|
|
Middletown Bible Church, Middletown, CT
and
George Zeller
George Zeller was an acquaintance and correspondent of Miles J. Stanford. Both considered their ministries to be “fundamental” and “dispensational”, within the broad meaning of those terms. Both traded written material over several years and the influence of Miles Stanford’s works can be clearly seen in the views of George Zeller and his ministry at Middletown Bible Church. Several of George Zeller's articles include references to Miles Stanford's publications; however, the converse is not true. Despite areas of commonality, there were broad doctrinal differences between these two men. George Zeller is often quoted side-by-side with fundamentalist, Arminian Baptists; Miles Stanford is not similarly quoted. More that three years after Miles Stanford’s home-going, George Zeller wrote:
“I did not agree with everything Miles wrote, but his overall ministry was helpful to me personally in many ways.” GZ – 1/1/03
Miles Stanford was a self-identified Acts 2 “Pauline Dispensationalist,” while George Zeller considered himself to be more in line with many of the tenets of Traditional Dispensationalism (Scofieldism).
“I felt he had some ultradispensational leanings, but he was not ultradispensationist. I felt he saw the entire Bible in light of Rom. 6:11 (though the glasses of Romans 6:11). Romans 6:11 is a precious and important passage but it is not the entire Bible. Miles said that we should never call Christ our King. In light of Col. 1:13 etc., I have no problem calling Him my King. I personally have problems with his understanding of the new covenant as it relates to the church, etc. But these things are minor compared to what I learned from him.” GZ – 1/2/03
For clarification, here is Miles Stanford's own description of his conversion (new birth) and abbreviated view of Christian living presented to the anti-dispensational, Reformed theologian/professor/author, Dr. John Gerstner. Bold emphasis mine.
My convictions, as far as I can discern, are those of classic Pauline Dispensationalism.
At the outset, I confess to being a thorough-going Antinomian, according to your definition on page 68, and that of Webster: "Antinomian: a member of a Christian sect which holds that faith alone, not obedience to the moral law, is necessary for salvation."
To qualify that a bit, I am not a member of a sect--Christian or otherwise--but have attended the same IFCA Bible Church here in the Springs for some 30 years. I was "ordained" an Elder in a Wheaton Bible church in 1958.
But I do qualify as an Antinomian. I was recreated in Christ Jesus on the 19th of September, 1940. This occurred by faith alone, apart from works of any kind. I knew absolutely nothing of Lordship, nothing of the law--I didn't even know John 3:16. I made no promises, knowing of nothing that had to be promised.
All I knew was that I was a lost sinner in need of the Saviour, hence I received Him as my own--the simplest of faith via the profoundest of grace. The immediate that-day result was the end of a 15-year smoking addiction, a ten-year drinking addiction, including a number of other immoral practices.
On the other hand, there developed a hunger for and study of the inerrant Word of truth, which taught me that I was an unconditionally elect one from before the foundation of the world, and that I had been efficaciously called by the Spirit of the Sovereign God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
As a totally depraved member of the Old Adam Society, I carried out my responsibility of receiving the Saviour by faith alone. Not "working faith," nor "dead faith," but faith by grace; and I was thereby regenerated (sorry about that) by the Holy Spirit and made an eternal member of the Body of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Church (Eph. 1:22,23). This was nothing of so-called "cheap grace"--it cost my Father His Beloved Son.
My being "dead in trespasses and sins" did not preclude my choosing previously to reject the Saviour. I had faith, and exercised it--faith in myself, in others, in the very chairs I sat upon and the bridges I walked upon. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live" (John 5:25). I heard and lived, rather than lived and heard.
Prior to my conversion I was not aware of the Spirit drawing me to the Saviour. Later, via the Word, I realized His sovereignty in the matter--all carried out without in any way violating my personal volition and responsibility to receive the Lord Jesus in order to be regenerated. Whatever repentance may have been required was included in my faith--that of turning from myself and my sin to the Saviour and His righteousness.
This is where my Antinomianism really comes into play. It is true that, by means of the Word, I ultimately came to know the Saviour as Lord--in the sense of His Deity: He is sovereign Lord of the universe.
