Griffith Thomas: Different Levels of Salvation?

[Staphlobob]

I was reading "The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles" by W. H. Griffith Thomas. Something of a classic. Highly recommended by Packer.

But I ran across something that caused my eyes to pop out of my head. On pages 255-256, as he discusses Article XVII (predestination) and is struggling to reconcile God's predestination with free will, Thomas says the following:

"... it should be carefully noted that the Bible does not merely separate men into two classes, the saved and the lost, for it seems to reveal not only one class of saved ones, but several classes or grades of the saved ... The highest salvation is clearly associated with what the New Testament describes as 'the Body of Christ, ' or 'the Lamb's wife,' and the various references to the 'elect' are to this community of 'heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ,' who are said to have been 'chosen before the foundation of the world.' Yet the Bible clearly indicates that these are not the only ones saved. On the contrary, there are plain statements that, in addition to the body of Christians called 'the Bride,' there are other communities of human beings who are saved from everlasting destruction, and yet do not, and will never, form part of the 'Body of Christ.' This salvation is outside of and altogether secondary to the salvatio of those chosen persons who collectively make up His spiritual Church."

He then goes onto site 1 Corinthians 5:2; Revelation 20:4-6; Matthew 25:31-46; Hebrews 12:23 (along with several others).

Am I hallucinating? Or was Thomas making the first-year theologian mistake of confusing rewards with salvation?

Is this somehow "typical" of even conservative (and so-called orthodox) Anglican theologians?

 

[Chris]

it should be carefully noted that the Bible does not merely separate men into two classes, the saved and the lost, for it seems to reveal not only one class of saved ones, but several classes or grades of the saved

I'm at a loss for words.

The clearest theme in the whole of Scripture, with regard to men, is the existence of two categories:

God's
Not God's.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

WHGT most likely was at least influenced by dispensationalism, if not an actual dispensationalist himself. Like many believers during the early part of the 20th century, in the face of the collapse of belief in mainline denominations and state churches like the Anglicans, even those with an inclination to defend the creeds and confessions of the church often married those statements of belief to what was thought by many at the time to represent a robust and biblical opposition to liberalism--namely, dispensationalism. Why? Well, the liberals all claimed to be faithful to the Bible, and more importantly to the doctrinal statements of their respective communions. They were lying ("crossing their fingers", G.N.), but the result was a loss of faith in those creeds and confessions. But one thing was safe from the liberals, and that was fundamentalism, which was tied to dispensationalism. No self-respecting liberal would be caught affirming premillenialism. And for many, that was enough to give it sufficient cachet--if the liberals hate it, must be OK. And a number of otherwise fairly good scholars never escaped the commitment to dispensational thought, among them WHGT (I believe), FFBruce (definitely), George Eldon Ladd, among others.

I am willing to be corrected on this, as always, if my facts are wrong.

 

[bookslover]

WHGT most likely was at least influenced by dispensationalism, if not an actual dispensationalist himself.

Had he not died in 1924, he would have been one of the founding faculty members of Dallas Theological Seminary later in the 1920s. So, it's pretty safe to say that he was, in fact, a dispensationalist.

 

[Staphlobob]

Had he not died in 1924, he would have been one of the founding faculty members of Dallas Theological Seminary later in the 1920s. So, it's pretty safe to say that he was, in fact, a dispensationalist.

Wow! I had no idea. Looks like you and Contra Mundum hit the nail on the head.

The issue for me is a bit more serious than just this question. I'm going to be pastor of a new congregation that will, for a while, remain unaffilliated with any denomination. But some of them were wondering about the Reformed Episcopal Church, or The Protestant Episcopal Church. So I was doing some brushing-up on some of the more Calvinist aspects of the 39 Articles. WHGT is a recommended source by the REC.

Do any of you know anything about E. A. Litton or Edward Harold Browne before I begin digging into their works?

 

[bookslover]

Wow! I had no idea. Looks like you and Contra Mundum hit the nail on the head.

The issue for me is a bit more serious than just this question. I'm going to be pastor of a new congregation that will, for a while, remain unaffilliated with any denomination. But some of them were wondering about the Reformed Episcopal Church, or The Protestant Episcopal Church. So I was doing some brushing-up on some of the more Calvinist aspects of the 39 Articles. WHGT is a recommended source by the REC.

Do any of you know anything about E. A. Litton or Edward Harold Browne before I begin digging into their works?

W. H. Griffith Thomas has this to say about Litton in his preface to The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1930):

[His book] is also deeply indebted to Litton's "Introduction to Dogmatic Theology" which, for clearness of view, firmness of grasp, balance of statement, and forcefulness of presentation, remains unsurpassed among works on Anglican Dogmatics.

Other than that statement, I know nothing about Litton, except that he died in the 19th century.