http://www.theoblogian.org/Careful Reading - Observant Exegesis - Radical Ideas60 http://www.theoblogian.org/Arlen-Chitwood-and-Soul-Salvation.aspx#Comment_616<p>Actually, I was using &quot;hyper&quot; in the generic sense. My intent was to describe Chitwood as a radicalized dispensationalist, and as such, he may not fit the accepted use of that term. Chitwood preaches the &quot;whole&quot; counsel of scripture. That said, he does appear to make some very sharp divisions between the nations (Israel and Gentile), and the mode of salvation.</p><p>&nbsp;--Mark at agabus.com</p>Anonymous12/7/2007 11:29:00 AM http://www.theoblogian.org/Arlen-Chitwood-and-Soul-Salvation.aspx#Comment_615<font size="3">Thank you for your comments on Chitwood: I didn&#39;t feel like reading Chitwood, but this is helpful in knowing where he is theologically. I do have one question. You note that he is a hyper-dispensationalist. Does this relate to his beliefs at all? Since hyper-dispensationalism sees the church beginning at some point later than Acts 2, does he perhaps believe that this type of salvation is only a new way of being saved? Just wondering. Sorry about the problem with the name in the comment section: we have had problems with it before. The best way around it is just to actually type your name at the end of your comment.<br /></font>Charlie12/7/2007 5:42:00 AM http://www.theoblogian.org/Scarcity-and-War.aspx#Comment_614<font size="3">These are good thoughts Eric, and I agree with you. The major problem in my mind is the lack of accounting for the sinfulnes of people. He didn&#39;t say it, but it seems he is operating with a belief in the goodness of humans. I also agree with your take on verifiability. As far as your first issue, he would say that ideology is a type of scarcity: if you believe anything then it makes a scarcity because someone else disagrees with you. This point is the primary contribution of his book: applying scarcity to religious violence or violence caused by ideological differences. <br /></font>Charlie12/7/2007 5:38:00 AM http://www.theoblogian.org/Deep-(Space)-Doo-doo.aspx#Comment_613How about, they were formed and then &quot;spread&quot;?Anonymous12/6/2007 9:47:00 AM http://www.theoblogian.org/Arlen-Chitwood-and-Soul-Salvation.aspx#Comment_612How do you get the comment section not to list you as &quot;anonymous&quot;?Anonymous12/6/2007 9:32:00 AM http://www.theoblogian.org/Arlen-Chitwood-and-Soul-Salvation.aspx#Comment_611<p><font face="comic sans ms,sand" size="4">For the record a statement describing Millennial Exclusionism that Chitwood teaches follows.&nbsp; It is by Mark Adams at agabus.com.</font></p><p>Chitwood is representative of a type of dispensational theology termed Millennial Exclusion (sometimes called Kingdom Exclusion), and particularly of Cornerstone Christian Fellowship in Jacksonville, Florida (I understand he attends there). <br />&nbsp;<br />Millennial Exclusion has the following characteristics:</p><ul><li>Tripartite man for the purpose of distinguishing three types/aspects of salvation (accomplished successively, not comprehensively) </li><li>Soul salvation, a works-based mode of redemption -- one might say it is a merits-based system (this conceptualization of salvation contradicts scripture) </li><li>Millennial exclusion of carnal Christians (these will suffer in the lake of fire for one thousand years); eternal exclusion of non-believers </li><li>Emphasis on assurance (applicable to the first aspect of salvation -- spirit salvation -- and effective to the other aspects) </li><li>Emphasis on reward and ruling with Christ </li><li>Emphasis on type and antitype, which effectively allegorizes vast portions of scripture (they would not use the word &quot;allegorize&quot; though) </li><li>Separatistic -- they do not generally accept fellowship with other Christians</li></ul><p>A variety of ME theologians and pastors hold to this doctrine. As to the number of Christians who hold to this teaching, I cannot tell (it appears relatively small, but not insignificant).</p>Anonymous12/6/2007 9:28:00 AM http://www.theoblogian.org/Arlen-Chitwood-and-Soul-Salvation.aspx#Comment_610<p>I consider Chitwood to be a millennial exclusionist, and I have written about him and millennial exclusion at my blog (<a href="#topofpage">http://agabus.com</a>). His &quot;unusual view&quot; of salvation is that one aspect of redemption is merit-based, i.e. salvation of the soul is attained through rewards. Consequently, this form of salvation is not by grace, but by works. Indeed, we are to work, and we will be judged according to our works, but that we are saved by works or merit or reward is counter to scripture. I am convinced that God desires us to be perfect, as he is perfect. To fall short of God&#39;s glory is exactly that: to fall short of his glory and the righteous requirements of the law. One amount of faithfulness will not redeem several amounts of unfaithfulness. Thus, soul salvation is not merely extrabiblical, but also impractical. We cannot work our way into the kingdom.</p>Anonymous12/5/2007 4:16:00 PM http://www.theoblogian.org/Conferences.aspx#Comment_609<p>Sounds like we are in more agreement than I thought we might be. </p><p>About the areas of disagreement, it would be interesting to have a discussion on what we know and how we know it. I lean more toward evidentialism, or at least a classical apologetic view, and away from presuppositionalism. While I do think we interpret many things and are fallible in those interpretations, I think this admission gives the unfortunate impression that we&#39;re trapped behind our interpretations, unable to simply know the world as it is in itself. To claim that we&#39;re trapped behind our interpretations (or our worldview if you will) seems a mistake, since it presupposes that we can get outside of our interpretations in order to confidently assert that we can&#39;t get outside of our interpretations. The recent theological pessimism about foundationalism, I think commits this error. </p><p>I have to come clean that I have a pretty dim view of the postmodern account of knowledge, which is generally pragmatist, and from what I can tell coherentist. But this dim view doesn&#39;t make one a modernist. Foundationalism isn&#39;t modernist, unless perhaps we&#39;re talking about classical foundationalism. But there are other foundationalist views that allow for the possibility of fallibility, and most foundationalists I know are not of the classical sort, and will readily admit that they&#39;re fallible. They demonstrate how one need not have a postmodern view of knowledge to embody the virtue of epistemic humility.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;What does anyone else think? A discussion on knowledge? I&#39;ve also started posting over at kingdomtriangle.blogspot.com in their discussion&nbsp; forums under the name &quot;Tim&quot;.&nbsp; Maybe I&#39;ll see some of you here or there? </p>Anonymous12/3/2007 6:32:00 PM http://www.theoblogian.org/Honor-your-father-and-your-mother.aspx#Comment_608It is indeed a privilege, Mark. He is as much a pastor as a scholar. My wife was nervous about me being in a PhD program setting until she met Dan Block. He models the kind of pastoral scholar/teacher that I desire to be in the future, and I very much value my time here at Wheaton with him. And pretty much everything he has written is worth reading: if you see his name anywhere, you should buy the book just for his essay. Naturally, I am biased and my word should be taken with a fair helping of salt, but whatever he writes at least challenges one even if his view is not followed. Charlie11/29/2007 9:19:00 PM http://www.theoblogian.org/Honor-your-father-and-your-mother.aspx#Comment_607<p>I have to say I&#39;m envious of your opportunity to sit under Dan Block.&nbsp; I&#39;ve been preaching through Judges and his insight has been incredible (NAC).&nbsp; If he is half as engaging in person as he is in his text it must be a joy to study under him.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Mark Kernan &nbsp;</p>Anonymous11/29/2007 1:08:00 PM