek grammar is consistent. When it is omitted, as it is in the modern versions and the modern Greek text, it causes a grammatical error in the Greek text. Since I can’t post an illustration of this here, I had to make a webpage: [oldpaths.freeservers.com]

The Bibles used by true Christians throughout history—primarily the Latin before the Reformation, and the Protestant Bibles, especially the King James Bible, which has been used across the world for four centuries—contain John’s great testimony to the triune nature of our God. And there are hundreds of differences like this between these Bibles and the modern “Bible text” based primarily on Vaticanus, and, to a lesser extent, on Sinaiticus. What you are telling me, ephesians, is that God has allowed His people to have a Bible with a clear statement of His triune nature, for all these centuries, only to tell them, “Oops, sorry, that shouldn’t be in there.” All the thousands of Christians who appealed to this scripture in defense of this vital truth—including all the great missionaries and evangelists like Hudson Taylor, William Carey, David Livingstone, D. L. Moody, George Mueller, etc., etc.; all the early American Christians who built this great nation; all the faithful Christians who fought, suffered, and died for their faith during and after the Reformation; the faithful Waldensians who suffered greatly for their faith during the Dark Ages; and all the way back to Tertullian in A.D. 200—were all inadvertently blowing smoke. And now you want to change their Bibles, based largely on the text of a corrupt Catholic manuscript, still sitting in the Vatican, where true Bible-believing Christians are not even allowed to see it. And in so doing, you are using the same methods used by modern cults to deny the Trinity and the deity of Christ, such as the Way International, a.k.a. “Biblical Unitarians” (see [www.biblicalunitarian.com] ). And it doesn’t matter to me how many modern intellectual theorizing critics you can quote. This kind of rewriting of the Bible is unacceptable.

Liberty

To the Forum:

Lewis Sperry Chafer quote:

"Christ cannot save by His crown, by His authority, or by His glory. [b:b9be02c293][u:b9be02c293]He can save only by His precious blood[/u:b9be02c293][/b:b9be02c293]. Even His power cannot save us apart from the atoning sacrifice which He has made."

[www.wholesomewords.org]




Truthtesty

To the Forum:

Truthtesty: I am providing quotes (as time permits) by Chafer on the blood of Jesus and the physical death of Jesus to debunk Thieme's claim of orthydoxy. The facts prove that Thieme has deviated from Chafer and orthodoxy. I welcome anyone to prove or disprove what I have stated.


Per Dr. Wall's dissertation: "Thieme conceives of his doctrinal position as being orthodox, claiming that he has not departed from Chafer's theological stance, which is embodied in the seminary doctrinal statement. Thieme also sees himself as clearly in harmony with all of the fundamentals of the faith accepted by the fundamentalists of Chafer's generation. Thieme, in a personal interview stated, I feel that I have followed Dr. Chafer pretty carefully, even though people do not recognize it as such.

SATAN

By

LEWIS SPERRY CHAFER

1909

Foreword, by Dr. C. I. Scofield


Lewis Sperry Chafer quote:

[www.ihaystack.com]

"There is no controversy as to the value of the teachings and example of Jesus; but the wisdom of this world is displayed in [b:70f43e611e]ever-increasing antagonism against the blood of the Cross[/b:70f43e611e]. This enmity has never been founded on the Word of God, for Scripture does not deny itself. The opposition appeals to pride and human reason, and dares to challenge the plain statements of Scripture on this particular point. Very much is thus omitted; for all the meaning of sacrifice in the Old Testament and all the promises of redemption in the New Testament, are inseparably related to the blood of the Cross. [b:70f43e611e]It may be to the Jew a stumbling block[/b:70f43e611e], and to the Greek foolishness; yet to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, "it is the power of God and the wisdom of God."

(Truthtesty: Chafer is definitely speaking about the [u:70f43e611e]literal blood[/u:70f43e611e] of Jesus here. Proof is that Jews have a problem with the [u:70f43e611e]literal blood[/u:70f43e611e] of Jesus, thus Chafer's reference to "stumbling block".)

Lewis Sperry Chafer quote: (same link as above)

..."For by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified" (Heb. 10:11-14). "Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose
stripes ye were healed" (I Pet. 2:24). "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, [u:70f43e611e]being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit[/u:70f43e611e]" (I Pet. 3:18). "And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (I Jno. 2:2).

