This program is a production of the Reformed Forum, an organization devoted to producing and distributing Reformed theological content for a connected age. Online at reformedforum.org. This is Christ the Center, episode number 139. Today we speak with Fred Zaspel about the theology of B.B. Warfield. Welcome to Christ the Center, Doctrine for Life, your weekly conversation of Reformed theology. This is episode number 139. My name is Camden Busey. I’m very pleased to welcome back to the program here our panelist, Jim Cassidy, who is pastor at Calvary Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Ringoes, New Jersey. Welcome to the program, Jim. It’s great to have you.
It’s good to be back, Camden. Good to be back.
We also are very pleased to welcome Fred Zaspel, who has written a new book on B.B. Warfield. And Fred is a pastor at a Reformed Baptist church here in Pennsylvania. Welcome to the program, Fred. Thanks for joining us.
Thank you. Thank you. Good to be with you.
We, as I mentioned, have a very interesting discussion lined up today to discuss a new book that Pastor Fred Zaspel has written. It’s coming out with Crossway here at the end of the month. It is titled, The Theology of B.B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary. And this is much anticipated. It’s a large tome, about 600 and some pages, and it’s going to prove to be a very useful tool for all Reformed people, especially those interested in the theology of B.B. Warfield, which has become more and more important as the years go on. Jim, I’d like to start things off with you and kick it over to you because you’re out in the Princeton area, of course, the old stomping grounds of B.B. Warfield, and you’ve done some research in some of this area, and you’ve set this interview up today. So I’d like for you to kick off our discussion on B.B. Warfield.
Fantastic. Well, thank you, Camden. Fred, we’re thrilled to have you here on the program. And I just wanted to start things off by asking you: could you give us a little bit of background information that kind of led up to the book? Could you tell us a little bit about what sparked your interest in B.B. Warfield, what really drove you to sit down and do a lot of writing and a lot of research on perhaps Princeton’s greatest theologian?
Background and Interest in Warfield
Yeah, actually my interest in Warfield began in my undergraduate school days back in the late 70s. I was working at a Christian bookstore in the town, and I first laid eyes on B.B. Warfield—the shorter writings, his book of sermons Faith and Life, Plan of Salvation, The Lord of Glory, those kind of things, and also the P&R books that were out. And I just loved them immediately. I was struck with the fact that, here’s a guy who gets it. He doesn’t just know this particular doctrine here and there, but he seems to see the big picture very well. And his depth and breadth of scholarship impressed me.
But also, the more I read him, I got such an appreciation for his passion; his heart for the gospel’s love for Christ was so evident. And then his understanding of Christianity as a redemptive religion—a phrase he likes to use a lot in his writings, he repeats it over and over: “Christianity as a redemptive religion.” He sees Christianity at its very essence and core as a redemptive religion, a religion that is for sinners, and he works that out. It seems like wherever he is in his theological work, that’s never far away. And all of that got me just a big fan of Warfield. And so over the years, I read more and more of him. And along the line somewhere, somebody gave me my ten-volume set of Warfield, and I read more. And about ten years ago or something, nine years ago I think, I was probably talking with a friend in ministry and somehow we came up with the idea: you know, it’d be good to bring Warfield back into today’s theological discussion. And so that’s what gave birth to all of this.
Now there are several works out there. You can of course get the collected set of B.B. Warfield’s works. You can also get the two-volume set of the Selected Shorter Writings. And also there has been a recent book, which has been edited by Gary Johnson, which has a collection of various articles. Where do you see this new book fitting in the landscape of B.B. Warfield’s scholarship? And why do you think there’s such a resurgence of interest in the last decade or two?
Well, this is unique in that it provides sort of, if you will, a condensed Warfield. What I’ve tried to do is pull from everything that Warfield wrote. I spent a long time trying to make sure I’ve read every word that Warfield published. And it’s 15, maybe 20,000 pages. I also tried to read everything that anyone has ever said about Warfield, trying to determine their understanding of him and whatnot. And so, trying to cull from all of that and bring into a condensed version: “Alright, what is the systematic theology that Warfield would have produced?” And this was to try to crawl inside his head and not only lay out the conclusions, but how you arrive at those conclusions and why. And so, pulling from all of the scattered writings that he did produced the systematic theology that everybody, since he died, has wished that he had produced.
That’s… oh, sorry, I didn’t mean to cut you off. Go ahead.
Oh, I thought it was our second question.
