Part 07 Hamartiology

A Systematic Theology for the 21^st Century

Part 07 Hamartiology

Download pdf at www.GSBaptistChurch.com/theology

Part 07 Hamartiology

 

The basic outline for a Systematic Theologies Hamartiology section should start with a robustness found in Cambron’s:The Doctrine of Sin (Hamartiology)¹

HAMARTIOLOGY

I. The Origin of Sin.

A. The Entrance of Sin into the Universe.

B. The Introduction of Sin into the Human Race.

II. The Reality of Sin.

A. Scripture Declares the Fact of Sin.

B. Nature Proclaims the Fact of Sin.

C. Law Discovers the Fact of Sin.

D. Experience Proves the Fact of Sin.

E. Man Confesses the Fact of Sin.

III. The Nature of Sin.

A. The Modern View of Sin.

B. The Biblical View of Sin.

C. The Scriptural Statement of Sin.

D. The Theological Definitions of Sin.

E. The Summary of Scripture Concerning Sin.

IV. The Extent of Sin.

A. As to the Heavens.

B. As to the Earth.

V. The Realm of Sin.

A. As an Act.

B. As a State.

C. As a Nature.

VI. The Penalty of Sin.

A. The Natural Penalty.

B. The Positive Penalty.

 

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 134-144}

Cambron’s Chapter V Hamartiology – The Doctrine of Sin

Chapter 5 Hamartiology – The Doctrine of Sin

135

HAMARTIOLOGY (The Doctrine of Sin)

136

OUTLINE FOR CHAPTER V

HAMARTIOLOGY

I. The Origin of Sin.

A. The Entrance of Sin into the Universe.

B. The Introduction of Sin into the Human Race.

II. The Reality of Sin.

A. Scripture Declares the Fact of Sin.

B. Nature Proclaims the Fact of Sin.

C. Law Discovers the Fact of Sin.

D. Experience Proves the Fact of Sin.

E. Man Confesses the Fact of Sin.

III. The Nature of Sin.

A. The Modern View of Sin.

B. The Biblical View of Sin.

C. The Scriptural Statement of Sin.

D. The Theological Definitions of Sin.

E. The Summary of Scripture Concerning Sin.

IV. The Extent of Sin.

A. As to the Heavens.

B. As to the Earth.

V. The Realm of Sin.

A. As an Act.

B. As a State.

C. As a Nature.

VI. The Penalty of Sin.

A. The Natural Penalty.

B. The Positive Penalty.

137

Chapter V HAMARTIOLOGY

Hamartiology is derived from the Greek word, hamartia, meaning “sin.” Thus,

hamartiology is the doctrine of sin.

I. THE ORIGIN OF SIN

A. The Entrance of Sin into the Universe.

Turning to Ezekiel 28:11-19 we see that it was Lucifer who brought sin into the universe:

“Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by

reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that

they may behold thee” (v. 17). There was no sin before Lucifer sinned and became the

Devil — Satan. His sin, the first in the universe, was when he chose his will over God’s

will, desiring to be equal with God. Why did God allow sin to enter into the universe?

This is one question God has not answered as yet.

B. The Introduction of Sin into the Human Race.

As there is sin in the human race, there must have been a beginning of sin. If there is no

beginning of sin, man was created in sin. Thus, God is the creator of sin; but He is not.

Sin came into the human race through deception and disobedience, motivated by

unbelief. “Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the

transgression” (I Tim. 2:14). Why did God allow man to sin? The only possible answer

we can give is Ephesians 2:7: “That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding

riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.”

II. THE REALITY OF SIN

A. Scripture Declares the Fact of Sin.

“All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). “The Scripture hath

concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them

that believe” (Gal. 3:22).

B. Nature Proclaims the Fact of Sin.

“We know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together unto now”

(Rom. 8:22).

138

C. Law Discovers the Fact of Sin.

“By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the

knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). The Apostle Paul thought that he was free from sin until

he looked into the mirror of God’s law: “Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I

had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet” (Rom. 7:7b).

D. Experience Proves the Fact of Sin.

The experiences of Moses, David, Peter and John reveal the facts of sin. Even your own

experience substantiates it.

