Systematic Theology

Writing a Fundamental and Biblical Systematic Theology for the 21st Century REGISTER to comment at www.theology.gsbaptistchurch.com/wp-login.php?action=register

Part 06 Anthropology

A Systematic Theology for the 21st Century

Part 06 Anthropology

Download pdf at www.GSBaptistChurch.com/theology

 

Part 06 Anthropology

 

The basic outline for a Systematic Theologies Anthropology section must start with a robustness found in Bancroft’s:The Doctrine of Man (Anthropology)1

  1. Creation
    1. The Fact of Creation
      1. Mans Creation Decreed
      2. Mans Creation Declared
    2. The Method of Creation
      1. Negatively Considered
      2. Positively Considered
  2. Original Condition
    1. Possessed the Image of God
      1. Does not denote physical likeness
      2. May mean a formal likeness, a likeness in form
      3. It could refer to a triune likeness- tripartite being, vs Triune Being
      4. It doubtless includes the personal image
      5. It must involve endless being with which God has endowed man
      6. It certainly means intellectual and moral likeness:
    2. Possessed Intellectual Faculties
    3. Possessed a Holy Moral Nature
  3. Probation
    1. The Meaning of Probation
    2. The Fact of Probation
    3. The Period of Probation
  4. The Fall
    1. The Fact of the Fall
    2. The Manner of the Fall
      1. The Tempter
      2. The Temptation
        1. Woman, unprotected and near the forbidden
        2. Insinuating question implied doubt of God’s Word
        3. Woman replying to and parleying with the slanderer
        4. Woman tampering with the Word of God
        5. Serpent’s open denial of punishment for sin and accusing God of lying, selfishness, jealousy, degrading and lording over.
        6. Woman believing the tempter lust of eye, lust of flesh, pride of life
        7. Obeying the tempter
        8. Becoming a tempter to her husband who yielded undeceived.
    3. The Results of the Fall
      1. To Adam and Eve in particular
        1. Consciousness of nakedness and sense of shame
        2. A craven fear of God
        3. Expulsion from the garden
      2. To the race in general
        1. Ground cursed to not yield good alone
        2. Sorrow and pain to woman in childbearing
        3. All men are sinners and resting under condemnation
        4. Physical and spiritual death and threatened penalty of eternal death
        5. Unredeemed men are in helpless captivity to sin and Satan

 

There is no truer, or more thorough, published, Baptist, and Biblical doctrine than that of Dr. Mark G. Cambron.2 His teachings on Bible Doctrine at Tennessee Temple Bible School thoroughly lay the foundation for this systematic theology. His book, Bible Doctrines3 will, with the permission of the Cambron Institute4, be given in block quotes throughout this effort. The book is readily available through http://www.thecambroninstitute.org , and it forms the foundational basis for this Systematic Theology.5

Believing in the verbal inspiration of the Holy Scriptures and believing that every single word is directly chosen by God, it is necessary to preserve and defend the doctrines extracted from Scripture and presented by Dr. Cambron. Below, in a block quote of his book, is his extensive analysis of Anthropology: [block quote of Dr. Cambron’s Bible Doctrines page 116-133}

Cambron’s Chapter IV Anthropology -The Doctrine of Man

118

OUTLINE FOR CHAPTER IV

ANTHROPOLOGY

I. Man in His State of Integrity.

A. His Origin.

B. His Nature.

C. His Constitution.

D. His Condition.

E. His Headship.

II. Man in His State of Sin.

F. The Fall of Man.

G. The Fallen Sons of Adam.

III. Man in His State of Grace.

A. His Standing.

B. His State.

C. His Two Natures.

119

Chapter IV ANTHROPOLOGY

Anthropology comes from the Greek word “anthropos,” meaning “man.” Anthropology is

the doctrine of man. There are many different definitions of man, some comical, some

tragic. In this study of anthropology we shall go to the true source — the Scriptures.

Man has always wanted to know who he is, where he came from, and where he is going.

God’s Holy Word gives the only complete account.

I. MAN IN HIS STATE OF INTEGRITY

By this we mean man in his original state of purity, his uprightness.

A. His Origin.

1. Negative.

a. Not by Abiogenesis or Spontaneous Generation. This theory holds to the belief

that there was no creator of man, but that man simply came into being without a cause

and began to exist, fulfilling the nursery rhyme, which reads:

Where did you come from, Baby dear?

Out of the nowhere, into here!

This argument needs no answer, but in order to forestall criticism, we simply state that if

such a thing as abiogenesis were possible, there would be no power to keep it from

happening again. There is no record of a second occurrence, and, of course, it never

happened in the first place.

b. Not by Evolution or Natural Developments. A short definition of evolution is:

“That process by which, through some kind of aggregation of matter through many ages

and species, by chance or by law, man appears.” This concept has held sway for many

years, but its adherents are on the decline. Modern science, such as anthropology, is

refuting all of its claims. The Bible declares that man is a separate creation of God, and

that the animals were created at a different time, completely apart from man. Evolution

teaches that man and animals have a common origin, which branched out into the

different species. In refuting this we use the Scriptures and human reasoning as follows:

(1) It is Opposed to Scripture. The Scriptures state: “After his kind” (Gen. 1:24).

This pins the species down to themselves, forbidding them to evolve into a completely

new species.

(2) There is No Record of Animal Becoming Man. Surely, in six thousand years, if

120

evolution were true, there would be living examples of it today.

(3) There is No Evidence that the Missing Link Has Been Found. Many so-called

history books show pictures of the creature they term as the missing link. These pictures

are photographs of drawings, and not photographs of real creatures, as none of these

exist. The “missing link,” we are told, is that creature between man and the ape. Its

picture is wholly the imagination of the artist who took a piece of a bone or tooth and

built a man around it. It is the same as a man taking a key hole and building a house

around it. We would like to quote William Jennings Bryan concerning the “missing link”:

“If the missing link has been found, why are they still looking for it?”

(4) There is No Evidence that Primitive Man Differed From Man Today.

