Live your theology.

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”.

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!

The first chapter of B.B. Warfield’s The Plan of Salvation examines the competing ideas for how men are saved.  B.B. does this in the finest way possible – in a way that kept me captivated, almost as if he knew how to write to my attention despite a century or so separating us.  Warfield employs the seldom used but ever effective ‘Bloodsport’ theological method, also known as the ‘Street Fighter II’ or ‘Mortal Kombat’ styles.

Warfield pits competing ideas up against one another eliminating the weaker argument until we’re left with a final champion idea, just like Jean-Claude Van Damme defeated Chong Li at the end of the Bloodsport Kumite tournament (even though he was blinded by a cheating Chong Li).

Having differentiated between Deism and Theism, and having tossed the former into the intellectual trash heap, Warfield begins to examine the characteristics of the theistic plan of salvation. He does this by pitting the Naturalistic view against the Supernaturalistic view asking the question: “Does man save himself or does God save him?”

Warfield identifies the Naturalstic view as being in bed with that old heresy, Pelagianism.  Warfield’s money quote regarding Pelagianism and Naturalstic views of salvation:

“As the poor in earthly goods are always with us, so the poor in spiritual tings are also always with us.”

Burn.

That Warfield is solidly against a man-only plan of salvation is no surprise.  That he’s also against any view that mixes the actions of men with God is… also not surprising. So wherever a synergistic view of salvation as crept in through the Pelagian heresy (Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodox, and many protestant circles — SBC, etc.) Warfield rightly points out that the idea of a super-naturalistic salvation by God alone is more of a lip service than a concrete reality, no matter what they might proclaim.

“These so-called intermediate views are obviously, in principle, naturalistic views, since (whatever part they permit God to play in the circumstantials of salvation) when they come to the crucial point of salvation itself they cast man back upon his native powers.

The apostle Paul proclaimed that he has nothing to boast in save God. “But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ…” Eph. 6:14.  I recall a quote from Luther pondering a salvation achieved through works (by man) as well as through God by asking how much of his salvation was his own doing, so he could know how much he could boast in himself.

The Scriptures make it clear that salvation is through God alone apart from man entirely. Warfield’s exegesis of the Bible rightly allows him to dismiss the naturalistic view from the tournament in favor of the biblical super-naturalistic understanding.

“[the supernaturalist] assert that all the power that is exerted in saving the sould is from God, that whatever part man plays in the saving process is subsidiary, is itself the effect of the divine operation and that it is God and God alone who saves the soul.”

The tournament continues tomorrow with a look at the sacerdotal principle!