時代論接受的人就是少數？鬼扯！
===============================
→ theologe: 鬼扯，時代論接受的人就是少數。 08/29 22:45
呵呵，不學無術敢污言穢語的罵人家【鬼扯】？哎，不讀書，已經很可憐！讀錯書，更可
憐！
====================================
THE CALVINISTIC HERITAGE OF DISPENSATIONALISM
時代論的加爾文主義背景
THOMAS ICE
Today, systematic Dispensationalism is approaching two hundred years of
expression and development. We live at a time in which Dispensationalism and
some of its ideas have been disseminated and adopted by various theological
traditions. This is not surprising since our day is characterized by
anti-systemization and eclecticism in the area of thought. It may be
surprising, to some, to learn that Dispensationalism was developed and spread
during its first 100 years by those within a Reformed, Calvinistic tradition.
It had only been in the last 75 to 50 years that Dispensationalism and some
of its beliefs were disseminated in any significant way outside of the orbit
of Calvinism.
今日，系統化的時代論已經發展了近200年。我們生活在一個時代論和一些它的觀念被廣
傳並接受於不同的神學傳統的時代。這並不奇怪。因為我們的時代沖斥著反系統和折衷主
義的思想。但是，某些人肯能會很驚訝，實際上時代論的頭100年乃是在加爾文傳統改革
宗的圈子裏面被傳播併發展的。而在過去的50到75年間，時代論和它的一些信仰才在加爾
文主義的圈子外被廣泛的傳播。
DEFINITIONS / 定義
Before proceeding further I need to provide working definitions of what I
mean by Calvinism and Dispensationalism. First, by Calvinism, I am speaking
mainly of the theological system that relates to the doctrine of grace or
soteriological Calvinism. This would include strict and modified Calvinism
(i.e. four and five point Calvinism). I am referring to that aspect of
Calvinism that speaks of the fallen nature of man and the elective grace of
God.
在進一步討論前，我需要對我所謂的加爾文主義和時代論下一個可操作的定義。第一，我
所謂的加爾文主義主要是指與加爾文主義的恩典或救贖論相關的神學系統。這包括保守或
改良的加爾文主義（如：4點或5點的加爾文主義）。我指的是加爾文主義中講到人的墮落
天性和神恩典的揀選的教義。
Second, by Dispensationalism, I have in mind that system of theology that was
developed by J. N. Darby that gave rise to its modern emphasis of consistent
literal interpretation, a distinction between God's plan for Israel and the
church, usually a pretribulational rapture of the church before the
seventieth week of Daniel, premillennialism, and a multifaceted emphasis upon
God's glory as the goal of history. This includes some who have held to such
a system by may stop short of embracing pretribulationism. The focus of this
article will be upon Dispensational premillennialism.
第二，我所謂的時代論是指由達秘（JN Darby）所發展的神學系統，他強調字義解經，神
對以色列人和教會有不同的計畫，通常是教會在但以裏書的第70個7的大災難前被提，前
千禧年論，和多方面強調神的榮耀是人類歷史的終極目標。這也包括某些堅信並擁抱災前
被提論。這份論文的著重點在於時代論的前千禧年論。
THEOLOGICAL LOGIC / 神學邏輯
In concert with the Calvinist impulse to view history theocentricly, I
believe that dispensational premillennialism provides the most logical
eschatological ending to God's sovereign decrees for salvation and history.
Since Dispensational premillennialists view both the promises of God's
election of Israel and the church as unconditional and something that God
will surely bring to pass, such a belief is consistent with the Bible and
logic. A covenant theologian would say that Israel's election was conditional
and temporary. Many Calvinists are covenant theologians who think that
individual election within the church is unconditional and permanent. They
see God's plan with Israel conditioned upon human choice, while God's plan
for salvation within the church is ultimately a sovereign act of God. There
is no symmetry in such logic. Meanwhile, Dispensational premillennialists see
both acts as a sovereign expression of God's plan in history which is a
logically consistent application of the sovereign will of God in human
affairs.
為了表現出加爾文主義者以神學為中心來對待歷史的脈動，我相信時代論的前千禧年論能
夠為神的救贖和其歷史提供一個最邏輯並合乎神主權的行動的末世結局。因為時代論的前
千禧年論將神揀選以色列和教會的應許視為無條件，且是神必定會完成的一件事，這樣的
信仰不但符合聖經，也符合邏輯。一個聖約神學者會說以色列的揀選是有條件的，並且是
暫時的。許多的加爾文主義者都是聖約神學專家，並認為個人在教會裏的被揀選是無條件
的，也是永遠的。他們認為神對以色列的計畫乃是根據人的選擇，而神對教會的救贖機會
至終是神主權的行動。這樣的邏輯是互相矛盾的。同時，時代論的前千禧年論認為兩者都
是神在歷史裏面的計畫中主權的表現，這也能夠從邏輯上符合神將他的主權應用在人類的
事物上。
Samuel H. Kellogg, a Presbyterian minister, missionary, and educator wrote of
the logic between Calvinism and "modern, futurist premillennialism," which
was in that day (1888) essentially dispensational. "But in general," notes
Kellogg, "we think, it may be rightly said that the logical relations of
premillennialism connect it more closely with the Augustinian than with any
other theological system."His use of "Augustinian" is the older term for
Calvinism. Kellogg points out the different areas in which Calvinism and
premillennialism are theologically one. "Premillennialism logically
presupposes an anthropology essentially Augustinian. The ordinary Calvinism
affirms the absolute helplessness of the individual for self-regeneration and
self-redemption."2 He continues, it is "evident that the anthropological
presuppositions on which premillennialism seems to rest, must carry with them
a corresponding soteriology."3 Kellogg reasons that "the Augustinian affinity
of the premillennialist eschatology becomes still more manifest. For nothing
is more marked than the emphasis with which premillennialists constantly
insist that, . . . the present dispensation is strictly elective."4 "In a
word," concludes Kellogg, "we may say that premillennialists simply affirm of
the macrocosm what the common Augustinianism affirms only of the microcosm."5
Samuel H. Kellogg, 一位長老會的牧師，宣教士，和教育家，他曾撰寫關於加爾文主義
和“現代和未來派的前千禧年論”間的邏輯，在當時（1888）就是時代論的。‘但是，一
般而言’，Kellogg說，‘我認為，從邏輯關係而言，前千禧年論比任何其他神學系統都
更接近奧古斯丁。’他使用的‘奧古斯丁’一詞，乃是對加爾文主義的舊稱。Kellogg在
許多不同的方面指出了加爾文主義和前千禧年論叢神學而言乃是一致的。“前千禧年論邏
輯上假設一個從本質而言是奧古斯丁的人論。正統的加爾文主義確信各人在自我重生和自
我救贖上的完全無助。”他繼續，證據就是“前千禧年論的人論的假設中也必然包括了相
應（加爾文主義）的救贖論。”Kellogg解釋說，“奧古斯丁派堅信的是前千禧年的末世
論也是顯而易見的。沒有什麼比前千禧年論不斷強調的。。。今日的分賜（dispensation
，在次指神在各時代對救贖的不同分賜）是完全根據神的揀選。”“換句話說”，
Kellogg總結，“我們能夠說前千禧年論者堅信的宏觀宇宙就是奧古斯丁主義所相信的微
觀宇宙。”
This is not to say that Dispensationalism and Calvinism are synonymous. I
merely contend that it is consistent with certain elements of Calvinism which
provide a partial answer as to why Dispensationalism sprang from the Reformed
womb. C. Norman Kraus contend,
這並不是說時代論和加爾文主義是一樣的。我只是強調加爾文主義裏面的某些元素提供了
為什麼時代論是從改革宗中所孕育出來的部分答案。C. Norman Kraus說道：
There are, to be sure, important elements of seventeenth-century Calvinism in
contemporary dispensationalism, but these elements have been blended with
doctrinal emphasis from other sources to form a distinct system which in many
respects is quite foreign to classical Calvinism.6
在17世紀的加爾文主義中就有了時代論的重要成分，但是這些成分混入了其他不同（神學
）系統所強調的教義，這些教義在許多方面對古典加爾文主義是陌生的。
Nevertheless, Dispensationalism did develop within the Reformed community and
most of its adherents during the first 100 years were from within the
Calvinist milieu. Kraus concludes: "Taking all this into account, it must
still be pointed out that the basic theological affinities of
dispensationalism are Calvinistic. The large majority of men involved in the
Bible and prophetic conference movements subscribed to Calvinistic creeds." 7
I will now turn to an examination of some of the founders and proponents of
Dispensationalism?
不論如何，時代論確實是在改革宗的群體中發展並；在它的頭100年中在加爾文主義中得
到廣泛的支持。Kraus繼續說道：“把這些背景了結清楚後，我們還要指出時代論所吸引
的人都是加爾文派的。他們大部分的成員都參與了根據加爾文派信經的聖經與預言（研究
）大會。”我現在要開始檢視時代論的某些創立者和支持者（的背景）。
DARBY AND THE BRETHREN / 達秘和弟兄會
Modern systematic dispensationalism was developed in the 1830s by J. N. Darby
and those within the Brethren movement. Virtually all of these men came from
churches with a Calvinistic soteriology. "At the level of theology," says
Brethren historian H. H. Rowdon, "the earliest Brethren were Calvinists to a
man."8 This is echoed by one of the earliest Brethren, J. G. Bellett, who was
beginning his association with the Brethren when his brother George wrote,
"for his views had become more decidedly Calvinistic, and the friends with
whom he associated in Dublin were all, I believe without exception, of this
school."9
近代系統化的時代論乃是1830年代由達秘（JN Darby）以及弟兄會運動內的成員所發展的
。這些人都有加爾文派教會的救贖論背景。“在神學的層次”，弟兄會歷史學家H. H.
Rowdon說，“早期的弟兄們都是加爾文主義者。”這和最早的弟兄會成員，J. G.
Bellett所說的一致，當他的兄弟喬治寫道他如何開始與弟兄會聯繫時說道，“他的觀點
已經是絕對的加爾文派，我相信那些在都柏林跟他在一起的人也一樣都是這一派的，絕無
例外。”
What were Darby's views on this matter? John Howard Goddard observes that
Darby "held to the predestination of individuals and that he rejected the
Arminian scheme that God predestinated those whom he foreknew would be
conformed to the image of Christ."10 In his "Letter on Free-Will," it is
clear that Darby rejects this notion.
在這點上，達秘自己的觀點又是什麼呢？John Howard Goddard觀察到達秘“堅信預定論
，他拒絕了亞米念方面的神先預知那些將會被模成基督的形象的人，在預定他們。”在他
的“致自由意志者的信”中，達秘明確的拒絕了這個觀點。
"If Christ has come to save that which is lost, free-will has no longer any
place."11 "I believe we ought to hold to the word;" continues Darby, "but,
philosophically and morally speaking, free-will is a false and absurd theory.
Free-will is a state of sin."12 Because Darby held to the bondage of the
will, he logically follows through with belief in sovereign grace as
necessary for salvation.
“如果基督來為了拯救那些失喪的人，自由意志就沒有任何的地位。”“我相信，我們必
須相信聖經的話；”達秘繼續，“然而，從哲學和道德而言，自由意志是虛謊和令人難以
置信的理論。自由意志是罪的狀態。”因為達秘堅信意志被（罪）捆綁，他的邏輯相信恩
典的主權是救贖必須的先決條件。
Such is the unfolding of this principle of sovereign grace, without which not
one should would be saved, for none understand, none seek after God, not one
of himself will come that he might have life. Judgment is according to works;
salvation and glory are the fruit of grace.13
這就是揭示了救恩的主權的原則，否則無人能夠被拯救，因為沒有人理解（神），也沒有
人尋求神，也沒有人自己願意前來得著（神的）生命。審判時根據行為；救贖和榮耀是恩
典的果子。
Further evidence of Darby's Calvinism is that on at least two occasions he
was invited by non-dispensational Calvinists to defend Calvinism for
Calvinists. One of Darby's biographers, W. G. Turner spoke of his defense at
Oxford University:
進一步證明達秘的加爾文主義的證據是最起碼有兩個事件，當他被非時代論的加爾文主義
者邀請去幫助加爾文者辯護加爾文主義。達秘傳記的作者，W. G. Turner提到他在牛津大
學的辯護說道：
It was at a much earlier date (1831, I think) that F. W. Newman invited Mr.