E. Man Confesses the Fact of Sin.

1. Saints Have Owned Up to It. It was Job who said, “I am vile, and I abhor myself.”

Isaiah declared, “Woe is me, for I am undone.” Daniel, of whom no breath of sin is

mentioned, said, “My comeliness was turned into corruption.” Jeremiah confessed, “I am

black.” Peter cried, “Depart from me, I am a sinful man.” Paul stated, “Christ Jesus came

into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.” Luther revealed, “I am afraid more

of my heart than the Pope and all the Cardinals.” Moody said, “The man I have the most

trouble with is the man who walks under my hat.”

2. Sinners have Owned Up to It. The Scriptures abound with the confession of the

sinner and his sin: Pharaoh declared, “I have sinned this time” (Ex. 9:27b). Achan

answered, “Indeed I have sinned” (Josh. 7:20b). Balaam admitted, “I have sinned,”

(Num. 22:34b). Even Judas, who betrayed the Lord, said, “I have sinned” (Matt. 27:4).

III. THE NATURE OF SIN

A. The Modern View of Sin.

1. Society Calls It Indiscretion.

2. Scholars Label It Ignorance.

3. Evolutionists Say it is the Trait of the Beast.

4. Christian Scientists Teach It Is the Absence From Good.

5. The Fleshly Man Excuses It As Amiable Weakness.

6. The New Theologians Declare It Is Merely Selfishness.

139

B. The Biblical View of Sin.

1. Sin Is Missing the Mark. “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”

(Rom. 3:23). See also Romans 5:12. Sin means “to miss the divine aim of God.”

2. Sin Is Transgression. “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin

is the transgression of the law” (I John 3:4). Transgression of the law may be deliberate

or unintentional. Either is sin. There was sin before the law, but there was no

transgression. See Numbers 4:15; Joshua 7:11, 15; Isaiah 24:5; Daniel 9:11; Hosea 6:7;

8:1.

3. Sin Is Bending of That Which Is Right. “Righteous” means straight. Sin is the

bending of that which was once straight. “David spake unto the LORD when he saw the

angel that smote the people, and said, Lo, I have sinned, and have done wickedly: but

these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, be against me, and against

my father’s house” (II Sam. 24:17). See also Romans 1:18; 6:13; II Thessalonians 2:12; II

Peter 2:15; I John 5:17.

4. Sin Is Rebellion Against God. “Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the

LORD hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children and they have rebelled

against me” (Is. 1:2). See also II Thessalonians 2:4, 8.

5. Sin Is a Debt. “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors” (Matt. 6:12). See

also Luke 11:4. The words “duty” (Luke 17:10), “ought” (John 13:14) and “bound” (II

Thess. 2:13) are all from the same Greek word denoting debt.

6. Sin Is Disobedience. Sin is a lack of response to God. “In time past ye walked

according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the

spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience” (Eph. 2:2). See also Ephesians

5:6; John 3:36, R. V.

7. Sin Is a Deviation From God’s Requirement. This means a fall; every offense

against God is a fall. Sin is always a fall that hurts. “If ye forgive men their trespasses,

your heavenly Father will also forgive you” (Matt. 6:14). See also Galatians 6:1; Romans

5:15-20.

8. Sin Is Unbelief. “He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he

that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God

gave of his Son” (I John 5:10).

9. Sin Is Impiety, or Ungodliness. “To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that

justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Rom. 4:5). “When we were

yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly” (Rom. 5:6). See also I

Timothy 1:9; I Peter 4:18; II Peter 2:5, 7; Jude 4, 15.

10. Sin Is Iniquity. By this we mean a wrong doing to the moral order of the universe.

140

“Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication,

uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath,

strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of

the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they that do such

things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19-21). See also Colossians 3:5-9;

Mark 7:19, 20.

C. The Scriptural Statement of Sin.

“All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death” (I John 5:17). See also I

John 3:4; Proverbs 14:21; 21:4; 24:9; Romans 3:23; 6:23; I Samuel 15:23; Jeremiah 3:25;

14:7; James 2:9; 4:17; Romans 14:23.

D. The Theological Definitions of Sin.

1. Sin is the transgression of, or lack of conforming to the law of God.

2. Sin is deficiency of love to God and man.

3. Sin is preference of self to God.

4. Sin is insubordination.

5. Sin is lack of conformity with God or His moral law in act, disposition, or state.

6. Sin is that which ought not to be.

E. The Summary of Scripture Concerning Sin.

1. Toward God.

a. Rebellion. “Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity

and idolatry” (I Sam. 15:23a).

b. Failure to Love God Supremely. “Thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all

thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might” (Deut. 6:5).