"From the foregoing passages it may be seen that, according to the Scriptures, the stupendous transformation of regeneration is not only the greatest Divine undertaking, but is directly accomplished by the sacrificial death and [b:70f43e611e]shed blood of Christ[/b:70f43e611e], and is sealed in security by the Holy Spirit of promise."



Truthtesty

To the Forum:

Truthtesty: More Chafer quotes

The following are quotes from GRACE by Lewis Sperry Chafer

[bartimaeus.us]

GRACE
BY
LEWIS SPERRY CHAFER
1871-1952
Founder/President of Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas; Professor of Systematic Biblical Theology; Editor, Bibliotheca Sacra

(C) Copyright, 1922, by LEWIS SPERRY CHAFER

THIS BOOK IS AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED TO THE LATE CYRUS INGERSON SCOFIELD, D. D., FOR MANY YEARS MY FRIEND, COUNSELOR, TEACHER, WHO IN HIS GENERATION EXCELLED AS CHAMPION AND EXPONENT OF GRACE

Chafer Quotes:

"By that trust, Christ is personally received as the divine, Redeemer who [b:c5d1814707]shed His blood[/b:c5d1814707] as a sufficient ransom for the guilt and penalty of sin,"

"By Gospel preaching, sinners are to be told that they may now stand forever pardoned before God: not because God is gracious enough to excuse their sins; but because there is plentiful redemption through the [b:c5d1814707]blood that has been shed[/b:c5d1814707] (Rom. 3:24; Eph. 1:7)"

"The Advocate presents the sufficiency of [b:c5d1814707]His own blood[/b:c5d1814707] to meet the condemnation of every sin. The Father does not act in gracious kindness when forgiving and cleansing the believer: He acts in strict faithfulness to His covenant and promise of eternal keeping, and in strict justice [b:c5d1814707]because of the shed-blood[/b:c5d1814707]. Such is the unchanging value of the propitiation which Christ made in His [b:c5d1814707]blood[/b:c5d1814707]"

"On the contrary, the Christian, sheltered under the [b:c5d1814707]blood of propitiation[/b:c5d1814707], and standing in the merit of his Advocate, is on a basis where no past offences have accumulated against him; for he is cleansed and forgiven under the legal justice of the Father. The justice of God is made possible and is righteously demanded in view of the [b:c5d1814707]shed-blood of His own Son[/b:c5d1814707]"

"God can righteously deal with sin in no other way than through the [b:c5d1814707]absolute value of the blood of His Son[/b:c5d1814707];"

"...but the important aspect of all salvation centers in the fact that "[b:c5d1814707]through the blood of his cross[/b:c5d1814707]" He is to reconcile all things unto Himself. "And you, that were sometimes alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death" (Col. 1:21, 22). Of all the aspects of His eternal Person, the emphasis falls on the fact that, He was a Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Even those who are redeemed by His precious blood and who are the outshining manifestation of the grace of God, were chosen in Him "before the foundation of the world"

"for sin is sin in any and every case, whether it be committed by the saved or the unsaved, and it can be cured only by the [b:c5d1814707]precious blood [/b:c5d1814707]of the Son of God."

"They are, rather, "kept through the power of God," and that power is not only directly exercised in their behalf; [b:c5d1814707]but it has been made righteously free to act through the shed blood of the Lamb of God[/b:c5d1814707]. Sin does not overcome the [b:c5d1814707]blood[/b:c5d1814707]; it is [b:c5d1814707]blood[/b:c5d1814707] that overcomes sin."


Thus grace is extended toward the believer for time and eternity, not on the ground of impossible perfection, nor by slighting the fact of sin; it is extended to him because it is the Father's good pleasure to keep His child, and the Father is unconditionally free to do this through [b:c5d1814707]the blood that has been shed[/b:c5d1814707].



Truthtesty

genez quote

Quote

The Blood of Christ as Thieme taught it, originated at DTS.

I knew a DTS graduate Doctor of Divinity, who showed me how what Thieme taught on the blood was from his class notes.

It became a political issue when DTS started seeking funds from fundamentalist organizations, and DTS needed to distance themselves from this teaching which was unpopular with fundamentalists.

Jesus said "It is Finished" before he died physically. Salvation from sin was completed before his body died. That's in the Bible. The rest is for us to figure out. If you want to.

