Warfield Marches On (without his postmil-stuff, tragically)

This is not meant to exclude any other nutshell answers (if they’re accurate), but I have one that I think goes a long way to explaining what is happening regarding the Federal Vision.

B. B. Warfield once described Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo as a man whose Ecclesiology and Soteriology were in conflict. And he further described the Reformation as the triumph of Augustine’s soteriology over his ecclesiology. Finally, he defined the essence of Reformed orthodoxy as the confession that salvation was exclusively an immediate operation (no ecclesiology necessary) of the Spirit on the soul of an individual.

In the PCA, there are two kinds of people (highly inaccurate and yet a helpful model nonetheless):

  1. Those who find in Warfield’s claims their very identity as Protestants.
  2. Those who find Warfield’s claims to be both unfounded in logic (there is no necessary conflict) and in history (Neither John Calvin nor his heirs through the Westminster Assembly to Turrettin are Reformed Protestants by Warfield’s theological definition).

But here’s the problem: no one in the two groups actually thinks Augustine was right in everything he said either soteriologically (some in Group 1 think they agree with his soteriology because they insist, incorrectly, that Augustine was orthodox in his doctrine of justification) or ecclesiologically.

Thus, the impulse of group 1 is to continually accuse group 2 of beliefs they do not hold. Group 1 has two intellectual traps to fall into. They accept the “logic” that one must choose between Augustine’s soteriology and ecclesiology, so those who choose to remain in the broad form of his ecclesiology, they insist, must reject his soteriology. And thus they tend to assume a statement of appreciation for his ecclesiology means they can dig up any error of the past (“Romanist”) and freely apply it to members of group 2.

Thus, they are continually frustrated as particular facts are brought forth to show that the real world doesn’t match the world as they think it must be.

Guy Waters has written a book on the New Perspective in which he makes a foundational claim that either supports or skewers his entire reading and that backs up my analysis. Ultimately, he writes, in religion there are only two destinies: Geneva or Rome.

Warfield marches on.

Note: originally posted on February 9, 2007

3 thoughts on “Warfield Marches On (without his postmil-stuff, tragically)

  1. Steven W

    The Reformed did teach an “immediate” relationship between the soul and the Spirit.

    That didn’t mean “no ecclesiology necessary,” but it did mean that ecclesiology was not a mediator between the individual believer and Jesus Christ.

    Reply
  2. Steven W

    To put it simply, the priesthood of all believers = immediate relationship between Jesus and believer.

    Now, that doesn’t exclude further need for the priests to gather together for sacred assembly, to build up one another’s faith through visible signs, and to act in a group.

    But it is still “immediate.”

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *