Live your theology.

A couple of years ago some anonymous person gifted me a set of Puritan Paperbacks.  I’ve been given books to help me with seminary (and a really nice ESV Journaling Bible, as well) far more often that I ever would have hoped.  They’ve been received as a provision from the Lord, a blessing to my family and an ally of our banking account.  The Puritan Paperbacks always stood out because it was the very first time someone said “what you’re training for is important, let me help.”  That little line has helped me to stay focused and keep things in perspective. This is important. It’s not something to do halfheartedly or presumptively. Yesterday I got the same message, this time with word that a kindle is on its way.

I’m humbled, and appreciative, and I don’t even know who you are.  Thank you.

Honest question (not trolling): Who were the orthodox proponents for continuation of spiritual gifts in the early church? I’m not seeing it.

From what I’ve read of Warfield, he doesn’t seem to think there were any either. I haven’t read the writings of the 2nd century so exhaustively that I can say anything definitively, but it does seem that the proponents of continuation weren’t generally the most sound people. The Montanists, Tertullian being the most famous alum, were strict ascetics who followed a former Phyrigian priest claiming to have a direct revelation called the “age of the Paraclete”. This was bolstered by the visions of “prophetesses” Priscilla & Maxilla who claimed to have been given revelation of the end times. They subsequently left their husbands to devote their lives to the church and taught that holding church offices was bueno for women. So yeah, not a lot of orthodoxy present, but a familiar picture when compared the founding of some modern charistmatic churches.

What’s my point? Well… my thinking is framing up issues like continuationism & credo-baptism (to a lesser extent) as ideas that are assumed as facts by their adherents. These are questions begged to a level I like to call “Well, duh. Of course that’s true.” But early proponents of continuationism all seemed to be theologically jacked up. The modern day rank & file, eager for a life reflective of the clear teaching of Scriptures are moving towards a Reformed & Covenantal theology (hooray!). But they’re bringing a few things with them and reinterpreting Scripture to justify themselves along the way. So I’m seeing continuationism not as a good apostolic teaching which has been faithfully carried on by those devoted to sound doctrine from the earliest NT church until now, but as an idea that came hand in hand with unorthodox teaching. Just like Isildur wouldn’t destroy the One Ring in the fires of Mount Doom after defeating Sauron, so modern adherents of continuing spiritual gifts won’t let go of “the precious” even though they’ve dropped the bad theology it rode into town upon.

Then there’s guys like this, who haven’t dropped the bad theology or the “precious”.

Louis Berkhof

“With respect to the origin of sin in the history of mankind, the Bible teaches that it began with the transgression of Adam in paradise, and therefore with a perfectly voluntary act on the part of man. The tempter came from the spirit world with the suggestion that man, by placing himself in opposition to God, might become like God. Adam yielded to the temptation and committed the first sin by eating of the forbidden fruit. But the matter did not stop there, for by that first sin with it, and a pollution which, because of the solidarity of the human race, would affect not only Adam but all his descendants as well. As a result of the fall the father of the race could only pass on a depraved human nature to his offspring. From that unholy source sin flows on as an impure stream to all the generations of men, polluting everyone and everything with which it comes in contact… But even this is not all. Adam sinned not only as the father of the human race, but also as the representative head of all his descendants; and therefore the guilt of his sin is placed to their account, so that they are all liable to the punishment of death.”

Busy with final seminary classes, but since I had this excerpt from Burkhof’s Systematic Theology handy for an upcoming report, I thought I’d share. Also, I’ll share the song that pops in my head whenever I hear or read the name Louis (or Louie).

God’s plan for Salvation, according to the Scriptures, is characterized as being a Supernatural, Evangelical, Particular event per Benjamin B. Warfield’s excellent book: The Plan of Salvation.  Today we’re going to see just how particular B.B. means when he uses the word.

After showing that God’s saving grace is not universally administered (not all are will be saved), Warfield turns his sight on a group of Particularists holding a different view in regards to the operation of how men are to be saved.