(5) There Is Proof that Human Blood is One Blood. (Acts 17:26). World War II has

proved this. The blood of a white man can be placed into the veins of a black man, and

vice versa, and give life. Blood transfusions have only been in practice during the last

hundred years, but God revealed this to us several thousand years ago.

(6) There is a Great Difference Between the Constitution of Man and Animal.

(a) Physically. Man is an upright being, while animals are on all fours.

(b) Mentally. Man has intellect, while animals have instinct.

(c) Morally. Man is the only creature of God that has moral qualities.

(d) Spiritually. Man alone has been created with spiritual concepts. He alone of

all the creatures can worship God.

2. Positive. Man is a direct creation of God. “God created man in his own image, in

the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:27).

B. His Nature.

1. Original Image of Man. “God said, Let us make man in our image, after our

likeness” (Gen. 1:26a). “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed:

for in the image of God made he man” (Gen. 9:6). See also I Corinthians 11:7; James 3:9.

a. Seen in Man’s Triunity. “The LORD God formed man out of the dust of the

ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul”

(Gen. 2:7). “The very God of peace sanctify you wholly: and I pray God your whole

spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus

Christ” (I Thess. 5:23).

b. Seen in Man’s Intellectual and Moral Nature. “Lie not one to another, seeing that

ye have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new man, which is

renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him” (Col. 3:9, 10). See also

Ephesians 4:24.

c. Seen in Physical Likeness. It is true that God is a Spirit (John 4:24); God is

invisible (Col. 1:15). Yet God has always had a form in which He manifests Himself: “As

for me, I shall behold thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied, when I awake with

beholding thy form” (Ps. 17:15, R.V.). See also Philippians 2:6,7; Mark 15:12; John 5:37,

R.V.

121

Christ was not made in the form or image of Adam, but Adam was made in the form, or

image of Christ, who was to come: “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses,

even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is

the figure of him that was to come” (Rom. 5:14).

2. Original Innocence of Man. Some declare that Adam was created in holiness, or

righteousness. This is not quite correct. Man was created perfect, yes, but he was created

in innocence. There is a vast difference between innocence and righteousness. Innocence

is sinlessness that has never faced trial. Righteousness is innocence that has been tested

and tried, and has come out victorious.

C. His Constitution.

As we shall see, man is composed of earthly (Gen. 2:7) and spiritual elements (I Thess.

5:23; Heb. 4:12).

1. Body. His body was made from the earth. This was the first part of man that was

formed. “The LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his

nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). The body is set forth

in Scripture as the house of the inner man. “How much less in them that dwell in houses

of clay, whose foundation is the dust, which are crushed before the moth?” (Job 4:19).

See also II Corinthians 5:1, 3, 4. The process by which God made man is not known; we

leave that up to God. Men give their opinions and speculations, but they remain as such.

The word “dust” does not mean clay, or old dirty dirt, but the finest materials of the earth.

a. Analysis Proves Man’s Source. Modern chemical analysis detects in the body the

same elements that are in the earth beneath man’s feet; such elements as sodium, carbon,

iron, and the like.

b. Earth Sustains Man’s Existence. The body is sustained by that which grows out of

the earth. It is man’s body and not his spirit that is sustained. Famine in our modern day

has proved that if vegetation is taken away, life is taken away. Kill vegetation and you kill

man.

c. Death Substantiates Man’s Elements. At death corruption sets in, and man’s body

soon returns to the dust from which it was formed. “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat

bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and

unto dust shalt thou return” (Gen. 3:19).

2. Soul. “The LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his

nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). See also I

Corinthians 15:45. The soul is the seat of the emotions and appetites. Plants, animals and

man have bodies; only animals and man have a soul; but only man has a spirit. The soul

is that conscious life which is in man and animal. Plants have life, but it is unconscious

life. There is a difference between the souls of men and the souls of animals. The

animal’s soul is connected with his body, while man’s soul is connected with his spirit.

The soul of an animal dies with the animal, but man’s soul never dies, for he was made a

“living soul” — a soul that would never die.

122

As stated, the soul of man is the seat of his emotions and appetites, and the following

Scriptures will bring out the degrees of same: Appetites: “Thou mayest kill and eat flesh

in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the LORD

thy God which he hath given thee: the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the

roebuck, and as of the hart” (Deut. 12:15). Desires: “If any man said unto him, Let them

not fail to burn the fat presently, and then take as much as thy soul desireth; then he

would answer him, Nay; but thou shalt give it me now: and if not, I will take it by force”

(I Sam. 2:16). See also Deuteronomy 12:20; Psalm 107:18; Proverbs 6:30; Isaiah 29:8; I

Samuel 18:1. Hates: “David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and

smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind, that are hated of David’s soul, he shall

be chief and captain. Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the

house” (II Sam. 5:8). Mourns: “His flesh upon him shall have pain, and his soul within

him shall mourn” (Job 14:22). Is Vexed: “The man of God said, Let her alone; for her

soul is vexed within her: and the LORD hath hid it from me, and hath not told me” (II

Kings 4:27b). Rejoices: “I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my

God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with a

robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride

adorneth herself with her jewels” (Is. 61:10). Suffers: “They said one to another, We are

verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul, when he

besought us, and we would not hear; therefore is this distress come upon us” (Gen.

42:21). Sorrows: “He said unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye

here, and watch” (Mark 14:34).

Where does man get his soul?

a. Pre-existence. This theory teaches that all souls that have ever been in the world,

or shall ever be in the world, were created in the beginning. At time of conception, they

are united with the body. This was taught by Plato, but it was never accepted by the

church, as it is without Scriptural foundation.

b. Creationism. This belief holds that after forty days of conception the soul unites

with the body. Roman Catholicism proposes this. If this belief is true, then God is the

creator of sinful souls.

c. Traducianism. This is the truth which holds that both soul and body are derived

from the parents. “Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own

likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth” (Gen. 5:3). See also Acts 17:24-26.

3. Spirit. Here is where man differs from all creatures. In Hebrews 12:9 God is said to

be “Father of spirits.” This does not mean the Father of angels, but of the spirits of men

made perfect. God is never said to be the Father of souls.