Darby to Oxford: a season memorable in a public way for his refutation of Dr.
E. Burton's denial of the doctrines of grace, beyond doubt held by the
Reformers, and asserted not only by Bucer, P. Martyr, and Bishop Jewell, but
in Articles IX—XVIII of the Church of England.14
當F.W. Newman在相當早期的時候（我記得是1831）邀請達秘先生去牛津：這是他公開駁
斥E. Burton博士否認恩典教
義令人難忘的季節，遠遠超出了改革宗者的懷疑，並得到包括Bucer, P. Martyr, 和
Jewell主教，並英國教會教綱9-18條
的支持。
On an other occasion Darby was invited to the city of Calvin—Geneva,
Switzerland—to defend Calvinism. Turner declares that "He refuted the
'perfectionism' of John Wesley, to the delight of the Swiss Free Church."15
Darby was awarded a medal of honor by the leadership of Geneva.16
另外一次達秘被邀請到加爾文的城市—瑞士的日內瓦—去為加爾文主義辯護。Turner宣稱
，“他駁斥了那些約翰衛斯理的‘完美主義者’,使得瑞士自由教會萬分喜悅。”達秘甚
至被日內瓦的領導階層贈與獎章。
Still yet, when certain Reformed doctrines came under attack from within the
Church in which he once served, "Darby indicates his approval of the doctrine
of the Anglican Church as expressed in Article XVII of the Thirty-Nine
Articles"17 on the subject of election and predestination. Darby said,
然而，當某些改革宗的教義在他（達秘）曾經服侍過的教會內部被攻擊的時候，在揀選和
預定的題目上，“達秘表示他認同英國國教教會39條中的第17條的內容”。達秘說，
For my own part, I soberly think Article XVII to be as wise, perhaps I might
say the wisest and best condensed human statement of the view it contains
that I am acquainted with. I am fully content to take it in its literal and
grammatical sense. I believe that predestination to life is the eternal
purpose of God, by which, before the foundations of the world were laid, He
firmly decreed, by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and
destruction those whom He had chosen in Christ out of the human race, and to
bring them, through Christ, as vessels made to honour, to eternal salvation.18
在我的這部分，我嚴肅的認為第17條是智慧的，可能我能夠說它是最智慧和最精煉的人類
的宣告，他包含了我所教導的（內容）。我完全認可他的字面和文風的含義。我相信在世
界的根基被立定之前預定是神永遠的心意。他的肯定的警告我們，他將奧秘教導我們，為
要將那些在基督裏從人類中揀選出來的從咒詛和毀滅中拯救出來，把他們借由基督，提升
他們，讓他們成為榮耀的器皿，直至永遠的救恩。
DISPENSATIONALISM IN AMERICA / 在美國的時代論
Darby and other Brethren brought dispensationalism to America through their
many trips and writings that came across the Atlantic. "In fact the
millenarian (or dispensational premillennial) movement," declares George
Marsden, "had strong Calvinistic ties in its American origins."19 Reformed
historian Marsden continues his explanation of how dispensationalism came to
America:
達秘和其他的弟兄們借由許多的旅行和著作，將時代論主意介紹到大西洋彼岸的美國。“
事實上，千年論（或時代論的前千禧論）運動”，George Marsden宣稱，“在他的美國起
源中與加爾文有著堅固的關係。”改革宗歷史學者Marsden繼續解釋時代論如何來到美國
：
This enthusiasm came largely from clergymen with strong Calvinistic views,
principally Presbyterians and Baptists in the northern United States. The
evident basis for this affinity was that in most respects Darby was himself
an unrelenting Calvinist. His interpretation of the Bible and of history
rested firmly on the massive pillar of divine sovereignty, placing as little
value as possible on human ability.20
這些熱情的人大部分來自強烈加爾文觀點的神職人員，主要是美國北部的長老會和浸信會
。這也是確認達秘本身就是無可置疑的加爾文主義者的線索。他對於聖經及其歷史的解釋
，非常以神聖的主權作為支柱，盡可能的淡化人的能力的因素。
The post-Civil War spread of dispensationalism in North America occurred