2. Toward the Divine Law.

a. Willful Transgression. “The soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be

born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut

off from among his people” (Num. 15:30).

b. Violation Through Ignorance. “If any soul sin through ignorance, then he shall

bring a she goat of the first year for a sin offering” (Num. 15:27). See also Hebrews 9:7.

3. Toward Man.

a. Injustice. “Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither rob: the wages of him that

is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning” (Lev. 19:13).

b. Failure to Love Him as One’s Self. “Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge

141

against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the

LORD” (Lev. 19:18).

4. Toward Self.

a. Selfishness. “What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his

own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matt. 16:26).

b. Corruption. “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive

me” (Ps. 51:5).

IV. THE EXTENT OF SIN

A. As to the Heavens.

The Scriptures reveal the fact that both sin and salvation began in heaven and came to

earth. Sin began in heaven with the fall of Satan (Ezek. 28). Salvation is completed in

heaven with the mediatorial work of Christ (Heb. 9:24).

B. As to the Earth.

1. The Vegetable Kingdom. “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). Isaiah 53:13 reveals the blessed fact that the curse

shall be taken off of the vegetable kingdom when Christ comes: “Instead of the thorn,

shall come up the fir tree, and instead of the briar shall come up the myrtle tree: and it

shall be to the LORD for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.”

2. The Animal Kingdom. Before the fall of man there were no man-eating animals.

Isaiah 11:6-9 tells us that this curse also shall be removed at Christ’s second coming:

“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and

the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And

the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion

shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the

weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in

all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the

waters cover the sea.”

3. The Race of Mankind.

a. The Universality of Sin. All men are sinners: “All have sinned and come short of

the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).

b. The Totality of Sin. All of man is sinful — his body, soul and spirit. “They are all

gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable: there is none that doeth

good, no, not one. . . . there is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what

things soever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law: that every mouth may

be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God” (Rom. 3:12, 18, 19.)

142

V. THE REALM OF SIN

A. As An Act.

Man commits sins by his conduct.

B. A State.

Man is void of righteousness.

C. As a Nature.

Man is conceived in sin, born in sin, and is, therefore, a sinner by nature.

VI. THE PENALTY OF SIN

A. The Natural Penalty.

This can best be illustrated by the example of a child who was forbidden to eat of a

certain food. He disobeyed and ate too much, with the result that he became sick. The

natural consequence of his disobedience was his illness. The natural penalty of sin is

disease, disappointment and physical death.

B. The Positive Penalty.

To continue with the above example, we find that the natural penalty was the child’s

becoming sick. The positive penalty is the spanking he received from his father. The

positive penalty of sin is described by the following:

1. Death. “The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus

Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). Death, in Scripture, never means “annihilation” or

“complete destruction.” There is no place in the Word where the word “annihilation” can

be substituted for “death.”

a. Spiritual Death. “She that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth” (I Tim. 5:6).

b. Eternal Death. “Death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second

death” (Rev. 20:14). “The Lord Jesus shall be revealed . . . in the flaming fire taking

vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus

Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord,

and from the glory of his power” (II Thess. 1:7, 8, 9). See also Revelation 20:12; 21:8.

There was no death before sin came into man’s life. Man was created to dwell with God

forever. Death is said to have “passed upon all men” (Rom. 5:12). The word “passed” is

translated “pierced through” in Luke 2:35; “go through” in Matthew 19:24; and “passed

through” in I Corinthians 10:1.

143

2. Lost. “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou

gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture

might be fulfilled” (John 17:12). The word “lost” is the same as the words “perish” (John

3:16) and “destroy” (Matt. 10:28).

3. Condemned. “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not

is condemned already; because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son

of God” (John 3:18). The word “condemnation” is a legal term, and indicates judicial

decision. This same word, “condemnation,” is “damnation” in John 5:29, and “judgment”

in Matthew 11:22, 24; II Peter 2:4, 9; 3:7; I John 4:17; Jude 6.

4. Guilt. “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are

under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty

before God” (Rom. 3:19).

