truthtesty -

I thank you for the correction; however Chafer did indeed use the term "The Dispensation of the Church"; see, for example, Chafer's book, "Major Bible Themes", copyright 1926 and 1953, page 101.

Chafer is not perfectly consistent; he tends to use the terms "grace" and "church" interchangeably, as well as the terms "age" and "dispensation"; though in at least one place he does make a formal distinction between the latter pair of terms. Keep in mind that Chafer did not have benefit of the computer; and even with a computer it is difficult to be perfectly consistent in one's terminology. Also, a good scholar refines his terminology as his understanding increases, but he cannot revise all of the works he previously has written.

I have all of Chafer's books, including his "Systematic Theology"; "Major Bible Themes" must have been closest at hand when I wrote. Until now I was not aware of the inconsistency. However, it is a minor point, so in my article I may simply delete the sentence.

Expositor:


Would it be possible to see your entire source-work on the "The Blood of Christ"?


Truthtesty

Expositor:


Your welcome. I do not have a copy of "Major Bible Themes", copyright 1926 and 1953. I do have the electronic version of Chafer's 8 volumes of Systematic Theology. It does not mention 1 single time "The Dispensation of the Church". Although Chafer does refer to the Church within the Dispensation of Grace. Again as we have both said this is a minor issue.



Truthtesty

Expositor:


Do you have the original 1923 version of Chafer's "Major Bible Themes"? Because the revised version of 1953 by Dr. Walvoord says (in it's Forward on pg 7) [books.google.com]
that the revised edition is 75% new, it based on Chafer's Systematic Theology and later teachings. Also Dr. Walvoord completed "Major Bible Themes" in 1953, after Chafer's death in 1952.



Truthtesty

To the Forum:


In the above post I should have said 1926 version not 1923 version - my mistake.



Truthtesty

truthtesty -

Again I thank you. I purchased "Major Bible Themes" back in the early 1970's, and I have not read the foreword since that time; it is the 1953 edition. So it is likely that the heading "The Dispensation of the Church" was not written by Chafer.

As soon as I have opportunity, I shall revise my article accordingly.

Truthtesty -

(1) Regarding "the attendant legacy of heresy which Protestantism inherited from Papistry": I refer to the legacy throughout my article on Thieme. When I began work on the revision which I published two months ago, I soon found myself writing a critique on traditional Protestantism moreso than a critique of the ministry of Thieme. At that point, I excised from the article on Thieme most of the material on Protestantism, intending to write a separate article on the matter. Meanwhile, the best I can do is offer the article on Thieme, with its numerous footnotes in which I discuss various aspects of the legacy.

(2) You asked to see my entire source-work on the blood of Christ. At the present time, my article on Thieme is the only document which I have published on the matter (see page 16 of the PDF version). The concept of the blood of Christ is bound up intimately with the nature of the Incarnate Christ, and thus the two matters must be considered together.

Following is an extremely brief summary of my thinking regarding these subjects.

For the most part, the error of traditional Protestantism (and thus, the error of Thieme) originates with tradition which Christians have embraced, setting aside the teaching of the Scripture.

A tradition from which much of the error of Protestantism proceeds is embrace of the lie of Genesis 3:4: "You are not going to die." Any number of times each week, one can hear a preacher in the pulpit or on the radio affirming this lie, by asserting that the essence of man is an immortal soul which shall live for ever, and that death is not cessation of existence, but, rather, separation from God. Indeed, Thieme and others blasphemously argue that not even the Creator himself can kill or destroy the soul of man. But the Scripture declares, plainly and repeatedly, that man is a chemical organism which is animated by a divinely-imparted "spirit" or "breath" of life, that upon death the spirit of life returns to the Creator, and that the dead have no thought, no consciousness, and no perception. Moreover, Jesus declares that God is able to destroy both body and "soul" (PSUCHE here denoting the very essence of the individual). The Scripture teaches that it is only through the process of resurrection that the mortal and corruptible chemical organism may be transformed into an immortal and incorruptible spirit entity.

A second tradition which is the source of great error is the belief that the incarnate Christ was a dual-natured being who possessed both divine and human attributes. However, the Scripture declares that the Word laid aside the attributes of deity for the purpose of the Incarnation, that the Word became [GINOMAI] flesh, that Christ Jesus by resurrection was transformed from flesh to spirit, and that the resurrected Christ received again from God the Father the attributes of deity which he previously laid aside. Anyone who gives objective consideration to the countless ramifications of a dual-natured Christ quickly is driven to the conclusion that such a Christ is a false Christ, and not the Christ Jesus of the Scripture.

Expositor:



Would you explain this in greater detail?

Quote

The concept of the blood of Christ is bound up intimately with the nature of the Incarnate Christ, and thus the two matters must be considered together.

Truthtesty

In saying that the concept of the blood of Christ is bound up intimately with the nature of the Incarnate Christ, and thus the two matters must be considered together, what I mean simply is that one's interpretation of the concept of the blood depends upon his view of the nature of the being. An erroneous concept of the nature of the Incarnate Christ leads to a faulty understanding of the concept of the blood of Christ.