through the influence of key pastors and the Summer Bible Conferences like
Niagara, Northfield, and Winona. Marsden notes:
內戰後，時代論在北美的傳播主要是借由如同尼加拉瓜（Niagara），Northfield和
Winona這類的夏季聖經大會。Marsden記載：
The organizers of the prophetic movement in America were predominantly
Calvinists. In 1876 a group led by Nathaniel West, James H. Brookes, William
J. Eerdman, and Henry M. Parsons, all Presbyterians, together with Baptist A.
J. Gordon, . . . These early gatherings, which became the focal points for
the prophetic side of their leaders' activities, were clearly Calvinistic.
Presbyterians and Calvinist Baptists predominated, while the number of
Methodists was extremely small. . . . Such facts can hardly be accidental.21
在美國的預言（研究）運動的組織者是由加爾文主義者所主宰的。在1876年，一群由
Nathaniel West, James H.
Brookes, William J. Eerdman, 和 Henry M. Parsons的長老會成員，加上A. J.
Gordon,等等的浸信會成員。。一同領導。這些早期的聚會成為這些領袖們活動的重點，
都清楚地是
Proof of Marsden's point above is supplied by Samuel H. Kellogg—himself a
Presbyterian and Princeton graduate—with his breakdown of the predominately
dispensational Prophecy Conference in New York City in 1878. Kellogg
classified the list of those that signed the call for the Conference as
follows:
Marsden上述的觀點得到了Samuel H. Kellogg—他本身就是普林斯頓畢業的長老會成員—
將1878年參加紐約時代論預
言研究大會的分類的支持。Kellogg將參加該次大會簽名者分類為：
Presbyterians / 長老會. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .31
United Presbyterians / 聯合長老會 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 10
Reformed (Dutch) 荷蘭改革宗 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .3
Episcopalians 英國國教（美國）. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 10
Baptist 浸信會 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 22
Reformed Episcopalians 改革宗英國國教（美國）. . . . . . . . . . . 10
Congregationalists 會眾主義派 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 10
Methodists 衛理會 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 6
Adventists 安息日會 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .5
Lutheran 路德 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .1 22
Kellogg concluded that "the proportion of Augustinians in the whole to be
eighty-eight per cent."23 "The significance of
this is emphasized," continues Kellogg, "by the contrasted fact that the
Methodists, although one of the largest
denominations of Christians in the country, were represented by only six
names."24 Kellogg estimates that "analyses of similar gatherings since held
on both sides of the Atlantic, would yield a similar result."25
Kellogg總結說道“奧古斯丁派的占到了88%。”“這意味著”，Kellogg繼續說道，“相
對於衛理會是美國最大的基督教公會，他們只有6個名字”。Kellogg估計“分析大洋兩岸
類似的大會，我們會得出類似的結果。”
George Marsden divides Reformed Calvinism in America into three types:
"doctrinalist, culturalist, and pietist."26 He then explains that
"Dispensationalism was essentially Reformed in its nineteenth-century origins
and had in later nineteenth century America spread most among
revival-oriented Calvinists."27 This is not to say that only revival-oriented
Calvinists were becoming dispensational in their view of the Bible and
eschatology. Ernest Sandeen lists at least one Old School Presbyterian—L. C.
Baker of Camden, New Jersey—as an active dispensationalist during the later
half of the nineteenth century.28 Timothy Weber traces the rise of
Dispensationalism as follows:
George Marsden 將美國的改革宗加爾文主義者分為三類：“教義派，文化派和聖潔派。
”他然後解釋“時代論在19世紀的起源中是改革宗的，在19世紀下半期在美國大覺醒運動
影響的加爾文主義者中廣為流行。”這不是只有被大醒運動影響的加爾文主義者才會在他
們對聖經的看法和末世論成為時代論。Ernest Sandeen最起碼列舉一個長老會的老牌學校
—紐澤西的L. C. Baker of Camden—作為在19世紀下半葉活躍的時代論主義者。
Timothy Webe將時代論的興起追朔於：
The first converts to dispensational premillennialism after the Civil War
were pietistic evangelicals who were attracted to
its biblicism, its concern for evangelism and missions, and its view of
history, which seemed more realistic than that of the prevailing
postmillennialism. Most of the new premillennialists came from baptist, New
School Presbyterian, and Congregationalist ranks, which gave the movement a
definite Reformed flavor. Wesleyan evangelicals who opposed premillennialism
used this apparent connection to Calvinism to discredit it among Methodists
and holiness people.29
內戰後第一批接受時代論的前千禧年主義的都是最敬虔的福音派人士，他們被它的聖經主
義（唯獨聖經），它對於福音主義和宣教的關注，和它對於歷史的看法所吸引。這些看起
來都比後千禧年主義要現實。大部分新接受前千禧論的都是浸信會，長老會的新派學院，
和會眾主義的代表，這讓這個運動染上了無法否認的改革宗色彩。衛理會反對前千禧年派
的認識利用這個與加爾文主義接觸的機會，期望在衛理會和聖潔運動的人士間，拆毀它（
時代論）的可信度。
It is safe to say that without the aid of Reformed Calvinists in America
dispensational premillennialism would have had an entirely different history.
Men like the St. Louis Presbyterian James H. Brookes (1830-1897), who was
trained at Princeton Seminary, opened his pulpit to Darby and other speakers.
Brookes, considered the American father of the pretribulational rapture in
America, also discipled a new convert to Christ in the legendary C. I.
Scofield.30 Others such as Presbyterians Samuel H. Kellogg (Princeton
trained), E. R. Craven, who was a Princeton College and Seminary graduate and
Old School Presbyterian,31 and Nathaniel West provided great leadership in
spreading dispensationalism in the late 1800s.
所以我們可以很有把握的說，若沒有美國改革宗加爾文主義的幫助，時代論千禧年主義將
會走入另一個完全不同的歷史軌跡裏。那些像聖路易斯市的長老會成員，James H.
Brookes (1830-1897)，普林斯頓神學院畢業，甚至講他的講臺相達秘和其他的講員開放
。Brooks，被公認為美國的災前被提論的先驅，也是由神話般的司可福（C. I. Scofield
）帶領接受基督的。其他如長老會的Samuel H. Kellogg（普林斯頓訓練），E. R.
Craven普林斯頓大學和神學院畢業，老派的長老會成員，和Nathaniel West在18世紀前千
禧年論傳播時發揮了極大的領導能力。
SCOFIELD, CHAFER AND DALLAS SEMINARY / 司可福，Chafer和達拉斯神學院
C. I. Scofield (1843-1921), Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952), and Dallas
Theological Seminary (est. 1924) were great vehicles for the spread of
dispensationalism in America and throughout the world. Both Scofield and
Chafer were ordained Presbyterian ministers. The "Scofield Reference Bible,
is called by many the most effective tool for the dissemination of
dispensationalism in America."32 Scofield was converted in mid-life and first
discipled by James H. Brookes in St. Louis. He was ordained to the ministry
at the First Congregational Church of Dallas in 1882 and transferred his
ministerial credentials to the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. in 1908.33
Thus, his ministry took place within a Calvinist context.