Well, I was asking why there’s been really such a resurgence. We’ve seen with doctrine and Scripture issues Warfield’s name popping up quite a bit more recently. Also, very recently, you mentioned in your Themelios article the comments made by Bruce Waltke regarding theistic evolution, and Warfield’s name always pops up there. We can perhaps reserve the discussion on Warfield’s views on evolution for a little bit later, but I wanted to ask you why Warfield seems timely now in the last few years.
Well, I guess partly because of the resurgence of the doctrines of grace and Calvinism in general, and a resurgence among us of just an interest in Reformed theology. And if ever there were a good spokesman for that, it’s Warfield. I was interested in that. Although Warfield is such a giant and although he’s so immensely appreciated—he has still, a hundred years later, such a commanding authority—Warfield is not, I’m convinced of this, Warfield is not widely read. What I mean is that he’s read selectively. Everybody knows about his doctrine of inspiration, so they’ve got a couple of articles on that, and they’ve heard this or that about him, and they’ve read an article here, an article there. But I’m convinced that while there’s a lot of referencing of Warfield, there’s not a lot of reading on a wide scale of all that Warfield published and even of all that’s available today.
But because he is so revered, there is an increasing amount of that, and people are getting back into it. And with that, there’s a growing appreciation of this guy that a hundred years ago, I think even then, it was recognized that there was just nobody doing theology like he was. It was the heyday of liberalism, and there were other people joining the fight, like Spurgeon and Horatius Bonar and James Orr and J.C. Ryle and whatnot. But there was not another Warfield who could stand up and meet liberalism at every point, as he did, and not only answer their criticisms at every point—whether it’s Old Testament, New Testament, theology, hermeneutics, whatever—but to view it from this understanding of Christianity as a redemptive religion, and show how these various arguments were really for the heart and soul of Christianity. And within that, he, as someone who said, propelled orthodoxy into the twentieth century—not only orthodoxy, but particularly Reformed orthodoxy into the twentieth century.
And I think that’s probably where the value of this book is going to really be. It’s difficult to get into Warfield when you’re faced with reading his entire works. And so often people resort to reading selections, as you say. But having a work such as yours, which will be out again by Crossway at the end of the month, can help people synthesize or see Warfield for his entire system. It’d be very useful. I look forward to that.
That was the goal.
Well, I think you hit right on a pressing need, so this is a very timely book.
Yeah, absolutely. Would you be able then, Fred, to outline for us—perhaps giving our listeners a little foretaste of, and you’ve touched on it a little bit already—but how the book is laid out? Give us a little sketch of the book to whet our appetite.
A Sketch of the Book
Okay, yeah, it’s really very simple. If you’re familiar with books on systematic theology, that’s what this is. The difference is, I have a historical introduction, the chapter, giving not only Warfield biographical information, but the historical setting, dealing with the times in which he ministered and the character of liberalism that he was attacking. And then at the end of the book, I add another chapter with something of an evaluation. How did he do what he did, why did he do it, what was his understanding of things, and how successful was he, and things like that. But all in between, it’s basically your book on systematic theology. I start with apologetics, because that’s where he started, and then I move to prolegomena, and on through doctrine of God, doctrine of scriptures, and so on.
Interesting. Out here, us being at Westminster Theological Seminary, obviously we’ve heard a lot about Warfield and Kuyper and how Van Til saw both of them and kind of provided a bridge. What would you say was Warfield’s unique contribution to the world of apologetics, and why should he be read on that subject?
Well, it’s interesting. I’m not an authority at all on Van Til or Kuyper. Of course, Warfield did have some disagreements with Kuyper. He highly esteemed Kuyper; they were very good friends, and I think Warfield learned Dutch just so he could read it. I think that’s true, actually. But as highly esteemed as they were, and as good friends as they were, they had careful correspondence with a very cordial tone and all that, he still took sharp issue with the place assigned to apologetics. He said it was basically a nothing role, apologetics, as far as he was concerned.
And again, I don’t know Van Til, and Warfield was not Van Til, but I can say that Van Til got Warfield wrong. Van Til criticized Warfield for arguing that we could meet man—natural man, unregenerate man—on a common ground of right reason, and that’s not what Warfield taught at all. Warfield did not assign right reason, the ability of right reason, to unregenerate man. He makes a big point of that in many points of his writings over and over again, and I don’t know how Van Til could have said that about him except that he didn’t read him. But Warfield makes a great point to say that the natural mind is capable of right reason, but what right do we have to say that man, apart from Christ, has a normal mind? He doesn’t. And he makes a great point over the noetic effects of sin and so on.
