Scofield's Theology of the Atonement

Status
Not open for further replies.

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
I haven't read my Scofield in years but I do recall he was not consistent with his explanation of the atonement. I'm looking for quotes by Scofield (and Chafer if you have them) about the atonement, extent, application, etc.

What kind of Calvinists were the early Dispensationalists? Most seemed pretty solid on the 4 points but failed to understand particular redemption. Any help, directional or replies with quotes, would be helpful. Thank you.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
I'm not sure about Scofield himself with regard to actual quotes. But the consensus appears to be that he was a 4 pointer. I gather that that was the prevalent view in the Bible Conference movement in general.

I know that a lot of Chafer's material is online, but I don't know if his Systematic Theology is. If memory serves, S. Lewis Johnson said that Chafer was influenced by Ralph Wardlaw, a 19th Century Amyraldian. Johnson was a student of Chafer's and refers to him often on soteriology and eschatology. He refers to him quite a bit in his "Divine Purpose" series. One could also peruse the DTS statement of faith, which I think precludes Particular Redemption but is also more Calvinistic than many non-Calvinist Baptists and others would be comfortable with. Johnson had to leave DTS when he embraced Particular Redemption, especially after it became clear that he would not keep it on the "down low." Walvoord was President at the time. Some of that history is recounted here. From what I have gathered from at least one DTS alum, they may not be quite as hard line on that today.

In the revised Scofield (New Scofield of 1967 or the Scofield III) there are more detailed notes on election, predestination and foreknowledge. Looking at all 3 of the notes together, they are somewhat confusing and perhaps even contradictory. But there is also a clear statement that election cannot simply be dismissed in favor of foreknowledge. Walvoord was one of the editors of the revision.

In contrast with the early Plymouth Brethren, I don't know if any of the early dispensationalists in the USA were 5 pointers. (Perhaps some were in the 19th Century before dispensationalism became widely popular.) I think it's safe to say that the most visible proponents of dispensationalism were not.

The Landmark Baptist J.R. Graves was also a dispensationalist of a sort. He wrote a large book on it but I haven't been able to find the text online. Given his ecclesiology I think he must have differed significantly from Scofieldism on some points. Both Scofieldism and Brethrenism place strong emphasis on the universal church and ignore or neglect the local church to varying degrees. (While many dispensationalists were militant fundamentalists, others stood idly by or offered somewhat muted protest when the liberals took over the mainline denominations, for example. This may have been more prevalent with the Presbyterians than with the Baptists.) By contrast, Landmarkism denies the existence of a universal church altogether. I know of some Sovereign Grace Landmarkers who consider dispensationalism to be "Protestant theology" for this reason. Graves was probably at least a 4 pointer too.
 
Here are some quotes from S. Lewis Johnson on Chafer's views:

Dr. Chafer in his systematic theology speaks of the death of Christ as rendering men "savable." That's his word; and then as making the salvation of all men "possible." That's his word in another place; and as making the salvation of all men "conditional." That's another word in the same general context; and then as making salvation "potential in its application." Notice these expressions, savable, possible, conditional, potential. Now, it's clear that Chafer is offering Amyraldian views, although he never mentions the Amyraldians. He's following Ralph Wardlaw. And I don't know whether he really knew that Wardlaw was an Amyraldian, because he never mentions that fact. But he's following Wardlaw's views.


In an amazing statement he says, "The substitution of Christ," I'm quoting him, "what partly absolute and partly conditional in proportion to man's capacity of choice and responsibility." And I don't know exactly what that means, and I don't know anybody who does know precisely what that means. And you must remember that Dr. Chafer, I have the greatest of regard for him. Dr. Chafer was a Bible teacher, had never had a theological course in his life, and began to teach at Dallas Seminary. And what he did is what you or I would do, he got as many books as he could and he read those books as best he could. He frequently did not know what theologians would call "the state of the question." He did not have that background, and so he made statements that were understood only by Dr. Chafer, if they were understood by him sometimes you might think. [Laughter] But at the same time he was a great man of faith and very charismatic as an individual, and young men recognized in him the Spirit of God. And so he had a great influence for that reason. He says the cross, for example, is not the only saving instrumentality, rejecting the cross as that which makes the salvation of the elect certain.



I wrote this little article on substitution and I said with reference to Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, I loved him. He taught me a whole lot about grace because he lived what he believed. And with us beginning theological students that didn't know much, it was like talking with the thirteenth apostle. I sat in front. I was as close to him as you are right there and I would be right there to listen to Dr. Chafer. And he had a wide experience, but he didn't have a good training. His training was in evangelism and Bible teaching. So far as I know he had never had a theological class in his life. I saw his library. He built up a good library buying books. His favorite theologian was Ralph Wardlaw. He liked Hodge. He liked Shedd. But he never had the kind of skills that gave him the perception that a trained theologian would have, but a godly man.

Many of Amyrault's admirers like to say he's just following Calvin. But Calvin didn't know that. There is a real problem in the contention that the Spirit elects and applies the redemption to the elect. In other words, Christ's impetration or acquisition of salvation remains in suspense until the condition of faith occurs. Thus, and this seems to be contrary to the whole of the New Testament teaching, no one can be saved simply by Christ's sacrifice. That is a second saving instrumentality. For the cross does not procure both salvation and its application as the orthodox affirm.


When I went through theological seminary I had a theological professor who in his writings made that specific. I often wondered where he got that, but where he got it is ultimately from Amyrault. He never cites Amyrault. As far as I know Dr. Chafer never mentioned the term Amyrault in his theology. But he got it second hand. He got it from Ralph Wardlaw who was an Amyradlian. And in Wardlaw's analysis, the structure of his theology, there it was, and that's where Chafer got it. And he talks about faith as a second saving instrumentality. Faith is the instrumentality by which we receive, but it's something given by God and determined by God as part of what Christ accomplished when he died on the cross.

Dr. Chafer's view was very much like the Amyraldians'. I don't think that Dr. Chafer himself really did a whole lot of investigation of the Amyraldian teaching, but he was really a follower of Ralph Wardlaw. And I'm going to say something about Ralph Wardlaw, and I'll save the full exposition of it for then. Ralph Wardlaw was one of the Calvinistic Universalists, and he had his own particular approach to it, but generally speaking they fall into the same category. And Dr. Chafer did believe in a kind of universalism, but at the same time he stressed very strongly the doctrine of election and the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing men to faith in Christ. So, I think he fell in that category and I would say in that respect, it seems to me that his particular teaching was inconsistent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top