司可福（1843-1921），Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952), 和達拉斯神學院 (1924設立
)都是向美國和全世界傳播時代論的主要管道。司可福和Chafer都是長老會按立的牧師。
“司可福注解聖經，被許多人稱為，是美國傳播時代論最有效的工具”。司可福是在中年
之後信主，現在聖路易斯的James H. Brookes手下受教。他在1822年被達拉斯的第一會眾
教會（First Congregational Church of Dallas）按立為牧師，然後在1908年轉入美國
的長老會牧會。歌詞，他的職事乃是在加爾文主義的背景下進行的。
Scofield was the major influence upon the development of Chafer's theology.
John Hannah notes that "it is impossible to understand Chafer without
perceiving the deep influence of Scofield."34 In fact, "Chafer often likened
this relationship to that of father and a son."35 This relationship grew out
of Chafer's study under Scofield at the Northfield Conference and from a
life-changing experience in Scofield's study of the First Congregational
Church of Dallas in the early 1900s. Scofield told Chafer that his gifts were
more in the field of teaching and not in the area of evangelism in which he
had labored. "The two prayed together, and Chafer dedicated his life to a
lifetime of biblical study."36
Chafer神學發展中最重要的影響者乃是司可福。John Hannah這樣記載“若沒有先被司可
福一個深入的影響，就不可能瞭解Chafer”。事實上，“Chafer常常將這種關係比喻為父
子關係。”這種關係乃是從Chafer在Northfield大會中，在司可福下研究聖經，和在1990
年代初期在達拉斯的第一會眾教會中，與司可福一同研讀聖經的經歷上面發展出來的。司
可福告訴Chafer，他的恩賜在於教導而不是他當時著重的宣教。“當他們兩人一同禱告，
Chafer將他的一生奉獻給聖經的研究”。
Scofield and Chafer were two of the greatest American dispensationalists and
both developed their theology from out of a Reformed background. Scofield is
known for his study bible and Chafer for his Seminary and systematic
theology. Jeffrey Richards describes Chafer's theological characteristics as
having "much in common with the entire Reformed tradition. Excluding
eschatology, Chafer is similar theologically to such Princeton divines as
Warfield, Hodge, and Machen. He claims such doctrines as the sovereignty of
God, . . . total depravity of humanity, election, irresistible grace, and the
perseverance of the saints."37 C. Fred Lincoln describes Chafer's 8 volume
Systematic Theology as "unabridged, Calvinistic, premillennial, and
dispensational."38
司可福和Chafer是美國歷史上最偉大的時代論主義者，他們兩人都從改革宗的背景下發展
他們的神學。司可福因他的聖經研究著名於世，Chafer是以他的神學院和系統神學著名於
世。Jeffrey Richards形容Chafer的神學特性如同擁有“許多與整個改革宗傳統的共同點
。除了末世論，Chafer與普林斯頓神學院的Warfield，Hogde，和Machen比較接近。他宣
稱，這些教義乃是神的主權，。。人的完全敗壞，（神的）揀選，不可抗拒的恩典，和（
神）對聖徒的保守”。C. Fred Lincoln將Chafer的八卷系統神學描述為“未經過刪減的
，加爾文主義的，前千禧年的，和時代論的。”
Since its founding in 1924 as The Evangelical Theological College (changed to
Dallas Theological Seminary in 1936), it has exerted a global impact on
behalf of dispensationalism. Dallas Seminary’s primary founder was Chafer,
but William Pettingill and W. H. Griffith-Thomas also played a leading role.
Pettingill, like Chafer was Presbyterian. Griffith-Thomas, an Anglican, wrote
one of the best commentaries on the Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican
Church,39 which is still widely used by conservative Anglicans and
Episcopalians today. The Thirty-nine Articles are staunchly Calvinistic.
