The Riddleblog

B. B. Warfield on the Formation of New Testament Canon

B. B. Warfield’s magisterial essay “The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament” was published in 1892. You can find the essay here. It has also been included in the various editions of Warfield’s The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible.

Here a few gems from that essay.

Warfield reminds us that the apostolic church did not “invent” the idea of a canon of New Testament books. The church possessed a canon of inspired and authoritative books from the very beginning–the Old Testament. The church was, therefore, never without a “canon.”

In order to obtain a correct understanding of what is called the formation of the Canon of the New Testament, it is necessary to begin by fixing very firmly in our minds one fact which is obvious enough when attention is once called to it. That is, that the Christian church did not require to form for itself the idea of a “canon” — or, as we should more commonly call it, of a “Bible” — that is, of a collection of books given of God to be the authoritative rule of faith and practice. It inherited this idea from the Jewish church, along with the thing itself, the Jewish Scriptures, or the "Canon of the Old Testament." The church did not grow up by natural law: it was founded. And the authoritative teachers sent forth by Christ to found His church, carried with them, as their most precious possession, a body of divine Scriptures, which they imposed on the church that they founded as its code of law. No reader of the New Testament can need proof of this; on every page of that book is spread the evidence that from the very beginning the Old Testament was as cordially recognized as law by the Christian as by the Jew. The Christian church thus was never without a “Bible” or a “canon.”

To read the rest, follow the link below

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerApril 24, 2024The NT CanonComment

Warfield on Jesus's Anger at the Death of Lazarus

One of B. B. Warfield’s most profound and widely read essays is “On the Emotional Life of Our Lord” first published in 1912. In the essay (originally written for a Princeton Theological Seminary faculty publication and republished many times since), Warfield considers all of those instances in the gospel accounts in which Jesus demonstrates deep and abiding emotions. It is at once a beautiful and moving essay, while at the same time a powerful statement that Christ’s true human nature brings forth true human emotions—ranging from compassion to anger. You can download the essay for free here, but there are new published versions (in booklet form with updated text and with introductions) here and here.

Since we are now in Easter week, I thought it would be a good time to consider Warfield’s discussion of Jesus’s anger upon learning of the death of his dear friend, Lazarus.

Warfield writes,

The same term [for anger] occurs again in John’s narrative of our Lord’s demeanor at the grave of his beloved friend Lazarus (John 11:33, 38). When Jesus saw Mary weeping — or rather “wailing,” for the term is a strong one and implies the vocal expression of the grief — and the Jews which accompanied her also “wailing,” we are told, as our English version puts it, that “he groaned in the spirit and was troubled”; and again, when some of the Jews, remarking on his own manifestation of grief in tears, expressed their wonder that he who had opened the eyes of the blind man could not have preserved Lazarus from death, we are told that Jesus “again groaned in himself.”

To read the rest, follow the link below

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerMarch 25, 2024Jesus's anger, death of LazarusComment

Warfield on the Religious Life of Seminary Students

I grew up in an evangelical culture in which many depreciated the life of the mind, pitting “head knowledge” against “heart knowledge.” Those of us drawn to apologetics (a healthy and flourishing element in many of these same churches), found ourselves up against the accusation that striving to defend the faith or study Christian doctrine was the quest for “head knowledge,” allegedly connected to the sin of pride. It was charged that such an emphasis inevitably led to to “dead faith” and a cold heart. I recall a noted evangelical pastor laughing at those who went to “cemetery” (using a rather feeble bit of word-play to mock “seminary”). Of course, he was not theologically trained and this is often evident in his teaching and preaching.

When I first encountered B. B. Warfield’s tract, “On the Religious Life of Theological Students,” first published in 1911, I was greatly relieved that someone of much greater intellect and stature than I, made a case compelling case for uniting mind and heart. Prayer and theological study go hand in hand, or they should. This was required reading at Westminster Seminary California when I was a student and still is.

But this tract is not just for seminary students—although that is the primary audience. All Christians who love to read and study theology ought to give it a careful read. It can be found here: The Religious Life of Theological Students.

To read the rest, follow the link bellow:

B. B. Warfield on the Indelible Mark of the Westminster Shorter Catechism

This is one of my favorite Warfield stories. It comes from an essay written in 1909, entitled “Is the Shorter Catechism Worthwhile?”

