The Riddleblog

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

Warfield on Paedobaptism

From Warfield’s essay, “Christian Baptism” (Presbyterian Board of Publication 1920), reprinted in Selected Shorter Writings, Vol. 1, (325-331)

Naturally, therefore, this sign and seal belongs only to those who are the Lord's. Or, to put it rather in the positive form, this sign and seal belongs to all those who are the Lord's. There are no distinctions of race or station, sex or age; there is but one prerequisite -- that we are the Lord's. What it means is just this and nothing else: that we are the Lord's. What it pledges is just this and nothing else: that the Lord will keep us as his own. We need not raise the question, then, whether infants are to be baptized. Of course they are, if infants, too, may be the Lord's. Naturally, as with adults, it is only the infants who are the Lord's who are to be baptized; but equally naturally as with adults, all infants that are the Lord's are to be baptized. Being the Lord's they have a right to the sign that they are the Lord's and to the pledge of the Lord's holy keeping. Circumcision, which held the place in the old covenant that baptism holds in the new, was to be given to all infants born within the covenant. Baptism must follow the same rule. This and this only can determine its conference: Is the recipient a child of the covenant, with a right therefore to the sign and seal of the covenant? We cannot withhold the sign and seal of the covenant from those who are of the covenant.

To read this excerpt in its entirety, follow the link below

B. B. Warfield, Biblical Theology, Reformed ResourcesKim RiddlebargerSeptember 24, 2022Warfield on infant baptismComment

Warfield on "Christianity and Our Times"

In 1914, B. B. Warfield was invited to contribute an essay to the volume The Church, the People, and the Age, edited by Scott and Gilmore. There were 105 contributors, each of whom was asked to answer the following questions. 1). Why are so many people indifferent to the claims of Christianity? and 2). Would it be a step forward for the church (and presumably Christianity in general) if the only requirement for church membership was the desire to love God and our neighbor (which, ironically, was a suggestion from Abraham Lincoln fifty years prior). The contributors included Charles Augustus Briggs (who, at the time, was busy undermining the authority of Scripture), as well as German theologian and sycophant to Kaiser Wilhelm throughout the Great War, Adolf von Harnack. Scottish theologian James Orr also contributed a chapter.

The volume was compiled on the eve of the First World War which plunged all of Europe into chaos as “Christian” nations waged brutal war upon each other in the name of preserving Christian civilization. There was obviously a foreboding sense that Christian civilization was on the edge and the editors were seeking a format to discuss and offer solutions.

I’ve not seen the original volume, but my guess is that Warfield’s chapter suggests much different answers to both questions than the majority of contributors. As for the reason why people are indifferent to Christianity, Warfield points what should be obvious to anyone who has read the New Testament. Christianity is for sinners who know they need a Savior. People who sees themselves as capable of loving God and neighbor on their own will remain indifferent to Christ and his gospel.

To read the rest, follow the link below

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerAugust 23, 2022Christianity and Our TimesComment

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

B. B. Warfield is always worth reading. This essay, published in The Expositor in 1918, is a great example of Warfield’s erudition and his passion for the gospel.

Warfield writes,

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.

To read additional excerpts from this essay, follow the link below

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerAugust 6, 2022The Christ that Paul PreachedComment

"Straight from the Laboratory of John Wesley" -- B. B. Warfield Reviews Lewis Sperry Chafer's "He That Is Spiritual" (Part Three)

Part Three

Part One of Three

Part Two of Three

Warfield takes Chafer to task for mishandling the biblical text both in translation and in the original language. If you’ve read any of the Warfield essays, you know that Warfield was a master lexicographer. His patience with Chafer is obviously running thin at this point in his review.

It is a temptation to a virtuoso in the interpretation of Scripture to show his mettle on hard places and in startling results. Mr. Chafer has not been superior to this temptation. Take but one example. “All Christian love,” he tells us (p. 40) “according to the Scriptures, is distinctly a manifestation of divine love through the human heart”—a quite unjustified assertion. But Mr. Chafer is ready with an illustration. “A statement of this is found,” he declares, “at Rom. 5:5, ‘because the love of God is shed abroad (lit., gushes forth) in our hearts by (produced, or caused by) the Holy Spirit, which is given unto us.’” Then he comments as follows: “This is not the working of the human affection; it is rather the direct manifestation of the ‘love of God’ passing through the heart of the believer out from the indwelling Spirit. It is the realization of the last petition of the High Priestly prayer of our Lord: ‘That the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them’ (John 17:26). It is simply God’s love working in and through the believer. It could not be humanly produced, or even imitated, and it of necessity goes out to the objects of divine affection and grace, rather than to the objects of human desire. A human heart cannot produce divine love, but it can experience it. To have a heart that feels the compassion of God is to drink of the wine of heaven.”