自從福音派神學院（在1936年改名為達拉斯神學院）在1924年創立以來，它一向高舉對全
球產生深刻影響的時代論主義。達拉斯的主要創辦人是Chafer，但是William Pettingill
和W. H. Griffith-Thomas也在其中起了非常重要的帶頭作用。Pettingill，就如同
Chafer一樣，是長老會背景。Griffith-Thomas則是英國國教（美國）教會背景，他曾寫
了對英國國教39條最好的注解，今天仍被英國國教和Episcopalian廣泛使用。那個39條乃
是徹頭徹尾的加爾文主義的。
Both men were clearly Calvinists. The Seminary, especially before World War
II, considered itself Calvinistic. Chafer once characterized the school in a
publicity brochure as "in full agreement with the Reformed Faith and its
theology is strictly Calvinistic."40 In a letter to Allan MacRae of
Westminster Theological Seminary, Chafer said, "You probably know that we are
definitely Calvinistic in our theology."41 "Speaking of the faculty, Chafer
noted in 1925 that they were 'almost wholly drawn from the Southern and
Northern Presbyterian Churches.'"42 Further, Chafer wrote to a Presbyterian
minister the following: "I am pleased to state that there is no institution
to my knowledge which is more thoroughly Calvinistic nor more completely
adjusted to this system of doctrine, held by the Presbyterian Church."43
上述兩位明顯的是加爾文主義者。（達拉斯）神學院，特別是二戰後，更是自認為加爾文
主義的。Chafer曾經在一個公開的場合將學校歸納成“完全認可改革宗信仰，並且它的神
學是嚴謹的加爾文主義。”在一封致韋敏斯特神學院的AllanMacRae的信件中，Chafer說
，“你應該知道我們在神學上面肯定是加爾文主義的”。“談到我們的師資，Chafer在
1925年記載道，他們‘幾乎都是從南方和北方的長老會系統裏面招聘的’”。更進一步，
Chafer寫給一位長老會的牧師，說：“我很高興的告訴你，在我所知道的範圍內，沒有更
完全加爾文的神學機構，也沒有更比它被這個長老教會持守的教義系統歸正的（神學院）
。”
Since so many early Dallas graduates entered the Presbyterian ministry, there
began to be a reaction to their dispensational premillennialism in the 1930s.
This was not an issue as to whether they were Calvinistic in their
soteriology, but an issue over their eschatology. In the late 1930s, "Dallas
Theological Seminary, though strongly professing to be a Presbyterian
institution, was being severed from the conservative Presbyterian splinter
movement."44 In 1944, Southern Presbyterians issued a report from a committee
investigating the compatibility of dispensationalism with the Westminster
Confession of Faith. The committee ruled dispensationalism was not in harmony
with the Church's Confession. This "report of 1944 was a crippling blow to
any future that dispensational premillennialism might have within Southern
Presbyterianism."45 This ruling effectively moved Dallas graduates away from
ministry within Reformed denominations toward the independent Bible Church
movement.
因為有數目如此眾多的早期達拉斯的畢業生進入長老教會牧會，在1930年代就開始對他們
的時代論的千禧年論產生反應。這與他們在救贖論上是不是加爾文主義無關，而是跟他們
的末世論有關。在1930年代下半，“達拉斯神學院，雖然強烈的承認自己是一個長老會的
神學院，但是卻與保守派長老會的分離運動切割。”在1944，南方長老會的一個委員會發
表了一份關於時代論和韋敏斯特信條的相容性的報告。這個委員會裁定，時代論主義不符
合（南方長老會）教會的信仰。這個‘1944年的報告阻止了時代論的千禧年論在南方長老
會內部有任何的前途’。這個裁定，有效的將達拉斯的畢業生從改革宗的各教派趕致獨立
的聖經教會運動。
A BROADENING OF DISPENSATIONALISM ACCEPTANCE / 對時代論的更廣泛的接納
Even though dispensationalism had made a modest penetration of Baptists as
early as the 1880s through advocates such as J. R. Graves,46 a strong
Calvinist, they were rebuffed by non-Calvinists until the mid-1920s when
elements of dispensational theology began to be adopted by some Pentecostals
in an attempt to answer the increasing threat of liberalism. Kraus explains:
即使時代論在1880年代就借由J.R. Graves