And Warfield is represented today very often, at least what I’ve seen, as a bit naive, thinking that he could by evidence convert people. Warfield never believed that for a moment, and he makes—he stresses that point over and again in his writings. But he did assign a prominent role to evidence. It was not to convert; he knew that only the Spirit of God can do that. But he did, and I think part of it is his close eye to the New Testament; he couldn’t get away from the fact that Paul and Peter were so quick to use evidence, and so he did that. I think maybe some of that has made him misunderstood.
Also, what’s different about Warfield in apologetics is he’s not simply viewing the unregenerate man. He’s viewing the theological enterprise itself, whether there’s anyone to oppose or not. And so we have to establish the Christian faith. So we do that by looking at our Bibles and this and that and the other. But how can we have a Bible, he says, until we’ve had revelation? And how can we have revelation until we have God? And so he begins with the existence of God. He begins with intuitive awareness that God exists, and building from there, he establishes the foundations of theology, as it were. That’s the role of apologetics for him. What’s interesting, I think what’s unique about him, is that he is not viewing apologetics simply as a defensive task. It is a constructive task, constructing theology from its roots up, whether or not there’s anyone to oppose.
Maybe this would be a good time then for us to jump in, speaking of apologetics. Much has been made about Warfield’s view of evolution. There is of course this famous quote that is bandied about, that when he entered, I believe, the university there in Princeton, he was a, you know, “swallowed evolution hook, line, and sinker.” And so I’m just wondering, what have you discovered about, particularly in view of your fine article in Themelios, tell us: what have you found about Warfield? Did his views change? And if so, what was his view at the end of his life, and how are we to evaluate the way in which he interacted on an apologetic and theological level with the doctrine of evolution?
Warfield and Evolution
Yeah, he had a fascination with evolution since he was a child. He read lots of science. In fact, Warfield aimed to go into a scientific career when he went to Princeton College. That was his aim in that. In fact, he went to Europe to study when he graduated from Princeton, and he was still pursuing a scientific career at that point. He learned his interest in that, I think, there on the ranch with his father; they were cattle breeders. He learned much about breeding and much about how things go. And so that was his interest.
And so he says he arrived at Princeton the same time as James McCosh, president of the university, arrived. And McCosh, of course, was the one who promoted theistic evolution. He was a Presbyterian minister and preached and argued that we could accommodate evolution, and he was confident that we could. And Warfield makes the remark that when he arrived there himself, he was already an evolutionist of the purest water. That quote has been taken and used in a way that really is not representative of the way Warfield himself used it. In the same article where Warfield makes that statement that he was already an evolutionist of the purest water, he’s writing at the age of sixty-something, and he’s reminiscing back to his early days at, not the seminary, but the college. And he said he was an evolutionist at that point. In that same article, he claims to have rejected evolution by the time he was 30. And so, to hold that up and then to color his whole career with it is just not taking into consideration the facts. It’s either—well, it’s either dishonest, or it’s just not taking into consideration the whole picture, not being aware of it.
So he rejected it by the age of thirty. The question is: how did he reject it? My own guess is that he was influenced by Hodge. I was looking at Warfield’s personal copy of Hodge’s What is Darwinism?. And Hodge’s criticism was that Darwinism was basically atheistic and that it basically was anti-supernaturalistic; it was a naturalism through and through. And Warfield—I’m assuming it’s Warfield—but there are pencil markings in the book, and Warfield’s copy really highlights those points. And I think that Warfield was influenced by Hodge in that way.
But anyway, he says that he had rejected it by the time he was thirty. Now, throughout his career, he maintained a deep interest in the subject, and he clearly was deeply and widely read in all of the various versions of evolution, Darwinism and whatnot, and he knew the differences in the scientists and why they had said this rather than that, the variations of evolutionary teaching. He knew them very well. And at various times, he would review them favorably or not. He never did come around to saying, “Yeah, this is right.” What he said was Christianity could accommodate evolution if it were proven true. And it’s a big point to say it has not been proven true; it would be naive to think that it has. And he even criticizes McCosh in that regard, that McCosh was just way over-enthusiastic. He let his enthusiasm run in front of his judgment, he said. It has not been proven true, and so he says: if it were proven true, Christianity could accommodate it. “For my own part, I don’t see it as proven true.” And he says, “I see some problems with it,” such as the origin of the human soul, the incarnation, accounting for the afterlife, and things like that. The creation of Eve was a big one as well, so there are several hurdles to it. And he saw them as standing in the way, and because of all that, he continued to reject it.