5. Perdition. “Let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that . . . I

may hear . . . that ye stand fast in one spirit. . . in nothing terrified by your adversaries:

which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God”

(Phil. 1:27, 28). See also John 17:12; II Thessalonians 2:3; Hebrews 10:39; II Peter 3:7;

Revelation 17:8, 11. This same word “perdition” is translated “destruction” in Matthew

7:13: “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.” See also Romans 9:22;

Philippians 3:19; II Peter 3:16. (In the New Testament the word “destruction” means

“ruin”.) In Matthew 26:8 it is translated “waste”: “When his disciples saw it, they had

indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?” The word “perish” in Matthew 9:17

is the same word as “perdition”: “Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the

bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into

new bottles, and both are preserved.”

6. Punishment. “These shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous

into life eternal” (Matt. 25:46). There is a difference between the above Scripture and

Hebrews 12:6: “Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he

receiveth.” Punishment is for the sinner; chastisement for the saint.

7. Eternal — Everlasting. “These shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the

righteous into life eternal” (Matt. 25:46). See also Jude 6; II Thessalonians 1:9;

Revelation 20:10; 14:11.

Some say that the words “everlasting” and “eternal” mean “a long life, an age, age

lasting.” In other words, they say that guilty sinners will endure the fires of hell only for

an age; after being purified, they shall enjoy eternal bliss with the rest of the saints of

God. But this we add, “If hell and punishment are not forever, then there is no such thing

as eternal life, nor eternal salvation.” The same word “eternal,” or “everlasting,” is used

of God, “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit

offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the

living God?” (Heb. 9:14). “The revelation of the mystery… now is made manifest, and by

144

the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God,

made known to all nations for the obedience of faith” (Rom. 16:26). If the punishment in

hell for the damned is not eternal, then salvation is not eternal, and God is not eternal!

But He is! So is salvation eternal; so is punishment.

145

Critique of Dr. Chafer’s Hamartiology Chapters XVII – XXIV (224 – 373)

Shall one suppose that a fundamentalist reading the doctrine of sin (Hamartiology) as written by a neoevangelical will learn because the “neo” is camped much closer to the edge? I trow not. Again two major camps came out of the turn of the last century; the fundamentalist is very much personified in C. I. Scofield, and the neoevangelical is very much personified in Lewis Sperry Chafer.

The fundamentalist wanted to bar the gate and close the door on the apostasy found in the modernist, liberal leaning Church. The neoevangelical thought that a reasonable inclusiveness could sway those modernist leanings and reform the apostate beliefs.

A solid understanding of where Dr. Chafer is coming from, and a firm conviction that his methodology for theology development is fatally flawed, should not lessen that his approach to Hamartiology is novel.

His outline is: Hamartiology by Chafer (149 pages)⁶

Introduction to Hamartiology ch 17 pg 224 (7%)

Personal Sin and Its Remedy ch 18 pg 235 (32%)

The Transmitted Sin Nature And Its Remedy ch 19 pg 283 (9%)

Imputed Sin and Its Remedy ch 20 pg 296 (13%)

Man’s Estate “Under Sin” and His Relation to Satan ch 21 pg 316 (6%)

The Christians Sin and Its Remedy ch 22 pg 325 (23%)

Punishment ch 23 pg 360 (3%)

The Final Triumph Over All Sin ch 24 pg 365-373 (5%)

Such a unique approach to Hamartiology might be expected from one who, early in his life, wrote an eloquent thesis on Satan and his dominion⁷ Dr. Chafer saw a failure of previous systematic theologies to properly capture the whole realm of the doctrine of sin , just as they failed to capture dispensationalism. He has thus far failed to remedy the latter shortfall, but herein attempts the remedy of the former.

Unfortunately Dr. Chafer still uses a flawed inclusive, hypothesis based methodology, and a verbose passive communication mannerism. His flawed method is so animated and his verbose manner so annoying, (for one who enjoys getting to the main point, highly annoying) that Chafer’s novel outline shall be extracted and then beefed up with a good Bible Doctrines Book; Chafer’s work being more of a verbose philosophy book. Both Cambron and Bancroft will be used to expand Chafer’s outline for Hamartiology and a reasonable draft Hamartiology section for a Biblical Systematic Theology is found in the appendix of this report.

