John Robbins continues to display one of his chief polemical attributes, which is kind of a bad attribute for a rationalist to have, to wit, his inability to follow an argument. He has recently said that one of our tactics is that of quoting John Calvin, who said “some foolish things about the sacraments.” He goes on to say that we know that we “can dredge up foolish statements from Reformed theologians that support or seem to support [our] heretical view.”
Robbins then counters by citing some (genuinely) foolish things that B.B. Warfield said about evolution. But then Robbins says, in a brief and aberrant burst of charity, that Warfield’s status as a Reformed theologian is “without challenge.”
I am afraid he has missed the point of the citations of our Reformed fathers. The fact that the Westminster Shorter Catechsim calls the sacraments “effectual means of salvation” does not make that statement right. The only ultimate and infallible court of appeal on such things is the Scriptures. Robbins is exactly right on that score. But this quotation does mean that I should be able to say that I believe the sacraments are effectual means of salvation without being told that my expression, as it stands, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
Robbins himself exercises the kind of discretion we are looking for, only not with us. He proves that Warfield gave away the store on evolution, and yet Warfield retains Robbins’ respect as a Reformed theologian. I would say Warfield gave away other important things too (e.g. his doctrine of the autographa being the only inerrant Bible we have, only unfortunately, we don’t actually have it), and yet my respect for Warfield is still quite high. I differ with him on some important issues, but I know that he represents an important part of the Reformed tradition, and the caliber of his work on a number of issues was quite good.
The same with Calvin. I don’t agree with Calvin on everything. But what I reserve to myself is the right to agree with Calvin and not have that agreement be used as the reason for denying that I am a Calvinist.
So my question for Robbins is this. Why can the Reformers say such “silly things” and retain your respect? Why can Warfield say genuinely silly things and still be honored by you as a great theologian? Robbins concludes by saying, “We Protestants are not traditionalists. We are radicals for Christianity, and that Root is Scripture alone.” But what is a Protestant? Robbins in effect has said that “we in the Protestant tradition do not have a tradition.” Unless, as I am beginning to suspect, Robbins believes that true Protestantism began with Gordon Clark and will end with John Robbins. But even that is a (very short) tradition. And not only is it short, it is also petty.