What is ‘the indelible mark of the Shorter Catechism’? We have the following bit of personal experience from a general officer of the United States army. He was in a great western city at a time of intense excitement and violent rioting. The streets were over-run daily by a dangerous crowd. One day he observed approaching him a man of singularly combined calmness and firmness of mien, whose very demeanor inspired confidence. So impressed was he with his bearing amid the surrounding uproar that when he had passed he turned to look back at him, only to find that the stranger had done the same. On observing his turning the stranger at once came back to him, and touching his chest with his forefinger, demanded without preface: ‘What is the chief end of man?’ On receiving the countersign, ‘Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever’ — ‘Ah!’ said he, ‘I knew you were a Shorter Catechism boy by your looks!’ ‘Why, that was just what I was thinking of you,’ was the rejoinder.
It is worth while to be a Shorter Catechism boy. They grow to be men. And better than that, they are exceedingly apt to grow to be men of God. So apt, that we cannot afford to have them miss the chance of it. ‘Train up a child in the way he should go, and even when he is old he will not depart from it.’

More on Warfield: The Lion of Princeton here

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerFebruary 9, 2024The Westminster Shrter Catechism Comments

B. B. Warfield -- On Christless Christianity

One of B. B. Warfield’s most insightful essays is “Christless Christianity,” written for The Harvard Review in 1912. It is available in its entirety here: Christless Christianity. It is not an easy essay, but well worth the effort.

Warfield takes aim at those who would divorce Christianity from history thereby eliminating Christ’s cross as the ground of our salvation. He points out that,

There is a moral paradox in the forgiveness of sins which cannot be solved apart from the exhibition of an actual expiation [a payment for sin]. No appeal to general metaphysical or moral truths concerning God can serve here; or to the essential kinship of human nature to God; or, for the matter of that, to any example of an attitude of trust in the divine goodness upon the part of a religious genius, however great, or to promises of forgiveness made by such a one, or even—may we say it with reverence—made by God himself, unsupported by the exhibition of an actual expiation.

No payment for sin, no Christianity.

To read the rest, follow the link below

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerJanuary 19, 2024Christless ChristianityComment

B. B. Warfield on the Celebration of Christmas

In a review of a German book beautifully illustrating the art associated with the celebration of Christmas written by Georg Rietschel (1842-1914), who was a professor of theology at Leipzig University (H. T. Barry Waugh: Warfield on Celebrating Christmas) , B. B. Warfield concludes by raising the following questions:

1). What can be said for the customs [of Christmas] to which we have committed ourselves?

2). There is no reason to believe that our Lord wished his birthday to be celebrated by his followers.

3). There is no reason to believe that the day on which we are celebrating it is his birthday (Michael Kruger: Five Misconceptions of Christmas).

4). There is no reason to believe that the way in which we currently celebrate it would meet his approval.

These questions cause Warfield to conclude with the follow challenge; “are we not in some danger of making of what we fondly tell ourselves is a celebration of the Advent of our Lord, on the one side something much more like the Saturnalia of old Rome than is becoming in a sober Christian life; and, on the other something much more like a shopkeeper’s carnival than can comport with the dignity of even a sober secular life?”

Christmas is a difficult time for Christians precisely because of these important questions raised by Warfield. What do we do when a secular holiday and all the things that go with it (some good, some terrible) becomes thoroughly intertwined with the Christian celebration of our Lord’s birth and incarnation? There is something wonderful about an annual gathering when families and friends come together, feast, share gifts, and make family memories. There is something awful when “Frosty the Snowman” plays in the annual rotation of the FM radio station of Christmas music right after “Joy to the World.”

To read the rest, follow the link below:

Warfield on the Slight Difference Between Rationalism and Mysticism

B. B. Warfield was not a fan of mysticism nor rationalism for that matter. According to Warfield, here’s what happens when you give up on biblical authority:

Once turn away from revelation and little choice remains to you but the choice between Mysticism and Rationalism. There is not so much choice between these things, it is true, as enthusiasts on either side are apt to imagine. The difference between them is very much a matter of temperament, or perhaps we may even say of temperature. The Mystic blows hot, the Rationalist cold. Warm up a Rationalist and you inevitably get a Mystic; chill down a Mystic and you find yourselves with a Rationalist on your hands. The history of thought illustrates repeatedly the easy passage from one to the other.