The scientific method is so much a wrong method for developing a theology, and Chafer so brazenly uses it in this section, that some of its malefactors should be herein pointed out. Chafer begins his analysis of personal sin by first collecting multiple opinions of Philosophers and by-gone Christian Theologians. He specifically quotes Mani, a third century philosopher, before he quotes Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, first century purveyors of absolute truth. Chafer spends pages developing this philosophical understanding of dualism, extensively quoting Dr. Miller who discusses the “inner variance of evil.”⁸ Really? Dr. Chafer then, wishing to capture “another truth which must not be overlooked,” extensively quotes “The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.” After fourteen pages of development, he finally does bring a few Scriptures to bear on his subject. Now after gathering together a whole room full of witnesses about the sinfulness of sin, one witness, the Holy Bible, being left to stand in a back corner, as it were, now, Chafer draws the cord to secure the hypothesis. In Section III, pg 252, he presents his “proof” in Section IV, pg 254, he talks of advancing it to a theory and in Section V, pg 267, he gives general terms and classifies his hypothesis as law, i.e. the truth. Chafer is using the scientific method to develop truth. It is blatant. It is brazen. It is error. Theology is not a science. One cannot develop theological truth like Kepler developed the laws of planetary motion. There is an inerrant, infallible, plenary, verbally inspired sole source of theological truth. I needs to be the final authority, Chafer uses it as a last resort authority. The scientific method does not produce theology.

It is curious that theologians who want to use profound philosophies as source of wisdom, never use God’s chosen philosophers. They will reference Socrates (469-399 B.C.), Plato (428-348 B.C.), Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), even Mani⁹ (216-274 A.D.), but God included tow exceptional philosophy books in his 66 book communication, Job and Ecclesiastes. Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom by purely intellectual means. This emphasis on logical reasoning rather than the empirical reasoning, done in science, is not more capable of deducing theological truth than is science. Both negate the inerrant, infallible, plenary, verbally inspired Word of God as the sole source of theological truth. Indeed it is the exclusion of phenomenological observation (science) and rationalism (philosophy) which drives the theological student to require his sole source in the first place. Although philosophy will not achieve a theology, ones theology should not be void of logical reasoning. God’s philosopher Job, spends forty two chapters philosophizing about man being justified before a Holy God. God’s philosopher, Solomon, spends twelve chapters philosophizing about the vanity of man. Both are clearly philosophy books. Both are frustrated in finding truth, until God steps in; in Job with staunch rebuke, in Ecclesiastes with a plan for life. Such is the sole value of philosophy in developing theology. Man is totally reliant on God to lead us into truth. Jesus said it thus: “I am the truth, no man cometh to the Fathers but by me.”

Chafer, using a scientific method and a verbose, passive communication mannerism is not a good source for documented Hamartiology. If one is satisfied with a neoevangelical perspective Geisler’s one volume is far superior to Chafer’s six volumes. If one desire just the facts Cameron and Bancroft provide excellent coverage of the doctrine of Hamartiology. A systematic theology which does not rely on philosophy or science to secure a theology of Hamartiology is not presently available.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Hamartiology

The Holy Bible

Bancroft, Emery H., Elemental Theology, 1932, Baptist Bible Seminary, 1945, 1960, Zondervan 1977, [In 1932 Emery H. Bancroft became the first Dean of Baptist Bible Seminary, Johnson City, NY and published his text for his course Elemental Theology. In 1968 the Seminary relocated to Clark Summit PA. In 1970 this author attended Practical Bible Training School on the Johnson City campus and studied Bancroft’s text. In 1999 – 2000 this author attended Baptist Bible Seminary to take Greek (NT502 and NT503) via a 3 hour commute from Hammondsport NY to Clark Summit PA, and was reintroduced to Bancroft’s exceptional work.]

Cambron, Mark G. Bible Doctrines. Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House, 1954, [Independent Baptist, Professor, Tennessee Temple Bible School, 1954].