Truthtesty: This is what you were told. It's not true. No faculty at DTS has ever taught this. This was Thieme's creation. As matter of fact Thieme was so desperate for credibility on the "Blood of Christ " issue, that he tried to falsify Dr. Walvoord as having taught it. Here's Dr. Walvoord's response:

"The president of the seminary, John F. Walvoord, answered in a letter dated September 29, 1972:
Thank you for your letter of September 24 and your previous phone call relative to the booklet, "The Blood of Christ" by Robert B. Thieme. Although Mr. Thieme quotes a syllabus of mine written many years ago, I did not then nor do I now agree with the point of view expressed in this booklet . . . . I do not know of anyone who follows the point of view of Mr. Thieme, and his teaching on this point has apparently confused a number of people. [b:71a46b3c17]It is not the teaching of any member of the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary.[/b:71a46b3c17]20
Walvoord also wrote Thieme the following month requesting that he clarify Walvoord's position in his publication since in the first edition of his book, The Blood of Christ, Thieme had introduced his study with a lengthy quote from Walvoord's Christology class notes. Following is the body of that letter.
"Since our previous correspondence on your booklet on the subject "The Blood of Christ," a number of letters and phone calls have been received indicating that there is widespread confusion on the implications of your quotation of some of my writings in connection with your discussion of the subject. As I am sure you understand, there is considerable opposition to the point of view you present in this booklet, and my own convictions differ materially from your conclusions. While I do not believe that the literal blood of Christ was carried into heaven and that He went to heaven through His blood rather than with His Blood as indicated in Hebrews 9:12, it is not true that I agree with your exposition of what was accomplished when Christ died on the cross. I believe Christ died on the cross both physically and spiritually and died by an act of His will. While He did not bleed to death, I do believe that He literally shed His blood as part of the act of dying and that this was necessary to fulfill such scriptures as Hebrews 9:22; 1 Peter: 18-19; and similar passages. [b:71a46b3c17]The implication from your quotation of my writings that you and I agree on your major thesis set forth in the booklet is, therefore, wrong as I do not agree with the major point of view which you express in the booklet. Further, I do not know any Dallas faculty member who shares your point of view[/b:71a46b3c17]. In fact, your point of view is quite a unique and unusual interpretation. Because your quotation of my writings and the somewhat controversial point of view which you expound in your booklet is being misunderstood, I would appreciate it very much if, in future publications, you would make plain that while I do not believe that the physical blood of Christ was applied to heaven literally, I do believe that Christ shed His blood when He died on the cross as a part of His act of dying. We sincerely hope that something can be done to alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen on the points in question."

Thieme did as Walvoord requested.

For those Thiemites who claim that DTS has changed it's teachings from Chafer. Order from the DTS library the 1924, 1952, 1976 doctrinal statements. They are near identical to the current doctrinal statement of DTS. [www.dts.edu]

Note one minor difference is that the DTS doctrinal statement of 1924 is actually titled "Evangelical Theological College - Doctrinal statement" Brief history [library.dts.edu]

Note another difference is that some Articles are re-numbered but the words are identical.

I would also like to point out the words, in the doctrinal statements, about the Blood of Jesus are the same in all statements back to 1924:

Quote

“I will be like the most High,” in his warfare appears as an angel of light, even counterfeiting the works of God by fostering religious movements and systems of doctrine, which systems in every case are characterized by a [b:71a46b3c17]denial of the efficacy of the blood of Christ[/b:71a46b3c17] and of salvation by grace alone

We believe that according to the “eternal purpose” of God (Eph. 3:11) salvation in the divine reckoning is always “by grace through faith,” and [b:71a46b3c17]rests upon the basis of the [u:71a46b3c17]shed blood of Christ[/u:71a46b3c17][/b:71a46b3c17]

We believe, also, that our redemption has been accomplished solely by the [b:71a46b3c17]blood of our Lord Jesus Christ[/b:71a46b3c17], who was made to be sin and was made a curse for us, dying in our room and stead;[b:71a46b3c17] and that no repentance, no feeling, no faith, no good resolutions, no sincere efforts, no submission to the rules and regulations of any church, nor all the churches that have existed since the days of the Apostles [u:71a46b3c17]can add in the very least degree to the value of the blood[/u:71a46b3c17][/b:71a46b3c17], or to the merit of the finished work wrought for us by Him who united in His person true and proper deity with perfect and sinless humanity

We believe that, because of the eternal purpose of God toward the objects of His love, because of His freedom to exercise grace toward the meritless on the ground of the propitiatory [b:71a46b3c17]blood of Christ[/b:71a46b3c17]

Truthtesty