To read the rest of this “review” follow the link below

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerJuly 5, 2022Chafer on sanctificationComment

"Straight from the Laboratory of John Wesley" -- B. B. Warfield Reviews Lewis Sperry Chafer's "He That Is Spiritual" (Part Two)

Part Two of Three

Having introduced Chafer’s book, He That Is Spiritual, and exposed the glaring theological contradiction championed by its author, Warfield turns his attention to Chafer’s use of several biblical passages marshaled in support of his notion of a bifurcated Christian life—a lower or “carnal” level and a higher or “spiritual” level of Christian experience.

Mr. Chafer opens his book with an exposition of the closing verses of the second and the opening verses of the third chapters of 1 Corinthians. Here he finds three classes of men contrasted, the “natural” or unregenerated man, and the “carnal” and “spiritual” men, both of whom are regenerated, but the latter of whom lives on a higher plane. “There are two great spiritual changes which are possible to human experience,” he writes (p. 8),—“the change from the ‘natural’ man to the saved man and the change from the ‘carnal’ man to the ‘spiritual’ man. The former is divinely accomplished when there is a real faith in Christ; the latter is accomplished when there is a real adjustment to the Spirit. The ‘spiritual’ man is the divine ideal in life and ministry, in power with God and man, in unbroken fellowship and blessing.”

Upon close inspection, Warfield realizes that Chafer’s system includes three levels of human experience, not two. The biblical data, supposedly, reveals potential movement in several self-determined stages; first from an unregenerate state (the natural man), to a second entry-level rung on the Christian ladder. This is the so-called “carnal Christian” who, after becoming a Christian, remains content not to advance up the ladder and achieve victory over sin despite the availability of sufficient divine power to do so. Any Christian who truly desires to move up to the higher level of Christian experience can do so by making an “adjustment to the Spirit.” Upon reaching this higher level, the so-called “spiritual man,” can live in unbroken fellowship with God and blessing from others. Chafer identifies this as “the divine ideal (i.e., God’s will).

To read the rest, follow the link below

B. B. Warfield, Biblical TheologyKim RiddlebargerJune 30, 2022Chafer on the higher lifeComment

"Straight from the Laboratory of John Wesley" -- B. B. Warfield Reviews Lewis Sperry Chafer's "He That Is Spiritual" (Part One)

B. B. Warfield held the chair of Polemical and Didactic Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary from the Fall of 1887 until his death in 1921. His job title sounds a bit stodgy perhaps, but there was nothing stodgy about Warfield or the duties associated with the prestigious chair which he held. Simply put, it was Warfield’s task to defend the Reformed and Presbyterian faith from any and all challenges. For most of his career, Warfield devoted his time and energy to combating the new German critical scholarship then making its way into the American theological bloodstream. The famous Briggs case comes to mind, along with the numerous essays reprinted in Inspiration and Authority (P & R), and Christology and Criticism and Studies in Theology (from the ten volume Oxford edition of his collected works). But German critical scholarship was not the only theological threat to catch Warfield’s attention.

Warfield spent the last few years of his life addressing the errors of one Charles Grandison Finney, along with critiquing various “Higher Life” movements as the volume of Warfield’s collected essays on these matters, “Studies in Perfectionism” (P & R) attests. Warfield also turned his critical gaze upon a number of evangelical luminaries including Andrew Murray and R. A. Torrey (the founder of the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, now Biola University). But the man singled out for Warfield’s most biting critical review was Lewis Sperry Chafer.

To read the rest of this “Review” follow the link below.

Gems from Warfield's Essay, "Christless Christianity"

Warfield’s essay, “Christless Christianity” was originally written for the Harvard Theological Review in 1912. It is a decimating critique of that cycle of liberal theology which sought to respond to Arthur Drew’s 1909 book, “The Christ Myth.” Drew’s book was widely identified as anti-Christian propaganda, even by liberals. But liberal theologians who sought to respond to Drew, particularly German liberals, conjured up a form of Christianity which was no longer dependent upon a historical Jesus. Warfield will have none of it. In many ways Warfield’s essay argues the same points Machen does in his Christianity and Liberalism, written in 1923. Warfield argues that whatever it was that German liberals were exporting into American seminaries and churches it was not Christianity, but an altogether different religion with a completely different Jesus. The liberal’s collective response to Drew’s attack was a not a defense of Christianity but a capitulation to unbelief.