But He has never been Lord over me, whether it be rebirth, or new life. He is my Life; I am a son of God--which is far beyond and more intimate than Lordship. I acknowledge and confess Him as Lord, but the Word never speaks of Him as Lord in relation to the Body. He is to be Lord and King over the nation of Israel, but not over His beloved Bride, His very Body--"for we are members of His Body, of His flesh, and of His bones" (Eph. 5:30). In Him as Life; not under Him as Lord and King.
My daily life is not ruled by law. The Spirit of Christ ministers Him to the believer as his Life (John 16:13,14), never the law. "For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God" (Gal. 2:19). My first pastor was a fine product of Princeton Seminary, hence I encountered enough law thereby to cause me to appreciate His grace and life for my spiritual growth (sanctification).
I rely upon His divine-human life as my Christian life--life that flows naturally and effortlessly, rather than the struggle and bondage of the law. "For to me to live is Christ"; "Christ, who is our life" (Phil. 1:21; Col. 3:4). We know that Paul was not implying that he was as Christ, but that he lived by Christ--not Christ in His deity (that would be pantheistic blasphemy), but in His new-creation humanity. "That the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body" (2 Cor. 4:10).
On the subject of election, Miles Stanford believed and steadfastly taught God's sovereign and unconditional election--in the dispensational tradition of John Darby, William Newell, L. S. Chafer, etc. George Zeller, on the other hand, has written several articles (e.g., God's Willingness and Man's Unwillingness) which affirm human volition (good) but further suggest philosophic indeterminism--libertarian/autonomous free will. For this reason, the scriptural truth of unconditional election becomes problematic and thus is relegated to the realm of "mystery" and contradiction (antinomy) between two apparently equally valid principles, according to him. Further, George Zeller's position renders him unable to clearly understand how human responsibility and human inability can both be simultaneously true. In short, his rejection of Calvinism and Reformed theology is far too 'broad-brush' and goes beyond what either Dr. Chafer or Miles Stanford had to say on the subject. His reactionary views have driven him into the realm of doctrinal error and affiliation with the indeterminist wing (Arminian) of Traditional dispensationalism.
"This is an area where my pastor and I may disagree, and thus I have to be careful. As his assistant I always want to be supportive of him and his ministry.
"He teaches that Christ is the "elect One" and that when a person believes in Christ he is placed into Christ and becomes "chosen in Him." I suppose this means that he is chosen by virtue of his union with Christ the chosen One.
"My position has always mirrored that of L. S. Chafer, which would be unconditional election, but also strongly in favor of unlimited atonement. I believe the ultimate reason why I am saved is found in God, and not in me." GZ - 5/10/04
Contrary to his statement, the published evidence strongly suggests that George Zeller does not understand Dr. Chafer's positions on unconditional election, efficacious grace, bondage of the fallen will, or unlimited atonement. Hear Dr. Chafer:
In the first instance, it is well to observe that God did not create the human will as an instrument to defeat Himself; it was created rather as a means by which He might realize His own worthy purposes. Through as Sovereign He could do so, God does not coerce the human will; He rather works within the individual both to will and to do of His good pleasure (cf. Phil. 2:13). An efficacious call to salvation, then, is a call which none ever finally resists (cf. Rom. 8:30). Everyone whom God predestinates He calls, and everyone whom He calls He justifies and glorifies. There could not be failure in one instance among the millions who are called. The vision which He creates in the heart and the limitless persuasion He exercises induce a favorable reaction on the part of all thus called, which reaction is rendered infinitely certain. The important truth to be observed in all of this is that, though divine persuasion be limitless, it still remains persuasion, and so when a decision is secured for Christ in the individual he exercises his own will apart from even a shadow of constraint. The divine invitation still is true that "whoever will may come." However, it also is true that none will ever come apart from this divine call, and that the call is extended only to His elect. What God's righteous relation is to those whom He does not call is another doctrine quite removed from the teaching of election. Systematic Theology, Vol. VII, p. 136.
Also see, Common Grace: Myth vs. Reality.
Mail this article to a friend
|