At various times, though, in his reviewing of evolutionary works, because of his seeming openness to it, he would say this is a good argument, and that is not. And many people have latched onto these various positive statements and said, “As you can see, he was an evolutionist.” Now, the most difficult one is in 1916, I think it was—1915 or 16—he wrote the article on Calvin’s doctrine of creation, and he concludes by arguing that Calvin had a doctrine of creation that was evolutionary. Now, years later, John Murray wrote against that in the Westminster Journal, and I think he was right in disproving Warfield. Nobody really has ever caught on to Warfield’s argument in that. The question is not whether or not he was right or wrong; the question is: why would he say that? And it seems as though it’s indicating a positive feeling on his part toward evolution. And that, I think, is the strongest argument to say that Warfield was an evolutionist. But the problem with it is, still later, Warfield is writing reviews of works regarding evolution, and he’s still very critical of it and says he doesn’t believe it. After that, he claims that he’s dropped it. He dropped it by the time he was 30. He indicates that he still had not come to believe in evolution. So, he holds a theoretical openness to it. “If it were proven true, we could accommodate it. But for my part, I don’t take it.” That, in a nutshell, is where he was.
That’s quite interesting, and obviously that brings up certain connections to Warfield’s understanding of—well, Warfield’s doctrine of God and the doctrine of Scripture. Let’s go down that road and ask: how would Warfield’s interaction here, maybe using this as a foil or as an example, how did Warfield’s doctrine of God and doctrine of Scripture control or impact how he thought about things such as theory of evolution and other things that you might experience in the world, even in natural sciences?
Well, I think, in short, his doctrine of God and his doctrine of Scripture kept him from believing in evolution. The question then is: how is it he was even theoretically open to it, if it were proven true? And that’s difficult. But it was his biblical problems, biblical issues, that kept him from believing it. His major criticism of evolution was its naturalism. It did not allow enough of God. And here we are in a world that is enlightened now, and the primary mark of this enlightened world is that we realize how things work, and we understand more of the mechanics of the universe. Frankly, we don’t need God as much as we used to. And within that, is there a God? Is He transcendent or immanent? Does He govern the universe? How does He do that? Does He really make a difference? How have things been created? If so, how? What is providence, and what does that mean? Predestination, what that means? It’s in this world that has, at large, a large-scale rejected supernaturalism that Warfield is very concerned. And evolutionism to him stands as the greatest enemy of that. This is just a naturalistic philosophy that has tried to do away with God. And so he opposed it on those grounds as well. Now again, you’re still up to the fact that he still said, “But if it’s proven, we can accommodate it.” But the fact is, he did not embrace it. Somehow he felt that pressure. He himself never did go back to it.
Now, you also have—you mentioned the influence of the naturalistic worldview, and clearly there’s a very strong connection, especially in Warfield, between doctrine of God and doctrine of Scripture. That comes to the fore in apologetics, but also just in his treatment of the Bible. What about the figure of Charles Briggs, and how might that be similar to what Warfield saw as a naturalistic influence in the area of evolution? Did he also see that as a strong element, the naturalistic influence, in the interpretation of Scripture?
Yes, he did. He saw the problem of naturalism as the root of—he saw the whole liberal mindset. With that, with the rejection of supernaturalism, coming right with it is a rejection of external authority. Well, without external authority, what do you do with Scripture? And for that matter, what do you do with God? And these are the pressures that he’s feeling in theology in that day, and he saw all of the higher criticism of the day as part and parcel of that—that they’re finding naturalistic ways to explain the arrival of Scriptures and to discount its supernaturalism. And so that was a big concern of his.
But what’s interesting with Warfield is that he’s able to meet that argument at every front: the particular arguments of higher criticism on their own grounds and argue with them, argue against them, as well as the theological stance, the broader one of supernaturalism. And yeah, he saw that as a specific threat to the supernaturalism of Christianity. That’s very interesting.
His doctrine of inspiration is interesting. I think it’s, if I can step into that here, it’s a little bit related. His doctrine of inspiration, I think, is deceptively simple. In order to avoid the charge of circular reasoning—”You believe the Bible’s inspired because it claims to be inspired”—he says no. “I claim to believe the Bible is inspired and inerrant because Jesus said so.” And his argument is that if you give—whether you believe in inerrancy or not—if you give any credence to the reliability of the records that we have about the teaching of Jesus, you have to acknowledge that Jesus and his apostles taught that the Bible was inspired and inerrant. And then he would go from there. If they taught that it was inerrant, well then you cannot claim to be a Christian, a follower of Christ, without believing, as he did, in the inspiration of Scripture. And one of his favorite lines is: you can’t have the Jesus of the Bible without having also the Bible of Jesus.