“As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also” (Jas. 2:26).

When a body dies, the soul departs with the spirit of man. The soul and spirit can be

separated “the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged

sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and

marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). However,

there is no Scriptural proof that they are ever separated. The rich man of Luke 16 goes to

Hades upon death, and he has both soul and spirit with him. See also Matthew 10:28.

123

The spirit of man is the seat of his intelligence. “What man knoweth the things of a man,

save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but

the Spirit of God” (I Cor. 2:11). Animals do not possess intelligence. “Be ye not as the

horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding: whose mouth must be held in with

bit and bridle, lest they come near unto thee” (Ps. 32:9).

The word “spirit,” both in the Hebrew and Greek, is sometimes translated as “breath,”

and “wind.” The context determines the translation.

The materialists say that the word for spirit should be “breath,” and that when man dies

he is gone forever.

Some people say that man lost his spirit at the Fall and regains his spirit at conversion.

This would make him a dual being however, and this conception has no Scriptural

grounds.

4. Heart. When we speak of the heart, we do not mean the muscle in the body, but

rather the seat of conscience. “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith,

having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure

water” (Heb. 10:22). See also I John 3:19,20; Acts 2:26; 5:3, 5; Matthew 22:37. There is

a warning that there may be a profession without a possession, a head knowledge without

a heart trust. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom

of heaven; but he that doeth the will of the Father which is in heaven” See also Matthew

7:22, 23.

D. His Condition.

By this we mean man’s condition in his state of integrity before he fell.

1. His Knowledge. He had immediate knowledge, intuitive knowledge. He was not an

adult infant. He named all animals that came from the hand of God; It would take an

intelligent man to do this. “Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and

to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him” (Gen.

2:20).

2. His Fellowship. He was able to commune with God. “The LORD God commanded

the man saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat” (Gen. 2:16). “God

said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the

earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for

meat” (Gen. 1:29).

3. His Home. It was located in a garden. “The LORD God planted a garden eastward

in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed” (Gen. 2:8). Some men claim

that primitive man was a cave man, but this was not so, for he was a garden man. The

first records we have of men living in caves are of the persecuted: “Of whom the world

124

was not worthy; they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the

earth” (Heb. 11:38), and of the insane: “when he was come out of the ship, immediately

there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit” (Mark 5:2).

This garden is not called Eden, but rather, the Garden in Eden. “Eden” means plains, or

plateau. Armenia, no doubt, is the place where man began.

4. His Companion. “For Adam there was not found an help meet for him. . . . And the

rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto

the man” (Gen. 2:20, 22). The words “help meet” are not a compound word, but two

separate ones, meaning “fit for.” Eve was “fit for” Adam. Some who laugh at this “rib

story” cannot tell us where woman did come from. Why do you suppose God did not

make woman from the dust? For the simple reason that God did not want to have two

origins of man.

God can make a human being in four ways:

By conception.

Without the aid of a woman, as Eve.

Without a man or woman, as Adam.

Without a man, by a woman, as Christ.

5. His Work. “God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply,

and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and

over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth” (Gen.

1:28). “The LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and

to keep it” (Gen. 2:15). There was employment in the garden, but no toil. There was

work, but not the kind that wears one out. The word “keep” in Genesis 2:15 is best

translated “guard.” Against whom was Adam to guard the garden? Against wild animals?

No, there were none. Against wild men? No, for Adam was the only man. He was put on

his guard against the possible appearance of the Devil. Whenever man is placed in a

position of trust, God always gives ample warning.

6. His Food. “God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is

upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding

seed; to you it shall be for meat” (Gen. 1:29). The first man and beast of the field were

vegetarians. Their diets included no meat. Man was not carnivorous as evolutionists

claim.

7. His Responsibility.

a. To Replenish the Earth With a New Order — Man. “God blessed them and God

said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it” (Gen.

1:28). Adam was the first man: “The first man Adam was made a living soul” (I Cor.

15:45). Eve is the mother of all human beings. “Adam called his wife’s name Eve;

because she was the mother of all living” (Gen. 3:20).

125

b. To Abstain from Eating of the Fruit. This fruit was of the tree of the knowledge of

Good and Evil. “The LORD God commanded the man saying, Of every tree of the

garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou

shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2: 16,

17).

They were allowed to eat freely, as there was plenty. There was only one tree forbidden

them. We do not know what kind of fruit it was. Nothing was wrong with the fruit; there

was just God’s prohibition behind it. God wanted Adam and Eve to have knowledge, but

he did not want them to gain it by disobedience. Re-member, man had been placed on his

guard; he had been warned of the enemy; Satan did not come in unawares. This being

true, why did God allow Adam and Eve to be subjected to the attack of the Devil?

Testing always comes before a blessing. Man always has to be tried before he is

promoted.

E. His Leadership.

The entire human race comes from that one man, Adam. As is the head, so are the

descendants.

1. Ethnography. This is the branch of anthropology that considers man geographically

and descriptively, treating of the subdivision of races, the causes of migration, and related

matters. This science points to a common homeland — Armenia.

2. Comparative Philology. This is the science of language, and it considers that men

all come from the same origin.

3. Psychology. This is the science of the mind, and it also indicates that man comes

from one origin.

4. Physiology. This is the science that deals with the organic structure of the body, and

it declares that all men come from the same source, a common origin.

II. MAN IN HIS STATE OF SIN

A. The Fall of Man.

Some may say that the fall of man is an old Babylonian fable, but we have only to look

upon man and see him toil for his bread, weaken in his diseases, and die in his misery, to

realize that he has had a fall. “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;

and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12).

126

1. The Source of Sin. “Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field

which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye

shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” (Gen. 3: 1). “I fear, lest by any means, as the

serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the

simplicity that is in Christ” (II Cor. 11:3). God is not speaking about a beast when He

mentions the serpent, but a person. Notice that the Scripture does not say, “more subtle

than any other beast of the field,” but leaves out the word “other,” stating only that he is

more subtle than any beast. This is merely a statement of what God thinks of the Devil.