The true nature of the Incarnate Christ was not generally perceived among Christians; this fact is seen in the Scripture, particularly in the Gospel account of John and in the epistles of John. The matter supposedly was settled once and for all in the early "Church councils"; several recent broadcasts of R. C. Sproul discuss the controversies and the rulings of those councils.

Thieme, together with most Protestants, presents the Incarnate Christ as "the God-man" -- a being characterized by undiminished deity and true humanity united in one person forevermore, the attributes of each nature adhering to the respective nature with no mixing or transfer to the other nature. This is the concept of "hupostasis", which Thieme terms "hypostatic union". According to this view of the Incarnate Christ, Jesus simultaneously was ignorant and omniscient; simultaneously was weak and omnipotent; simultaneously was limited to a physical location and omnipresent; simultaneously was subject to death and immortal. Implied but seldom, if ever, explicitly stated by Thieme and other Protestants is that the Incarnate Christ simultaneously was flesh and spirit (which should call to mind John 3:6 and I Corinthians 15:44 ).

Ignoring the numerous and insurmountable theological difficulties inherent in the concept of hypostatic union, let us focus upon the bearing of the concept with respect to the blood of Christ. Despite the claim of Thieme and other Protestants that the union involves no mixing or transfer of attributes between the two natures, they argue that the divine nature irresistibly influences the human nature. Specifically, they argue that, by virtue of association with the divine nature, the human nature of the Incarnate Christ could not be tempted and could not sin (and thus do they assert that the temptations of Jesus had no validity). But their argument here is inconsistent, for they do not argue that the same association likewise inhibits death of the human nature.

A further complication arises from the widespread notion that the essence of man is an immortal "soul" which cannot die in the sense of permanent and irreversible cessation of function. Accordingly, Thieme and other Protestants implicitly argue that the human nature of the Incarnate Christ, though supposedly "mortal" and subject to death, in reality is incapable of death.

Now, if the Scripture is to be believed, the Incarnate Christ was a mortal, fleshly being -- a chemical organism animated by a divinely-imparted spirit of life. Christ Jesus died as all men die, the spirit of life departing the body and returning to the Creator. It is important to recall that, according to the accounts of the Scripture, Jesus died by dismissing his spirit -- while there remained in his body a quantity of blood which was sufficient to sustain life; not until after he was dead was the spear thrust into the side of Jesus. And the ministry of Christ, together with the Atonement was accomplished before Christ died, for he declared, "Finished!", using the word TELEO, meaning complete. So the term, "the blood of Christ", refers to the life of Christ, which he "gave as a ransom for many". And the declaration, that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, refers to the death of Christ, not to the physical shedding of blood. Indeed, death does not necessarily result from the shedding of blood. The Christ of the Scripture died as a mortal man, having confidence in the promise of the Father to raise him from the dead, transform him from flesh to spirit, and restore him to his former glory.

But if Thieme and other Protestants are to believed, Christ Jesus died only in the sense that his "soul" experienced a temporary separation from God. This death supposedly is a "spiritual" death, which is independent of physical death. Moreover, the teaching of Thieme and other Protestants clearly implies (if not directly stating) the spiritual death of Christ lasted only a few hours, and came to an end before the physical death of Christ. Supposedly the spiritual death began about the time Jesus cried, "My God, my God, Why have you forsaken me?", but no longer was in effect when Jesus cried, "Father, unto your hands I commend my spirit." So in the teaching of Thieme and other Protestants, the physical death of Jesus is something of an anti-climax; it is nothing more than a playwright's device to bring to an end the scene of the Crucifixion. So the term, "the blood of Christ", cannot refer to the physical death of Christ, for it is the spiritual death of Christ -- a "death" which spanned but three hours, during which darkness covered the land -- which accomplishes the cleansing from sin, and that spiritual was complete before physical death occurred. This Christ of Thieme and other Protestants could not truly die, for -- as they themselves often affirm -- deity cannot die. Moreover, this Christ-who-could-not-die raised himself from the dead, in a demonstration of his deity. Indeed, the Larger Westminster Catechism (which is of equal weight with the Westminster Confession, upon which document the Protestant Faith rests) declares concerning the resurrection of Christ Jesus, that "he rose again from the dead the third day by his own power; whereby he declared himself to be the Son of God." (So much for the logical absurdity of self-resurrection, and the many passages which plainly declare that Jesus was raised from the dead by God the Father.)

Sir Walter Scott put it well when he wrote: "Oh what a tangled web we weave // When first we practise to deceive!" -- Marmion, Canto vi, Stanza 17.

Yet, not everyone who teaches the concept of hypostatic union does so out of a desire to deceive. Most do so because they consider it dishonouring to Christ or even blasphemous to believe that the Incarnate Christ was a mortal man who did not possess the attributes of deity. But in their zeal to give honour to Christ, they set aside the declaration of the Scripture, that "the Word became flesh."

expositor, are you a Jehovah's Witness?