To read the rest, follow the link below

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerMay 23, 2022Christless Christianity, Protestant LiberalismComment

Warfield on "Faith" -- A Corrective to Edwardsianism (Faith as Affectional)

The Following quotations come from B. B. Warfield’s magisterial essay “Faith” originally written for the Hastings Dictionary of the Bible (1905). This article was reprinted in volume 2 of The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, “Biblical Doctrines” (467-508). Warfield’s essay can be found here in its entirety: The Biblical Doctrine of Faith. Well worth a read.

I’ve taken a number of citations from Warfield’s essay and included the page numbers from the Biblical Doctrines volume.

The saving power of faith resides thus not in itself, but in the Almighty Saviour on whom it rests. It is never on account of its formal nature as a psychic act that faith is conceived in Scripture to be saving,—as if this frame of mind or attitude of heart were itself a virtue with claims on God for reward, or at least especially pleasing to Him (either in its nature or as an act of obedience) and thus predisposing Him to favour, or as if it brought the soul into an attitude of receptivity or of sympathy with God, or opened a channel of communication from Him. It is not faith that saves, but faith in Jesus Christ: faith in any other saviour, or in this or that philosophy or human conceit (Col. 2:16, 18, 1 Tim. 4:1), or in any other gospel than that of Jesus Christ and Him as crucified (Gal. 1:8, 9), brings not salvation but a curse. It is not, strictly speaking, even faith in Christ that saves, but Christ that saves through faith. The saving power resides exclusively, not in the act of faith or the attitude of faith or the nature of faith, but in the object of faith; and in this the whole biblical representation centres, so that we could not more radically misconceive it than by transferring to faith even the smallest fraction of that saving energy which is attributed in the Scriptures solely to Christ Himself. (504)

So little indeed is faith conceived as containing in itself the energy or ground of salvation, that it is consistently represented as, in its origin, itself a gratuity from God in the prosecution of His saving work. It comes, not of one’s own strength or virtue, but only to those who are chosen of God for its reception (2 Thess. 2:13), and hence is His gift (Eph. 6:23, cf. 2:8, 9, Phil. 1:29), through Christ (Acts 3:16, Phil. 1:29, 1 Pet. 1:21, cf. Heb. 12:2), by the Spirit (2 Cor. 4:13, Gal. 5:5), by means of the preached word (Rom. 10:17, Gal. 3:2, 5); and as it is thus obtained from God (2 Pet. 1:1, Jude 3, 1 Pet. 1:21), thanks are to be returned to God for it (Col. 1:4, 2 Thess. 1:3). Thus, even here all boasting is excluded, and salvation is conceived in all its elements as the pure product of unalloyed grace, issuing not from, but in, good works (Eph. 2:8–12). The place of faith in the process of salvation, as biblically conceived, could scarcely, therefore, be better described than by the use of the scholastic term ‘instrumental cause.’ Not in one portion of the Scriptures alone, but throughout their whole extent, it is conceived as a boon from above which comes to men, no doubt through the channels of their own activities, but not as if it were an effect of their energies, but rather, as it has been finely phrased, as a gift which God lays in the lap of the soul. (505)
To read the rest of the citations from the Warfield essay, follow the link below

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerMay 7, 2022The Biblical Doctrine of FaithComment

"A Vice Very Common with Books of This Class" -- B. B. Warfield's "Review" of Andrew Murray's "Spirit of Christ"

As readers of this blog are no doubt aware (because I keep reminding you), B. B. Warfield (1851-1921) is widely hailed as one of America's greatest theologians. His books have remained in near-continuous publication since his death in February, 1921. Although dead for over a century, Warfield remains a theological force with whom to be reckoned.

As professor of polemical and didactic theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, Warfield published 781 book reviews over his long and exceedingly productive career. Some of Warfield's reviews are published in his collected works, while many are not. I thought it might be of interest to bring some of these currently unpublished "Reviews" to light. The first review discussed was "Children in the Hands of the Arminians". The second was Warfield's review of C. F. W. Walther's book, Gesetz und Evangelium (Law and Gospel), Warfields Review of C. F. W. Walthers' "Law and Gospel". For this installment, I have chosen Warfield's "Review" of Rev. Andrew Murray's book, "The Spirit of Christ," published in 1888, and which Warfield reviewed the following year. This influential book still remains in print (The Spirit of Christ) and is available from Whitaker House, a charismatic/Pentecostal publisher.

A brief word about Andrew Murray is in order. Rev. Murray (1828-1917) was a Dutch Reformed minister who labored in South Africa. Murray had a life-long passion for missions and was a champion of the South African Revival of 1860. Murray was devoted to the so-called "Keswick" theology which stressed the "inner" or "higher life." He also endorsed faith healing and believed in the continuation of the apostolic gifts. He was a significant forerunner of the Pentecostal movement--a remarkable accomplishment for any Dutch Reformed minister (I am being facetious, of course).