Nowhere in Scripture does it state that the Devil was in the serpent, but it does say that

the serpent was the Devil. “He laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the

Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years” (Rev. 20:2).

2. The Nature of Sin. “The serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For

God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall

be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for

food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she

took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did

eat” (Gen. 3:4-6). Now the fruit was all right; it was good fruit, with only the prohibition

of God behind it. Some people may contend that it was a small thing to bring about man’s

downfall, but we ask the question, “How many steps does it take to fall off a bluff?”

a. He Doubted God’s Love. In doubting God’s love, man denied God’s goodness, and

acted apart from God and became a sinner. “There is a way which seemeth right unto a

man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 14:12). See also Isaiah 55:6.

b. He Doubted God’s Word. In doubting God’s Word, man denied His Truth;

denying His Truth, he acted in spite of God and became a criminal. “Whosoever

committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law” (I John

3:4).

c. He Doubted God’s Authority. In doubting God’s authority, man denied God’s

deity; denying His deity, he became contrary to God. Thus, he became God’s enemy and

a rebel in God’s universe. “The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to

the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please

God” (Rom. 8:7, 8).

The testing was given to see if man would stay true to God. He failed because he wanted

to be a god. The Devil himself fell (Is. 14), because he wanted to be like the Most High

God. This brought about his downfall, so he planted the same seed of false ambition in

Adam and Eve to see if it would bring about their downfall, and it did.

Some may ask, “Was this fair to them?” They were warned and placed on guard against

Satan. There was only one prohibition in the garden. They did not need the fruit; they

lacked nothing.

127

3. The Effects of Sin.

a. Immediate Effects Upon Eve.

(1) Shame. “They both were naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they

sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons” (Gen. 2:25; 3:7). God himself is

clothed with a garment of light (Ps. 104:2); and when He made man, he made him in His

own image and likeness. Thus, we believe that man also was clothed with a garment of

light. When man sinned, that clothing of light was lost, and he made himself a fig leaf

covering to take the place of that which was lost. Ever since, man has tried to put on what

God once gave him, but he has nothing but filthy rags.

(2) Fear. “He said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was

naked; and I hid myself” (Gen. 3:10). Man still tries to hide from God.

(3) Separation from God. There is no doubt that man lost his perfect nature and

ended his fellowship with God. There is no such thing as the Fatherhood of God and the

brotherhood of man of the natural man, the unsaved man.

(4) Expulsion from the Garden. “The LORD God sent him forth from the garden of

Eden to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he

placed at the end of the garden of Eden cherubims, and a flaming sword, which turned

every way to keep the way of the tree of life” (Gen. 3:23, 24). Man was driven out.

(5) Lost Lordship Over Creation. In the beginning Adam was indeed the ruler of all

earthly creatures: “Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou

hast put all things under his feet: all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beast of the field; the

fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the

sea” (Ps. 8:6-8). This is not true of man today. He has lost that lordship. Christ will return

it to man when He comes again (Heb. 2 and Is. 11).

b. Remote Effects Upon Adam’s Posterity.

(1) The Spirit is Darkened. “This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye

henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, having the

understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that

is in them, because of the blindness of their heart” (Eph. 4:17, 18). The darkened room of

understanding will remain darkened until the Holy Spirit comes in to illuminate.

(2) The Soul Is Debased arid Corrupt. Unbelievers, “being past feeling have given

themselves over unto lasciviousness to work all uncleanness with greediness” (Eph.

4:19). See also Jeremiah 17:9.

(3) The Body Is Subjected to Disease and Death. “The creature itself also shall be

delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God”

(Rom. 8:21).

4. The Effects on Sin.

a. The Immediate Expression of God’s Judgment.

(1) On the Serpent. “The LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done

this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly

shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: and I will put enmity

between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head,

and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:14, 15). Satan, in all of his majesty, is considered

nothing but a serpent. This is a figure of speech, for we know that snakes do not eat dust.

128

God’s decree unto the serpent that he should eat dust all the days of his life, showed the

contempt in which He held the Devil.

(2) On the Woman. “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow

and thy conception; in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to

thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Gen. 3:16).

(3) On Creation. “Unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice

of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not

eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy

life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the

field” (Gen. 3:17, 18).

(4) On Man. “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return unto the

ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return”

(Gen. 3:19). See also Genesis 5:29.

b. The Future Expression of God’s Judgment. “The fearful, and unbelieving, and the

abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolators, and all liars,

shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the

second death” (Rev. 21:8).

5. The Provision for the Sinner. “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and

between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel”

(Gen. 3:15). In the hour that man sinned, God promised a Redeemer. The Seed of the

woman is no one else but Jesus Christ. “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD

God make coats of skin, and clothe them” (Gen. 3:21). When they realized their

nakedness, they covered themselves with aprons of fig leaves. God clothed them with

animal skins instead. As far as covering their nakedness was concerned, fig leaves were

as good as animal skins; however, blood had to be spilt — “For without the shedding of

blood there is no remission of sin.” They had to be covered with that which was slain for

their sins. Likewise, the sinner today has to be clothed with the righteousness of Him who

died for them.

B. The Fallen Sons of Adam.

1. Their Standing.

a. In Adam. “Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the

dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (I Cor. 15:21, 22).

See also I Corinthians 15:45, 47; Romans 5:12-21. There are only two representative men

in the world: the first man and the second man; the first Adam and the last Adam. All

men are born in Adam; all born-again men are in Christ.

b. Of Sin and Guilt. “What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have

before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin, as it is written, There is

none righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3:9, 10). See also Romans 3:19.