“…the precise point [of the] issue comes therefore to be whether the redemptive work of Christ actually saves those for whom it is wrought, or only opens a possibility of salvation to them.“

In the corner of the the “possibility” camp are the Amyraldians, a group named after the idea’s formulator, Moses Amyraut.  Let me just say right off the bat that Moses is an awesome name & my wife should relent and let me name our next son Moses. Amyraldianism, however, is less awesome.  The idea is one of a hypothetical redemption.  Christ’s death on the cross secured salvation for no one in & of itself, but rather made salvation a viability by removing any obstacles that might have been in their way.  The actual salvation comes when the individual believes on Christ, which is achieved only through God the Holy Spirit giving them new hearts.

The understanding that Warfield ascribes to is what he would call consistent particularism – Christ’s work on the cross actually redeems and is in itself a saving act that actually saves, rather than a saving act that could save.

“If the saving operations of God actually save, then all those upon whom he savingly operates are saved, and particularism is given in the very nature of the case; unless we are prepared to go the whole way with universalism and declare that all men are saved.”

Any act, option, or possibility of salvation apart from Christ — solely and entirely, is in some way going to be making friends with universalism.  Any universalistic involvement is essentially a denial of Soli Deo gloria – Christ’s redemptive work cannot extend beyond those who are actually saved.

“It is God the Lord who saves; and in all the operations by which he works salvation alike, he operates for and upon, not all men indifferently, but some men only, those namely who he saves. Thus only can we preserve to him his glory and ascribe to him and to him only the whole work of salvation.”

My question to you is: Does holding the Amyraldian position, as opposed to the Reformed position,  make any difference in the life of a believer, from a practical perspective?

By this point in our look at the first chapter of Benjamin B. Warfield’s The Plan of Salvation we’ve seen the biblical pattern of salvation narrowed to a Theistic, Supernatural, Evangelical course.  Warfield now sub-divides that group by identifying where a reliance of a naturalistic or man-centered approach can still be found (no matter how slight).  He begins by examining two groups who while ostensibly Supernatural and Evangelical, still give room to some form of naturalism or sacerdotalism.  First up are the Lutheran Evangelicals, adherents of a “conservative Reformation”. While this group has separated itself from Rome, there can still be found an underlying sacerdotalism, whether it be found in the form of baptismal regeneration or consubstantiation. The other group involved are those pesky Dutch Remonstrants and their semi-pelagianism: the evangelical Arminians. Sacerdotalism isn’t the problem, but a naturalistic man-centered basis for salvation can still be found. The true Reformed and biblical plan for salvation should be uncolored by any influence of of either of these things.

Warfield suggests that the principle classification would should be looking for among evangelicals is not so much the influence of sacerdotalism or naturalism but rather how God exerts his saving power on men:

“The point of division here is whether God is conceived to have planned actually himself to save men by his almighty and certainly efficacious grace, or only so to pour out his grace upon men as to enable them to be saved, without actually securing, however in any particular cases that they shall be saved.”

So the Arminian will say that God has universally made salvation possible to every man. This salvation is from God alone, but there is still a responsibility in man to get all Captain Picard and say “Make it so.”  The problem with this universalist line of thinking is evident.  If as the supernaturalist says, God alone saves the souls of men, and not man, and God alone works his saving grace directly on the soul, a evangelicals hold, then it follows that a God who universally does this to all men should see all men saved.  Unitarians would say here, Amen. Arminians would say, “uh… well, not exactly” and point out man’s responsibility.  But by doing so appeal to naturalism in a professed supernatural system.

“The precise issue which divides the universalists and the particularists is,  accordingly, just whether the saving grace of God, in which alone is salvation, actually saves. Does its presence mean salvation, or may it be present, and yet salvation fail?”

The consistent view in the Theistic supernatural evangelical course is that of the particularist, held by the apostles, Augustine, and the Reformed church at large.  God deals with men on an individual basis and saves them by his grace through an immediate regeneration.  God’s salvation is applied by God and is immediate and sure – not merely allowing for the possibility of salvation. The particularist alone is able to proclaim Soli Deo gloria and remain consistent within his course of thought.

Monday: A break from Warfield in favor of Mr. T’s continuing commentary on the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

Tuesday: Back w\ the end of chapter 1 – A three-way battle royal between Supralapsarians, Infralapsarians, and Amyraldians!