Carroll, James Milton, The Trail of Blood, 1932, open source, public domain, from https://archive.org/details/TheTrailOfBlood.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. Dallas Seminary Press, 1948.[Lewis Sperry Chafer was an American theologian. He founded and served as the first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, and was an influential founding member of modern Christian Dispensationalism. Born: February 27, 1871, Rock Creek, Died: August 22, 1952, Seattle, Education: Oberlin College, Wheaton College. For my Doctorate of Philosophy in Theological Studies through LBTS, I was tasked to analyze all six volumes of his Systematic Theology]

Satan, 1909, Free ebooks – Project Gutenberg,2004, http://www.gutenberg.org accessed 06/01/2013

Christian, John T., A History of the Baptists, Vol 1&2, The Baptist Bible Institute, New Orleans, Louisiana, first published in 1922, public domain, soft copy http://www.pbministries.org/History/John T. Christian/vol1/ or http://www.reformedreader.org/history/christian/ahob1/ahobp.htm.

Dollar, George W., A History of Fundamentalism in America, Bob Jones University Press, 1973.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 1985.

Finney, Charles G., Power from On High, Christian Literature Crusade, public domain, from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/finney/power.html

Gaussen, L., Theopneustia – The plenary Inspiration of The Holy Scriptures deduced from Internal Evidence, and the Testimonies of Nature, History and Science, David Scott’s translation, Chicago, The Bible Institute Colportage ASS’N., 1840.

Geisler, Norman L, Systematic Theology in One Volume, Bethany House, 2002, 3, 4, 5, 11 [Geisler, also a neoevangelical, sharply contrasts with Lewis Sperry Chafer in that Geisler 1) admits what he is, neoevangelical, 2) admits what he is attempting, a compilation of evangelical theologies, 3) shows superb organization and structure of thought, 4) contains depth, and 5) is a masterful communicator. This author cannot endorse all that Geisler believes to be true, but can endorse that he seems to capture all that has been believed by conservative evangelicals.]

Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology: Volume I-IV, Charles Scribner & Company, 1871, Hardback- Grand Rapids, Mich., Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1940, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, http://www.ccel.org, public domain. [The Internet Archive www.archive.org/details/systematictheolo01hodg], [Charles Hodge, 1797-1878, Presbyterian Minister, Princeton Theologian].

Larkin, Clarence. The Spirit World, Published by the Clarence Larkin Estate, 1921, Cosimo, 2005

Miley, John, Systematic Theology Vol. 1 & 2, The Library of Biblical and Theological Literature, New York: Eaton and Mains, 1894, The Internet Archive http://www.archive.org/details/systematictheolo01mile, [John Miley (1813-1895, Methodist Theologian].

Rice, Edward G., The 357 Magnum Errors of the Modernist’s Critical Texts, Public Domain, http://www.gsbaptistchurch.com/baptist/bible/texterror.pdf, http://www.lulu.com/shop/pastor-edward-rice/the-357-magnum-errors-of-modernists-critical-texts/paperback/product-5586759.html

Ryrie, Charles C., Basic Theology. Victor Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 1981.

Schaff, Philip. The Creeds of Christendom. Three volumes, 1877, reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1977.

———-. History of the Christian Church. Third edition, revised in eight volumes, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1910.

Schofield, C. I., Prophecy Made Plain, Photolithoprinted by Grand Rapids Book Manufacturers, Grand Rapids, MI, 1967.

Shedd, William G. T., Dogmatic Theology, Roosevelt Professor of Systematic Theology in Union Theological Seminary, New York, Charles Scribner & Sons, 1888. [The Internet Archive www.archive.org/details/dogmatictheology01sheduoft], [William G.T. Shedd, 1820-1894, Old School Presbyterian & Reformed Theologian].

———-. Calvinism: Pure and Mixed, A Defense of the Westminster Standards. 1893, reprint, Edinburgh, UK: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1986.

———-. Commentary on Romans. 1879, reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980.

Strong, Augustus H., Systematic Theology:Three Volumes in 1, Philadelphia, Valley Forge PA, The Judson Press, 1907, 35^th printing 1993. [Augustus H. Strong, 1836-1921, American Baptist Pastor & Theologian].

Thiessen, Henry Clarence, Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Mich., William B. Eerdman Publishing Company, 1949. [Henry Clarence Thiessen, ? -1947, President of Los Angles Baptist Theological Seminary, later renamed John MacArthur’s The Master’s College].

Lectures in Systematic Theology. Revised by Vernon D. Doerksen, Grand Rapids, Mich., William B. Eerdman Publishing Company, 2006.

Waite, D.A.. Defending the King James Bible. The Bible For Today Press, 1992 & 2002.