2. Their State. By their state we mean their spiritual condition; that is, the absence of

righteousness in their spiritual life.

a. Sinful in Nature. “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother

conceive me” (Ps. 51:5). See also Ephesians 2:3; Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans

129

8:7; Galatians 5:19-21.

b. Sinful in Practice. “We ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient,

deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and

hating one another” (Titus 3:3). See also Romans 3:23; Colossians 1:21; Psalm 14:1-3.

c. Lost in Sin. “The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost”

(Luke 19:10). See also Isaiah 53:6; II Corinthians 4:3, 4.

d. Spiritually Dead. “You hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and

sins…Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, by grace

are ye saved” (Eph. 2: 1, 5). God’s picture of a sinner is a dead man, a man with all of the

organs of movement, but no motion. Likewise, the sinner cannot move in the things of

God.

e. Under God’s Wrath. “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all

ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom.

1:18). See also John 3:36.

f. Waits for Death. “It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment

(Heb. 9:27).

g. Sure of Hell. “Whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into

the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:15). See also Revelation 21:8.

III. MAN IN HIS STATE OF GRACE

A. His Standing.

1. In Christ. As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (I Cor.

15:22). See also I Corinthians 15:21, 45, 47; Romans 5:12-21.

2. Of Perfection. “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the

world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. . . . To the praise of

the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved” (Eph. 1:4, 6).

There are no charges against the Head; and, as that is so, there can be no charges against

the Body.

B. His State.

By this we mean his spiritual condition. This differs from the life of the unbeliever. In the

believer’s life righteousness is present — the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ.

1. A New Creature. “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are

passed away, behold, all things are become new” (II Cor. 5:17). See also 11 Peter 1:4;

Galatians 6:15; John 3:16. Regeneration is a re-creation. Only God can create; only God

can re-create.

2. Saved. “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our

works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus

before the world began” (Il Tim. 1:9). See also Ephesians 2:8,9.

130

3. Dead Unto Sin. “Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but

alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:11). “Who his ownself 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 Peter 2:24).

4. Child of God. “As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the

sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (John 1:12). “Ye are all the children

of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26).

5. Under God’s Favor. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who

hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ” (Eph. 1:3). See

also Romans 5:2.

6. Waits for God and Glory. “Our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we

look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may

be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able to

subdue all things unto himself” (Phil. 3:20,21).

7. Sure of Heaven. “The Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve

me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen” (II Tim.

4:18). See also I Peter 1:4.

C. His Two Natures.

“The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are

contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would” (Gal. 5:17).

The above Scriptures could not describe anyone but a saved man. The sinner has but one

nature; the child of God has two natures. Every true believer has experienced the warfare

of which Paul speaks. This warfare is best demonstrated by the household of Abraham.

He had two sons — Ishmael, the older; and Isaac, the younger. Ishmael stands for that

born of the flesh, while Isaac stands for that born of the Spirit. The trouble started when

Isaac came into the household. Trouble comes into a Christian’s life when Christ enters

in.

1. The Description of the Old Nature.

a. Names and Characteristics.

(1) The Flesh. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh” (John 3:6). See also

Romans 7:18, 23; 8:9. By “the flesh” we do not mean “muscles and sinews,” which are

part of the human body, but rather the carnal nature, which all possess at birth. There is

no such thing as our being in the flesh; the flesh is in us. No man has ever begotten an

unfallen man. “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing”

(Rom. 7:18a). See also John 6:63; Romans 8:8. There is no such thing as a person being

born with a “divine spark” within them.

(2) The Natural Man. “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of

God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are

spiritually discerned” (I Cor. 2:14). This is what man is by nature, by his natural birth.

131

(3) The Old Man. “Our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be

destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin” (Rom. 6:6). See also Ephesians 4:22;

Colossians 3:9. This is the man of old — what we once were: corrupt, full of evil desires

and lusts.

(4) The Outward Man. “Though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is

renewed day by day” (II Cor. 4:16).

(5) The Heart. “From within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts,

adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness,

an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all these evil things come from within, and

defile the man” (Mark 7:21-23). We hear so much of man having a change of heart, but

this is impossible, for only God can give a new heart.

(6) The Carnal Mind. “The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject

to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Rom. 8:7).

(7) Sin. “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death

passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12). The word “sin” refers to the

fallen nature of man, while “sins” refer to the actions of this nature.

b. The Character and End.

(1) It Is an Adam’s Nature. This means that Adam fell, and his children are,

therefore, fallen children of a fallen father.

(2) It Is an Inherited Nature. We receive our fallen nature from Adam.

(3) It Is an Evil Nature. The eighth chapter of Romans is a commentary on this

point.

(4) It Is an Unchangeable Nature. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh” (John

3:6a). As long as man lives, that fallen nature remains in him. It will be eradicated only at

the resurrection of the dead in Christ, and the transformation of those alive in Christ, at

His second appearing.

(5) Its End Is Death. “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23a). See also Romans

8:5-13.

2. The Description of the New Nature.

a. Its Names and Characteristics.

(1) Spirit. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the

Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6).

(2) Divine Nature. There “are given unto us exceeding great and precious

promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the

correction that is in the world through lust” (II Peter 1:4). See also I John 3:9; 5:18, 19.

(3) The New Man. “Put on the new man, which after God is created in

righteousness and true holiness” (Eph. 4:24). See also Colossians 3:10; II Corinthians

5:17.

(4) The Inward Man. “Though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is

renewed day by day” (II Cor. 4:16). “I delight in the law of God after the inward man”

(Rom. 7:22). See also Ephesians 3:16.

(5) Mind. “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I

myself serve the law of God: but with the flesh the law of sin” (Rom. 7:25).

132

b. Its Character and End.

(1) It Is a Christly Nature.

(2) It Is An Imported Nature..

(3) It Is a Holy Nature.

(4) It Is an Unchangeable Nature.

(5) It Is Non-forfeited Nature.

Verses 1 and 2 of I John 2 ‘speak of the relation of the saint with the Father. Even when

the saint sins it is a family matter.

(6) It’s End is Resurrection and Rapture. “Behold, I shew you a mystery; we shall

not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the

last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we

shall be changed. For this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put

on immortality… But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord

Jesus Christ (I Cor. 15:51-53, 57).