This gem is found in, B. B. Warfield, “Review of Mysticism in Christianity by W. K. Fleming and Mysticism and Modern Life by John Wright Buckman, in The Princeton Theological Review, xiv (1916), 343-348; and is reprinted in B. B. Warfield, Critical Reviews (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 366-367.

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerDecember 4, 2023Mysticism and RationalismComment

Warfield on Imputation

In a 1909 entry on “Imputation,” written for the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, in the second of six sections, Warfield defines the three acts inherent in a proper understanding of the meaning of “imputation.”

II. THREE ACTS OF IMPUTATION

From the time of Augustine (early fifth century), at least, the term “imputation” is found firmly fixed in theological terminology in this sense. But the applications and relations of the doctrine expressed by it were thoroughly worked out only in the discussions which accompanied and succeeded the Reformation. In the developed theology thus brought into the possession of the Church, three several acts of imputation were established and expounded. These are . . .
the imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity;
the imputation of the sins of His people to the Redeemer;
the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to His people.

To read the rest, follow the link below

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerSeptember 29, 2023imputationComment

B. B. Warfield on the Essence of Calvinism: “God Saves Sinners”

B. B. Warfield is well-known as an ardent defender of what is commonly identified as “Calvinism,” which Warfield defines simply as a “profound apprehension of God in His majesty.” In an entry entitled “Calvinism” written in 1908 for the New Schaff-Herzog, Encyclopedia of the Religious Knowledge (a massive and respected reference work in its time), the Calvinist, says Warfield is one who . . .

who believes in God without reserve, and is determined that God shall be God to him in all his thinking, feeling, willing—in the entire compass of his life-activities, intellectual, moral, spiritual, throughout all his individual, social, religious relations—is, by the force of that strictest of all logic which presides over the outworking of principles into thought and life, by the very necessity of the case, a Calvinist. In Calvinism, then, objectively speaking, theism comes to its rights; subjectively speaking, the religious relation attains its purity; soteriologically speaking, evangelical religion finds at length its full expression and its secure stability.

As for the Calvinist’s understanding of redemption from the guilt and power of sin, Warfield contends we must start with the fact of revelation—Calvinistic doctrine is revealed in Scripture and is not the consequence of human speculation (as often charged). He notes, “a supernatural revelation, in which God makes known to man His will and His purposes of grace; a supernatural record of this revelation in a supernaturally given book, in which God gives His revelation permanency and extension—such things are to the Calvinist almost matters of course.” To paraphrase Warfield here, Calvinism is “biblical.”

To read the rest of Warfield’s comments, follow the link below

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerJuly 1, 2023Calvinism, monergismComment

B. B. Warfield on the Value of the Westminster Shorter Catechism

B. B. Warfield knew full well that Christianity isn’t caught, it must be learned. And even though it must be learned, as he puts it, it is “not very easy to learn. And very certainly it will not teach itself.” Since Christianity (Bible knowledge and basic doctrine) is the sort of knowledge people ought to possess, this is why the authors of the Westminster Shorter Catechism “were less careful to make it easy than to make it good.”

Here are a couple of gems from this short essay on the value of the Shorter Catechism.

An anecdote told of Dwight L. Moody will illustrate the value to the religious life of having been taught these forms of truth. He was staying with a Scottish friend in London, but suppose we let the narrator tell the story. “A young man had come to speak to Mr. Moody about religious things. He was in difficulty about a number of points, among the rest about prayer and natural laws. ‘What is prayer?,’ he said, ‘I can’t tell what you mean by it!’ They were in the hall of a large London house. Before Moody could answer, a child’s voice was heard singing on the stairs. It was that of a little girl of nine or ten, the daughter of their host. She came running down the stairs and paused as she saw strangers sitting in the hall. ‘Come here, Jenny,’ her father said, ‘and tell this gentleman “What is prayer.” ‘ Jenny did not know what had been going on, but she quite understood that she was now called upon to say her Catechism. So she drew herself up, and folded her hands in front of her, like a good little girl who was going to ‘say her questions,’ and she said in her clear childish voice: “Prayer is an offering up of our desires unto God for things agreeable to his will, in the name of Christ, with confession of our sins and thankful acknowledgment of his mercies.” ‘Ah! That’s the Catechism!’ Moody said, ‘thank God for that Catechism.’ ”