Murray was a prolific author, cranking out more than fifty books and hundreds of pamphlets. We sold cases of them in our bookstore (when I was growing up) and for which I have long since repented. So when I first ran across BBW's "Review" of Murray's book, I was very interested in what Warfield would have to say. Needless to say, the Lion of Princeton was not terribly impressed with Andrew Murray.

To read Warfield’s “Review” follow the link below

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerApril 30, 2022Review of Andrew Murray Comment

Speaking of Warfield . . . His Outstanding Essay, "The Emotional Life of Our Lord," Is Now Available as a Booklet, or a Kindle or E-Pub Download

This wonderful essay is now available as a booklet, or as a Kindle or E-Pub download: You can find it here: Warfield's "Emotional Life of Our Lord"

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerMarch 28, 2022On the Emotional Life of Our LordComment

The Calvinistically Warped Mind -- Warfield's "Review" of Methodist Theologian John Miley's Systematic Theology.

As the two volumes of John Miley’s Systematic Theology were published in 1892-1894, B. B. Warfield reviewed each volume upon release. Miley was a noted Methodist theologian who taught at Drew Theological Seminary in Madison, New Jersey, not far from Princeton, where the Lion of Princeton (B. B. Warfield) held the chair of “polemical and didactic theology.” It was Warfield’s task to pounce upon any and all challenges to Reformed orthodoxy.

Miley, who some have called the “Methodist Charles Hodge” (because he wrote a similar theology text two decades after Hodge completed his), was a capable theological in the Methodist/Arminian tradition. Miley stated in his Systematic Theology that his efforts were, in part, to be seen as a Methodist corrective to the recently published Calvinist theologies of both Charles Hodge and his son, Archibald Alexander Hodge.

Warfield appears eager to see these volumes come into print as Miley was a capable sparring partner, whose work, Warfield was sure, would illustrate the profound difference between the two systems. Warfield playfully (if not sarcastically) speaks of his objection as the consequence of our “Calvinistically warped mind.”

The excerpts below (quotes from Warfield’s “Review” of Miley’s work and my interaction with both Warfield and Miley) are taken from my Lion of Princeton (2015) and edited for publication here.

Warfield appreciates Miley’s clarity and consistency regarding the Methodist/Arminian system.

The material is handled in a masterly manner, and the volume as a whole sets forth the Arminian scheme of salvation in as powerful and logical a form as that scheme admits of. For Dr. Miley presents himself here as above all things an Arminian, and as above most Arminians ready to follow his Arminianism to its logical conclusions. Here, indeed, we find the highest significance of the book. It is the Arminian `Yea’ to the Calvinistic declaration of what Arminianism is in its essential nature, where its center of gravity lies, and what it means with reference to that complex of doctrines which constitute the sum of evangelical truth.

To read the rest, follow the link below

B. B. WarfieldKim RiddlebargerMarch 26, 2022Warfield reviews John MileyComment

"Law and Gospel" -- B. B. Warfield's "Review" of C. F. W. Walther's Book

B. B. Warfield (1851-1921) was professor of polemical and didactic theology at Princeton Theological Seminary. The Lion of Princeton published 781 book reviews over his long and exceedingly productive career. Simply an astonishing accomplishment.

Warfield's review of the German born Lutheran theologian, C. F. W. Walther's book, Gesetz und Evangelium (Law and Gospel) appeared in1894. The book was first published by Concordia in 1893, and Warfield gave it a brief review the following year. Walther's book remains in print and can be found here: C. F. W. Walther on Law and Gospel

Warfield describes the format behind Walther's book, noting that Walther had given a series of lectures on Friday evenings to theological students. These lectures were then transcribed into thirty-nine chapters, corresponding to Walther's lectures with each centering around a particular thesis, then discussed in detail. Warfield clearly appreciates the content produced in “freer” interaction with such a "live" audience.

Besides his academic lectures, Dr. Walther was, it seems, accustomed to give to the whole body of students, assembled usually on a Friday evening, series of freer talks on theological and practical topics. Among these was a course of twenty-two talks on “Inspiration;” one of twenty-two talks on “The Truth of the Christian Religion;” one of forty-nine talks on “Justification;” one of sixty-two talks on “Election and Justification;” and (among still others) two courses, one of ten and the other of thirty-nine talks, on “The Law and the Gospel.” The Introduction to each talk, the citations used in it, and the plan of treatment, exist in Dr. Walther’s own hand; for the rest full stenographic notes of his students are available. From this material, it is proposed to publish the whole of them in due time; and the present book, which contains the shorter course on “The Law and the Gospel,” makes the beginning.

To read the rest, follow the link below