3. The Conflict Between the Two Natures.

a. The Believer’s Experience. Every child of God has two natures; the unsaved man

has only one nature. The old nature cannot be eradicated while the believer lives in the

flesh; therefore, we have the fight between the old and new natures. “The flesh lusteth

against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the

other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would” (Gal. 5: 17). Romans 7:15-25 is

another marvelous example illustrating this truth. However, someone may declare that

this passage shows the conflict in Paul’s life before he was saved, but one verse in this

passage clearly reveals that this conflict, so vividly described, occurred after he was

saved: “I delight in the law of God after the inward man” (Rom. 7:22). No unsaved man

ever delights after the law of God. Also, only the saved man has the inward man, which

is the new nature.

b. The Believer’s Responsibility.

(1) In Relation To the Old Nature.

(a) Accept God’s Estimate of It. “Our old man is crucified with him, that the body

of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is

freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with

him: knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more

dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he

liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive

unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:6-11). This one truth must be pointed

out: the old man is never said to be crucified in the believer, but is crucified with Christ.

It is a reality! Accept it! It is not a matter of feeling, but one of faith. All of this truth is

according to God’s view. As for the believer’s view, he knows that the old nature, the old

man, is not dead; he is very much alive. The Scripture says, “Reckon ye also yourselves

to be dead indeed unto sin.” If the old nature were actually dead, the believer would not

have to reckon him so; he would know.

(b) Make No Provision for the Flesh. “Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make

not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof (Rom.13:14). In other words, do not

feed the flesh. Starve it.

133

(c) Mortify the Flesh. “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth;

fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness,

which is idolatry” (Col. 3:5). A stronger term is, “Put to death, therefore, your

members.” The words “as good as dead” (Heb. 11:12) are the same terminology.

(d) Never Try to Improve It. “Neither yield your members as instruments of

unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the

dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God” (Rom. 6:13).

(e) Put It Off. “Put off concerning the form of conversation the old man, which is

corrupt according to the deceitful lusts” (Eph. 4:22). The same word is translated “laid

down” in Acts 7:58.

(2) In Relation to the New Nature.

(a) Reckon Ourselves to Be Alive. “Reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed

unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:11).

(b) Walk in Newness of Life. “We are his workmanship, created unto good works,

which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10). See also

Romans 6:14; 7:6.

(c) Feed and Nourish It. “As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word,

that ye may grow thereby” (I Peter 2:2). We are to feed the new nature by the exposition

of the Word, and not by the exhortation of man. We know we have two natures, and it is

well to consider that the food for one will starve the other. It is the individual Christian

who must decide which man, the old or the new, shall be fed. He cannot feed both at the

same time.

(d) Put On the New Man. “Put on the new man, which after God is created in

righteousness and true holiness” (Eph. 4:24).

(e) Depend Upon the Indwelling Spirit for Power. “Grieve not the Holy Spirit of

God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption” (Eph. 4:30). “My brethren, be

strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might” (Eph. 6:10). “Not by might, nor by

power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts” (Zech. 4:6b).

134

From my TH802 report:

Critique of Chafer’s Chap XI & XII Introduction to Anthropology (125-129) & The Origin of Man (130-159)

If Chafer had made his last paragraph his first paragraph he could have cut out fourteen pages of add-nausea. None of this chapter recites God’s aspect, and actually represses His revelation about the origin of man. It is apologetic to the evolutionist, apologetic to the humanist, apologetic to the philosopher; it is apologetic to the archeologist and the geologist; for crying out loud, it is even apologetic to the philologist,6 because that philologist, the historical linguist, “knows” it has taken a hundred thousand years to evolve the human language to where it is today!

There is a need for apologetics and some small amount of apologetic might find its way into a systematic theology, but it should not be the focus of a systematic theology in any arena, and especially not as concerning the origins of man. Dr. Chafer is writing a text that will appeal to 70+ denominations, all of which Dallas Theological Seminary strives to appease and accommodate. Here he does it well, by saying nothing of significance in a chapter that should be very fundamental, very straightforward and very enlightening.

The whole flavor of a neoevangelical readily seeps from Dr. Chafer’s chapter on the origin of man. The series of Bible conferences springing from Niagara, New York at the close of the 19th century (1833-1897) brought both Fundamentalism and Biblical Dispensationalism into the lime light in America. The Fundamentalist became known for separating, holding anti-denominational (independent autonomous local churches), anticlerical (no clergy) and anti-creedal (no creed but the Bible) stances and defending five fundamentals of faith.7 Any departure from a fundamental tenant would constitute apostasy and result in separation. There was a distinct movement away from such staunch separation, neoevangelicals proposed that the apostate and unbelieving cultures must be constructively engaged. Rather than publicly confronting Church apostasy and separating from it, the neoevangelical advanced repairing it with inclusiveness. They supposed that social acceptance and intellectual respectability would be more effective on the perverse generation in need of correction. Fundamentalists soon dubbed them as the neoevangelicals8.

Dr. Chafer is wholly neoevangelical and his writing about the origins of man strives for intellectual respectability and social acceptance in a perverse world of infidelity and Church apostasy. Dallas Theological Seminary is founded on such neoevangelical principle and is, thus, pandering to 70+ denominations in its outreach. Consequently they must be very careful, never confrontational, in their declaration of truth, which never reaches a state implied in the term declaration. A Baptist is a fundamentalist, even if they retired the phrase, and need not exercise such careful avoidance of confrontation.

Louisiana Baptist Theological Seminary is on the brink. It may at any moment forsake its Baptist Fundamental and Separatist heritage and embrace intellectual elitism, wherein it begins an irrecoverable slide down the steep slope of neoevangelicalism. Its assignment of a thoroughly neoevangelical systematic theology in its theological studies is an indicator of its inclination. Its disclaimer, that LBTS does not endorse the entire content of every text book used, cannot disengage this Baptist Theological Seminary from that dangerous slippery slope. Forces at play in its desire for intellectual respectability have already stepped over the brink and threaten to drag (or have indeed already dragged) the whole university and seminary over an irrecoverable line. Neoevangelicalism has swallowed the majority of Baptist Universities and all previous Baptist Seminaries. Jesus’ warning in Matthew 7 has application for institutions as well as for the souls of men: “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” In a university sense, few there be that stay on a straight, fundamental, Baptist way. LBTS shows signs of veering from the straight.