To read the rest, follow the link below

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerMay 30, 2023Westminster Shorter CatechismComment

Warfield on 2 Timothy 3:16: Scripture Is Not "Inspired" But "God-Breathed"

In his essay “The Biblical Idea of Revelation” (1915), Warfield addresses the terminology associated with the divine production of Scripture. His comments here are widely known and have been very influential upon recent Bible translations and discussions of inerrancy.

Warfield addresses the common use of “inspired “and “inspiration.” He writes . . .

The Biblical books are called inspired as the Divinely determined products of inspired men; the Biblical writers are called inspired as breathed into by the Holy Spirit, so that the product of their activities transcends human powers and becomes Divinely authoritative. Inspiration is, therefore, usually defined as a supernatural influence exerted on the sacred writers by the Spirit of God, by virtue of which their writings are given Divine trustworthiness. (BBW, The Inspiration and Authority, 1948 ed., 131; new edition 71)

The term has changed meaning over time:

Meanwhile, for English-speaking men, these terms have virtually ceased to be Biblical terms. They naturally passed from the Latin Vulgate into the English versions made from it (most fully into the Rheims-Douay: Job 32:8; Wisd. 15:11; Ecclus. 4:12; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21). But in the development of the English Bible they have found ever-decreasing place. In the English versions of the Apocrypha (both Authorized Version and Revised Version) “inspired” is retained in Wisd. 15:11; but in the canonical books the nominal form alone occurs in the Authorized Version [i.e., the KJV] and that only twice: Job 32:8, “But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding”; and 2 Tim. 3:16, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." The Revised Version removes the former of these instances, substituting “breath” for “inspiration”; and alters the latter so as to read: “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness,” with a marginal alternative in the form of, “Every scripture is inspired of God and profitable,” etc. The word “inspiration” thus disappears from the English Bible, and the word “inspired” is left in it only once, and then, let it be added, by a distinct and even misleading mistranslation. (BBW, The Inspiration and Authority, 1948 ed., 132; new edition 71)

But “inspiration” is not the proper translation . . .

For the Greek word in this passage—θεόπνευστος, theópneustos—very distinctly does not mean “inspired of God” . . . . The Greek term has, however, nothing to say of inspiring or of inspiration: it speaks only of a “spiring” or “spiration.” What it says of Scripture is, not that it is “breathed into by God” or is the product of the Divine “inbreathing” into its human authors, but that it is breathed out by God, “God-breathed,” the product of the creative breath of God. In a word, what is declared by this fundamental passage is simply that the Scriptures are a Divine product, without any indication of how God has operated in producing them. No term could have been chosen, however, which would have more emphatically asserted the Divine production of Scripture than that which is here employed. (BBW, The Inspiration and Authority, 1948 ed., 132-133; new edition 71-72)

You can find this and other essays here: B. B. Warfield" The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (new edition)

The First Two Volumes of the "Classic B. B. Warfield Collection" Are On Sale!

You can order these from The Westminster Theological Seminary bookstore for 50% off. But hurry, the sale ends soon (May 5)!

The First Two Volumes of the Classic B. B. Warfield Collection

Here’s my endorsement:

“Many of us first encountered B. B. Warfield through the five Warfield volumes published by P&R from 1948 to 1958. My own Warfield volumes are thoroughly highlighted and well worn. I have purchased duplicate volumes over the years to mark up all over again. All but one of the Warfield volumes had fallen out of print, so I was thrilled to learn of the republication of this new and entirely updated version of the five-volume set. I cannot recommend these volumes highly enough or sufficiently thank the folks at P&R for bringing the ‘Warfield set’ back into print. May a new generation of readers discover America’s greatest theologian as I once did.”

Kim Riddlebarger

Visiting Professor of Systematic Theology, Westminster Seminary California; author, The Lion of Princeton: B. B. Warfield as Apologist and Theologian

B. B. Warfield -- "The Christ that Paul Preached"

The excerpt which follows was originally published in The Expositor, 8th ser., v. xv, 1918, pp. 90-110.

It has been republished in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, vol ii, Biblical Doctrines, 235-252

Paul is writing the Address of his Epistle to the Romans, then, with his mind fixed on the divine dignity of Christ. It is this divine Christ who, he must be understood to be telling his readers, constitutes the substance of his Gospel-proclamation. He does not leave us, however, merely to infer this. He openly declares it. The Gospel he preaches, he says, concerns precisely “the Son of God … Jesus Christ our Lord.” He expressly says, then, that he presents Christ in his preaching as “our Lord.” It was the divine Christ that he preached, the Christ that the eye of faith could not distinguish from God, who was addressed in common with God in prayer, and was looked to in common with God as the source of all spiritual blessings. Paul does not speak of Christ here, however, merely as “our Lord.” He gives Him the two designations: “the Son of God … Jesus Christ our Lord.” The second designation obviously is explanatory of the first. Not as if it were the more current or the more intelligible designation. It may, or it may not, have been both the one and the other; but that is not the point here.
The point here is that it is the more intimate, the more appealing designation. It is the designation which tells what Christ is to us. He is our Lord, He to whom we go in prayer, He to whom we look for blessings, He to whom all our religious emotions turn, on whom all our hopes are set—for this life and for that to come. Paul tells the Romans that this is the Christ that he preaches, their and his Lord whom both they and he reverence and worship and love and trust in. This is, of course, what he mainly wishes to say to them; and it is up to this that all else that he says of the Christ that he preaches leads.
The other designation—“the Son of God”—which Paul prefixes to this in his fundamental declaration concerning the Christ that he preached, supplies the basis for this. It does not tell us what Christ is to us, but what Christ is in Himself. In Himself He is the Son of God; and it is only because He is the Son of God in Himself, that He can be and is our Lord. The Lordship of Christ is rooted by Paul, in other words, not in any adventitious circumstances connected with His historical manifestation; not in any powers or dignities conferred on Him or acquired by Him; but fundamentally in His metaphysical nature. The designation “Son of God” is a metaphysical designation and tells us what He is in His being of being. And what it tells us that Christ is in His being of being is that He is just what God is. It is undeniable.

You can read the entire essay here: Warfield -- "The Christ that Paul Preached"

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerApril 19, 2023The Christ Paul PreachedComment

Warfield on Charles Finney's Gospel -- "A Mere System of Morals"

Toward the end of his illustrious career at Princeton Theological Seminary, B. B. Warfield took up his pen (beginning in 1918) in response to the burgeoning movement known as “Christian perfectionism,” and the closely related “higher-life” teaching. Both were then making a significant impact upon American Christianity. Warfield identified both as theological descendants of the ancient heresy of Pelagianism, now injected into the American evangelical bloodstream by one Charles Grandison Finney (1792-1875) and his many followers of the “Oberlin School” and among the higher-life teachers.

What follows are but a few brief citations from Warfield’s volume Perfectionism, (Volume Two) published posthumously in 1932. In a lengthy essay, Warfield dissects Finney’s theological “system,” exposing it for what is is, a “mere system of morals,” which in Warfield’s estimation would function just as well with God as without him.

Warfield writes of Finney’s theological system . . .

This brings us back to the point of view with which we began—that the real reason of the election of the elect is their salvability, that is, under the system of government [according to Finney] established by God as the wisest. God elects those whom He can save, and leaves un-elected those whom He cannot save, consistently with the system of government which He has determined to establish as the wisest and best (170).
The ultimate reason why the entire action of God in salvation is confined by Finney to persuasion lies in his conviction that nothing more is needed—or, indeed, is possible (172).
It speaks volumes meanwhile for the strength of Finney’s conviction that man is quite able to save himself and in point of fact actually does, in every instance of his salvation, save himself, that he maintained it in the face of such broad facts of experience to the contrary. How can man be affirmed to be fully able and altogether competent to an act never performed by any man whatever, except under an action of the Spirit under which he invariably performs it? (178).

