Fire And Water by Kim Riddlebarger
Folks, I have googled Warfield on Chafer. The whole article can be found here...
http://209.85.165.104/custom?q=cache:6jMwK6Zq8x0J:kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/from-the-archives-/fire%2520and%2520water.pdf+B.B+Warfield+on+L.S.+Chafer&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us
Here is a snipet...
"Warfield's point must not only be seen as a serious blow to the logic of Chafer's dispensational-
evangelical "hodgepodge" view of sanctification, for it applies equally to all of those in today's very
popular non-denominational movements who also reject the confessionalism of Protestant orthodoxy and
attempt to mix conflicting doctrinal elements into a kind of theological stew that is supposed to have a
broader-based appeal for the masses, but instead leads only to doctrinal confusion. And as in Warfield's
day, under the quite pretentious guise of rejecting "theology" and "head-knowledge," there are many who
end up in a shallow sea of error and confusion. Unfortunately, this error is still with us and in even
greater measure than in Chafer's time. Take for an example the subject of Chafer's book: the Christian
life. Here, as in all other aspects of our salvation, either God works in our sanctification through means
and our part is purely response and gratitude, or we are the prime mover in sanctification by "yielding,"
"seeking," "making Christ Lord," and so forth. While the Calvinist insists on active, energetic
involvement in this process, either God is the one working in us to will and to do of his good pleasure, or
sanctification is the product of our striving and yielding.
What Chafer has done is to combine two contrary elements, losing both the activism of human
responsibility as well as the gracious character of sanctification by trying to achieve something "in
between" the two.
Chafer insists upon the very untenable distinction between "carnal men and spiritual men," which
Warfield notes is based upon Chafer's serious misreading of 1 Corinthians 2:9. According to Warfield,
Chafer tells us "that the passage from the one [the carnal] to the other [the spiritual] is at our option,
whenever we care to 'claim' the higher degree by 'faith.'" Chafer commits the same error as other
"victorious Christian life" advocates and it is easy to see that this immediately separates the body of
Christ into those "who have it," and "those who don't." This has a divisive effect upon the church
everywhere such teaching has gone. In addition, such unbiblical schemes make the human will, instead of
the grace of God, the determining power in the Christian life."
Labels: Riddllebarger, Warfield on Chafer
posted by mark pierson at 4:14 PM
4 Comments:
Rock on, Kim Riddlebarger. Aside from Blaising and Bock, for whom I have gained quite a bit of respect, I see Classic Dispyism as a plague on Christianity. Stop the plague.
February 14, 2008 4:39 PM
Mark,
Good post. I think this snippet really shows the distinction between those who credit grace (God) and those who credit mans' free will in sanctification.
IMO, there is two different theological foundations at work here and they cannot be retained and reconciled.
February 14, 2008 10:13 PM
It would seem classic dispy's are in a group unto themselves, wholly apart from the rest of Evangelical Christianity.
They seem to strip the actual "born from above" experience of all its power and significance and rather give the changed life or conversion experience over to their own seeking and yielding at some point afterwards. Who gets the glory then?????
February 15, 2008 6:26 AM
"Since human freedom is the starting point in the Arminian system, all Arminian doctrines end up being explained in light of an act of the human will (psychology), rather than through the biblical doctrine of the grace and mercy of God (theology). Miley flatly admits that 'the cardinal doctrines of Wesleyan Soteriology (i.e. the doctrine of salvation) are that the atonement is only provisory in its character, rendering men savable, but not necessarily saving them.' In other words, the death of Christ does not actually save sinners but merely renders people savable if they exercise their freedom to choose and to follow Christ."
Wow. To think that this is the "gospel" in the minds of so many today... At least Miley is honest and logically consistent with what he believes. Our church is going through Romans and even today, a friend continued to insist that his ability to choose God (which he insisted that he had pre-regeneration) did not represent a "work." The mental/theological gymnastics required to get to the position that (a) God provides a universal opportunity through the atonement, (b) God's work is finished at the Cross, (c) man can freely choose to respond to God's "offer," (d) this choice IS the only difference between one who is and one who is not regenerated AND (e) that the choosing isn't something to boast about or a "work" is absolutely amazing.
The paperwork alone to be synergistic must be incredibly complicated!
February 17, 2008 7:49 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home