Dr. Chafer’s neoevangelicalism aside, his “introduction to anthropology” and his “origin of man” cannot hold a candle to Baptist theologian Emery H. Bancroft’s Elemental Theology, Doctrinal and Conservative9 Bancroft’s work is adequately positive completely Biblical and very fundamental. His first sentence on creation contains a negative lead in “There is no trustworthy evidence that man came from beneath as a product of life forces or potencies of the material universe.”10 But Bancroft presents the fact of creation rather than the theory of creation. The latter track is Chafer’s neoevangelical approach and mimics Augustus Strong’s previous approach11. Strong published prior to the birth of fundamentalism and neoevangelicalism, but his flavor is in general neoevangelical, i.e. tiptoeing through apostasy, being careful not to ruffle any apostate or evolutionist’s feathers. Bancroft has no apologetics for the truth and a clearly separatist flavor of the fundamentalist. His work, however, is closer to a Bible Doctrines work than a Systematic Theology work. This is the state of all Baptist theology efforts. A truly Biblical, i.e. Baptist, Systematic Theology is still lacking in publication. If such an effort would be undertaken it would be more than Emery H. Bancroft included in his 1932, Elemental Theology. It is indeed, most exceptional, but alas elemental, rather than systematic. To extend Bancroft’s work from a 1932 Elemental effort to a Systematic Theology for the 21st Century, one which overpowers the neoevangelical works of Chafer and Geisler, one would start with Bancroft’s format and add pertinent systematic endeavor. (see appendix Prolegomena for a better description of that challenge)

The basic outline for a Systematic Theologies Anthropology section must start with a robustness found in Bancroft’s: The Doctrine of Man (Anthropology).12 That outline is recited below:

  1. Creation
    1. The Fact of Creation
      1. Mans Creation Decreed
      2. Mans Creation Declared
    2. The Method of Creation
      1. Negatively Considered
      2. Positively Considered
  2. Original Condition
    1. Possessed the Image of God
      1. Does not denote physical likeness
      2. May mean a formal likeness, a likeness in form
      3. It could refer to a triune likeness- tripartite being, vs Triune Being
      4. It doubtless includes the personal image
      5. It must involve endless being with which God has endowed man
      6. It certainly means intellectual and moral likeness:
    2. Possessed Intellectual Faculties
    3. Possessed a Holy Moral Nature
  3. Probation
    1. The Meaning of Probation
    2. The Fact of Probation
    3. The Period of Probation
  4. The Fall
    1. The Fact of the Fall
    2. The Manner of the Fall
      1. The Tempter
      2. The Temptation
        1. Woman, unprotected and near the forbidden
        2. Insinuating question implied doubt of God’s Word
        3. Woman replying to and parleying with the slanderer
        4. Woman tampering with the Word of God
        5. Serpent’s open denial of punishment for sin and accusing God of lying, selfishness, jealousy, degrading and lording over.
        6. Woman believing the tempter lust of eye, lust of flesh, pride of life
        7. Obeying the tempter
        8. Becoming a tempter to her husband who yielded undeceived.
    3. The Results of the Fall
      1. To Adam and Eve in particular
        1. Consciousness of nakedness and sense of shame
        2. A craven fear of God
        3. Expulsion from the garden
      2. To the race in general
        1. Ground cursed to not yield good alone
        2. Sorrow and pain to woman in childbearing
        3. All men are sinners and resting under condemnation
        4. Physical and spiritual death and threatened penalty of eternal death
        5. Unredeemed men are in helpless captivity to sin and Satan

Depicting the difference in a Biblical Doctrines work and a Biblical Systematic Theology work is the necessary work of a Prolegomena. That effort is begun in the draft Prolegomena in the appendix of this effort. Dr. John F. Walwoord, who succeeded Dr. Chafer as President of Dallas Theological Seminary, described Dr. Chafer’s Systematic Theology as “without question an epoch in the history of Christian Doctrine… a complete and unabridged Systematic Theology.”13 This author disagrees with that assessment and contends that a truly Biblical Systematic Theology is still want to be published.

Critique of Chafer’s Chap XIII-XIV The Material/Immaterial Part of Man (144-197)

Lewis Sperry Chafer’s poor coverage of mans origin and inadequate organization of his Anthropology section takes a turn for the worse in this chapter. Infidel, Philosopher, and Roman Catholic have decreed that man is made up of a material part and an immaterial part; God’s revelation makes no such simplistic distinction. If man is made in the image and likeness means anything, and if trinity means anything, then man is more than material and immaterial, he is body, soul, and spirit. The Roman Catholic doctrine that man has a material part to be dealt with and a immaterial part to be considered separately, has overwhelmed Chafer’s neoevangelical leanings. His Systematic Theology has now become a book of Roman Catholic Doctrine.

Chafer’s propensity to teach Roman Catholic Doctrine in these two chapters makes this section all the more feckless. How the human body actually produces an immaterial part, traducian theory, various elements, capacities and faculties of an immaterial part of man carries such insignificance that it hardly matters that his three key sources are the Encyclopedia Britannica14, Presbyterian Theologian Hodge15 and Presbyterian Theologian Shedd16. The whole differentiation and characterization of this artificial material and immaterial parts of man is extra-Biblical. Chafer is taking neoevangelicalism even further than it is want to go.

Critique of Chafer’s Chap XV The State of Innocence (198-214)

It does not bode well for a Systematic Theology being systematic or theology when Lewis Sperry Chafer starts the State of Innocence with a philosophical poem by Hollands greatest 17th century poet. Once again Dr. Chafer is allowing his quest for scholarly philosophy to trump his communication of truth. His approach does not herein improve.

A single sentence from the Responsibility of the First Man reveals, again, that Chafer’s work is wholly unworthy. “That the Christian may walk and talk with God, that the guiding and teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit is vouchsafed to him, and that the enabling power to realize God’s perfect will and plan is freely bestowed, illustrated, to some measure, the high privilege and responsibility of the first man when no cloud intervened between his Creator and himself.”17 Sixty such words of brazen run on passivity, might be found somewhere in poor English prose, but may it never be found in a Systematic Theology book. Our subject is complicated enough, the prose we use must be riddled with simplicity, not with gobbledygook. But Chafer does get worse.

From this point on in his diatribe of verbiage Dr. Chafer makes his whole focus, not the Biblical representation of the state of innocence, as would be proper, but those who consider the whole book of Genesis to be allegorical. Certainly there is a whole tribe of Evangelicals who are such infidels, but a Systematic Theology which has as its sole authority the infallible, inerrant, plenary, verbally inspired word of God, has little cause to address such an audience. In such an exorbitant waste Dr. Chafer has frittered away another fourteen pages of his six volumes of work.

Critique of Chafer’s Chap XVI The Fall (215-223)

There is little purpose in reading Chafer’s wordy opinion on the fall of man. One need only take note that he first sites Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’, followed by the Presbyterian, Dr. Shedd, followed by the Westminster Confession. The overbearing error of all of this is best worded in my draft Prolegomena in the appendix of this paper. It details how theologians with a theology in their heart have failed to follow a basic systematic methodology to get that theology onto paper, systematically. Here Chafer does exactly what is condemned in that essay. He uses a scientific method wherein he hypothesizes about the fall of man, then experiments a path through multiple ancient opinions to bring hypothesis up to theory, and using the same empirical process, to bring theory up to “gospel truth”.

Theology is not a science, and in treating it as such, Dr. Chafer abandons the inerrant, infallible, plenary, verbally inspired Holy Bible as his sole source of truth about the fall of man. He follows the outline of Charles Hodge. He follows the scheme of Augustus Strong. Both equally failed on this same level. It is curious that Geisler18, a whole generation removed from the neoevangelical start up that engulfed Chafer, does no less. His genius in organizing and communicating his neoevangelical theology in one volume (1680 pages) dwarfs Dr. Chafer’s effort in six volumes. (2,700+ pages!) But alas, Norman Geisler has the same failure. These Theologians considered theology a science, and expected if they could “lasso” everything that was ever believed about God, and here the Fall, they would be able to draw the noose tight enough to end up with all the truth and nothing but the truth. Unfortunately this method, effective for science, is wholly inadequate for theology, wherein, at the start, there is an inerrant, infallible plenary, verbally inspired Holy Bible which is the sole source for the gospel truth.

Dr. Chafer has “lassoed” a great many sources to frame up his “theory” about the fall of man; unfortunately his noble effort is not really Biblical in nature or in analysis.

1Emery H. Bancroft, Elemental Theology, 1932, Baptist Bible Seminary, 1945, 60, Zondervan 1977, 231-244

2Dr. Mark G. Cambron, B.A., M.A., Th.B., Th.M., Th.D., D.D., L.L.D., Litt.D., was one of the foremost theologians of our times. Born in Fayetteville, Tennessee on July 31, 1911. He was born-again in 1919. It was during a Billy Sunday campaign in Chattanooga that he trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ as his personal Savior. He served for many years at Tennessee Temple College (1948-59) with Dr. Lee Roberson and served as Dean of the College. From http://www.thecambroninstitute.org accessed 10/16/2013

3Mark G. Cambron, Bible Doctrines, 1954, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House, 60-69

4The Cambron Institute, 35890 Maplegrove Road, Willoughby, Oh 44094

5It is noted and reproved in the Bibliology section of this work that Dr. Cambron’s Bible Doctrines book recommends using the R.V., instead of the Holy Bible, 41 times for 54 Bile verses.

6Chafer, Systematic Theology Vol 2, 141.

7“The twentieth century began with a tumultuous conservative uproar over the infiltration of numerous denominations by liberalism. The severity of the situation demanded immediate action. Heretical teachings were captivating and corrupting entire churches, schools and related organizations within multiplied denominations. Therefore, a coalition of interdenominational brethren, following a number of conferences, united around the five ‘fundamentals’ of the faith. They were:

1. The inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture

2. The deity of Jesus Christ

3. The virgin birth of Christ

4. The substitutionary, atoning work of Christ on the cross

5. The physical resurrection and the personal bodily return of Christ to the earth.

“The adherents to these five ‘fundamental’ truths were naturally labeled ‘fundamentalists.’ Those opposing them were called ‘liberals.’ “The men joining together around these five points (commonly called ‘the doctrine of Christ’) were from varied and diversified religious backgrounds. Thus, this amalgamation of ‘first generation fundamentalists’ included Presbyterians, Baptists, Reformers, Reformed Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, Congregationalists, and Wesleyan Holiness brothers. The astounding thing about the members of this interdenominational movement was their love for one another.” (Dr. Jack Van Impe, Heart Disease in Christ’s Body, pp. 127-128).

8The term neoevangelical was popularized by one Harold Ockenga in 1947, neoevangelicals were then embarrassed to be called fundamentalists. (From www.theopedia.com accessed 18 Nov 2013).

9Emery H. Bancroft, Elemental Theology, 1932, Baptist Bible Seminary, 1945, 60, Zondervan 1977, 231-244.

10ibid., 231.

11Although Strong was consistently orthodox, he did use the results of modem critical scholarship more than, for example, his near Presbyterian contemporary Charles Hodge. Also, unlike Hodge, Strong was comfortable with the idea that God may have created the world through the processes of evolution. In the 1907 edition of his theology, Strong summarized his views on modern thought: “Neither evolution nor the higher criticism has any terrors to one who regards them as part of Christ’s creating and education process.” from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/strong accessed 2 Aug 2010

12Emery H. Bancroft, Elemental Theology, 1932, Baptist Bible Seminary, 1945, 60, Zondervan 1977, 231-244.

13Article contributed by www.walvoord.com, accessed 15 Dec 2013

14Chafer, Systematic Theology, 191,195.

15Ibid., 175.

16Ibid., 177.

17Ibid., 202.

18Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology in One Volume, Bethany House, 2002, 3, 4, 5, 11