To read the rest, follow the link below

Two Essential Works by B. B. Warfield Are Coming In June!

Many of us first encountered B. B. Warfield through the five “Warfield” volumes first published by P & R from 1948-1958. My Warfield volumes are now thoroughly highlighted and well-worn. I have even purchased duplicate volumes over the years to mark up all over again. All but one of the Warfield volumes have now fallen out of print.

I am thrilled to learn of the re-publication of a new and entirely updated version of this five volume set of which the first two volumes should be ready by June 2023. I’ve seen the new editions and they are beautifully done and edited.

I cannot recommend these volumes highly enough nor sufficiently thank the folks at P & R for bringing the “Warfield set” and its content back into print. May a new generation of readers discover America’s greatest theologian as I once did!

To read the rest, follow the link below

B. B. Warfield on "Antichrist"

One of the most thought provoking discussions of “Antichrist” comes from B. B. Warfield. In one of his last essays written for publication before his death in February of 1921, Warfield addressed the matter of the biblical use of the term “Antichrist” as found in John’s epistles. The Lion of Princeton acknowledges that there is a broader use of the term (the so-called theological use, i.e., “the Antichrist”), which he describes as a composite photograph made up of John’s “antichrist” (found in his epistles), Paul’s “man of lawlessness” (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12), and the beast and false prophet from the Book of Revelation (chapter 13). Warfield finds the evidence for such a composite photograph of an Antichrist far from compelling.

In this essay (re-printed in B. B. Warfield, “Antichrist” in Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. 1, ed John E. Meeter (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1980), Warfield addresses John’s use of the term “Antichrist” in his epistles. Warfield asks and answers the question, “to what does John refer when he speaks of Antichrist?”

Warfield begins with an important qualification—the context for John’s warning about this foe.

We read of Antichrist nowhere in the New Testament except in certain passages of the Epistles of John (1 John ii. 18, 22; iv. 3; 2 John 7). What is taught in these passages constitutes the whole New Testament doctrine of Antichrist. It is common it is true, to connect with this doctrine what is said by our Lord of false christs and false prophets; by Paul of the Man of Sin; by the Apocalypse of the Beasts which come up out of the deep and the sea. The warrant for labeling the composite photograph thus obtained with the name of Antichrist is not very apparent . . . .The name of Antichrist occurs in connection with none of them, except that presented in the passages of the Epistles of John already indicated; and both the name and the figure denoted by it, to all appearance, occur there first in extant literature.[1]

To read the rest, follow the link below:

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerFebruary 25, 2023Warfield on Antichrst Comments

"A True and Perfect Sacrifice to God" -- B. B. Warfield on The Death of Jesus

The Biblical doctrine of the sacrifice of Christ finds full recognition in no other construction than that of the established church-doctrine of satisfaction. According to it, our Lord’s redeeming work is at its core a true and perfect sacrifice offered to God, of intrinsic value ample for the expiation of our guilt; and at the same time is a true and perfect righteousness offered to God in fulfillment of the demands of His law; both the one and the other being offered in behalf of His people, and, on being accepted by God, accruing to their benefit; so that by this satisfaction they are relieved at once from the curse of their guilt as breakers of the law, and from the burden of the law as a condition of life; and this by a work of such kind and performed in such a manner, as to carry home to the hearts of men a profound sense of the indefectible righteousness of God and to make to them a perfect revelation of His love; so that, by this one and indivisible work, both God is reconciled to us, and we, under the quickening influence of the Spirit bought for us by it, are reconciled to God, so making peace—external peace between an angry God and sinful men, and internal peace in the response of the human conscience to the restored smile of God. This doctrine, which has been incorporated in more or less fullness of statement in the creedal declarations of all the great branches of the Church, Greek, Latin, Lutheran, and Reformed, and which has been expounded with more or less insight and power by the leading doctors of the churches for the last eight hundred years, was first given scientific statement by Anselm (q.v.) in his “Cur Deus homo” (1098); but reached its complete development only at the hands of the so-called Protestant Scholastics of the seventeenth century (cf. e.g. Turretin, “The Atonement of Christ,” E.T. by J. R. Willson, New York, 1859; John Owen, “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ” (1648), Edinburgh, 1845).

Benjamin B. Warfield, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Studies in Theology, vol. 9 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 278.

B. B. Warfield, Biblical TheologyKim RiddlebargerJanuary 14, 2023Warfield on AtonementComment

Warfield on the "Victorious Life"

A conference entitled “Victory in Christ” was held in Princeton, NJ, in 1916. This was very near the den of the “Lion of Princeton,” one Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield. The Lion was not amused to have a cadre of “higher life” teachers trespass on his home turf. In his essay, “The Victorious Life,” Warfield sets his sights on one Charles Trumbull, a well known higher-life proponent and the editor of the Sunday School Times. You can find this essay in its entirely here (Warfield, "The Victorious Life"), or in Studies in Perfectionism (P & R).

A couple of quotations should suffice to understand the reason for Warfield’s ire with Mr. Trumbull—A badly distorted view of the Christian life gleaned from John Wesley, in which justification and sanctification are grounded in two distinct acts of faith.

To read Warfield’s comments, follow the link below:

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerDecember 12, 2022The Victorious Life, High Life TeacherComment

B. B. Warfield on the Inspiration of the Bible -- "Here We Find a Christ to Love, Trust, and Follow"

This is the concluding section from Warfield’s 1894 essay, “The Inspiration of the Bible” originally published in Bibliotheca Sacra. It was republished in the Warfield anthology The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (P & R), 105-128.

Let it suffice to say that to a plenarily inspired Bible, humbly trusted as such, we actually, and as a matter of fact, owe all that has blessed our lives with hopes of an immortality of bliss, and with the present fruition of the love of God in Christ. This is not an exaggeration. We may say that without a Bible we might have had Christ and all that he stands for to our souls. Let us not say that this might not have been possible. But neither let us forget that, in point of fact, it is to the Bible that we owe it that we know Christ and are found in him. And may it not be fairly doubted whether you and I, - however it may have been with others, - would have had Christ had there been no Bible? We must not at any rate forget those nineteen Christian centuries which stretch between us and Christ, whose Christian light we would do much to blot out and sink in a dreadful darkness if we could blot out the Bible. Even with the Bible, and all that had come from the Bible to form Christian lives and inform a Christian literature, after a millennium and a half the darkness had grown so deep that a Reformation was necessary if Christian truth was to persist, - a Luther was necessary, raised up by God to rediscover the Bible and give it back to man. Suppose there had been no Bible for Luther to rediscover, and on the lines of which to refound the church, - and no Bible in the hearts of God's saints and in the pages of Christian literature, persisting through those darker ages to prepare a Luther to rediscover it? Though Christ had come into the world and had lived and died for us, might it not be to us, - you and me, I mean, who are not learned historians but simple men and women, - might it not be to us as though he had not been? Or, if some faint echo of a Son of God offering salvation to men could still be faintly heard even by such dull ears as ours, sounding down the ages, who would have ears to catch the fulness of the message of free grace which he brought into the world? who could assure our doubting souls that it was not all a pleasant dream? who could cleanse the message from the ever-gathering corruptions of the multiplying years? No: whatever might possibly have been had there been no Bible, it is actually to the Bible that you and I owe it that we have a Christ, - a Christ to love, to trust and to follow, a Christ without us the ground of our salvation, a Christ within us the hope of glory.

To read the rest of the concluding section of Warfield’s essay, follow the link below

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerNovember 5, 2022The inspiration of the BibleComment

Warfield's Inaugural Address on Inspiration and Criticism

Here are a few excerpts from Warfield’s Inaugural Address upon induction as Chair of New Testament Literature and Exegesis at Western [Pittsburgh] Theological Seminary, given on April 20, 1880. This was Warfield’s opening salvo in a career largely dedicated to defending the inspiration and authority of Scripture against all comers—especially critical scholarship.

We risk nothing in declaring that modern biblical criticism has not disproved the authenticity of a single book of our New Testament. It is a most assured result of biblical criticism that every one of the twenty-seven books which now constitute our New Testament is assuredly genuine and authentic.

Warfield notes that critical scholars have a bad habit of eating their intellectual predecessors (metaphorically, of course).

To read the rest, follow the link below

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerOctober 20, 2022Inspiration and criticismComment