Interesting. That’s exactly right. Starting with… yeah, so he would argue from the standpoint of Lordship. Christ taught it; that’s it. All right. Now, just a follow-up question then to all this. Warfield, of course, is somewhat famous for talking about, with reference to his doctrine of Scripture, the incarnational analogy. That Scripture has a fully divine origin, and yet is also written by men. We can say that without hesitation or without blushing, that there are the two divine and human elements evidenced in Scripture. Could you talk just a moment about his incarnational analogy and tell us what you think of it? Is it a helpful analogy to continue today, because it has been in our own day somewhat misused and abused to actually support a position very close to Charles Briggs? So, you know, a little bit about your thoughts on that.
The Incarnational Analogy
Well, he did teach that, he taught the incarnational model, but he was very careful in the way he said it. He said there are not divine elements and human elements to Scripture. He said it would be better to say there are divine aspects and human aspects to Scripture. And then he would clarify that the Bible in its entirety is divine, and the Bible in its entirety is human. Yes, it is both divine and human. It comes from God, and this is the bottom line, the bedrock of his teaching on inspiration: the Bible is the Word of God; the Bible says, “God says.” Well, if the Bible says, “God says”—and he stresses that over and again—and if that’s not the case, then… if God says it through human instruments, it’s still what God says, and God cannot err.
And so the incarnational argument is not a weak point for him. And people had actually abused it in his own day, in the same way—that if it’s a human element, there must be errors. And he says: why? Why do there have to be errors? This is both divine and human. God is superintending over these people to work through them. If he is so shaping them from their birth onwards toward this goal of giving his Word to the world, why do we have to assume they’re flawed? Because they’re people of law? God is superintending this. This is His Word, as well as the word of men.
So would you say even within Warfield’s incarnational model that he would place a priority—although it is entirely God’s Word and entirely also written by men—would there be an ontological priority to the divine?
Oh, it would have to. Absolutely. Definitely it would have to, because the origin of it is divine, and that’s a major emphasis of Warfield’s teaching: that the origin of the Bible is found in God. And therefore, because of a doctrine of God, we know that certain things can be said of God—that He’s inerrant, He cannot err—and therefore, if it is indeed His Word, inspired by His Spirit, we can say, and must say, the same things about His Word.
Exactly. And Warfield would not separate—he refused to separate the doctrine of inerrancy from the doctrine of inspiration. It’s all one and the same to him. To say that God has said it is to say that it cannot err.
That’s right. Unless you say that God can err, which in our modern day, that’s almost an overly pious position, you know? “My God is not so great and so untouchable that he’s above error,” you know? I mean, Warfield I don’t think would buy that line of argument. He would kind of scoff at that, I’m sure.
Where do you find that kind of a god revealed anywhere? It’s up in your own imagination.
Exactly. Now one more issue on, I guess, one “hot topic” loci issue with Warfield is his view of ecclesiology and also ministry, particularly related to the diaconate and women’s roles in diaconal ministries. What can be said about Warfield’s view there, and how does Warfield’s exegesis and understanding of Scripture impact how he saw church government?
Ecclesiology and the Diaconate
Well, it’s interesting. A few people ask about that. But yeah, it’s an interesting argument. He finds the only support for deaconesses in Romans 16 with Phoebe. He acknowledges that 1 Timothy 3 is describing the office for men. But yet, there’s Romans 16. And it’s an interesting thing. With so little evidence, he’ll still make it an office. And what’s interesting about it is, with this same degree of evidence regarding widows and a particular office for the widowhood—which was common in the early church, 1 Timothy 5 gives some reference to them—Warfield argued there’s just not enough evidence to call this a separate office. Yet for the office of deaconess, where you have the same kind of—at least in my opinion—the same degree of exegetical backing, he will acknowledge the office of the deaconess.
That is interesting. That’s been a hot topic, especially in the PCA of late, because they’ve been debating their last couple of General Assemblies whether or not there should be women in the diaconate, and if so, what does that look like? Is it ordained? Is it non-ordained? All sorts of things. The OPC dealt with this issue back in the 80s. But it’s coming back up, and so Warfield’s name again, being the great figure that he was, is popping back up again.
Well, I think in fairness, even if we say that he supported the office of deaconess, we haven’t finished the question, because the next question then would be: what would the deaconess look like in comparison even to the deacons? And he was very strong in things like against women preaching and pastor and elder and whatnot. So I don’t think it’s that simple just to say he supported the office. There’s still more to the question than that.
That’s really helpful and important to note, to appreciate that tempering there. Warfield, we could sit here and continue to discuss all the different aspects of his theology, but I wanted to ask you a biographical question because I think it might actually bear upon his theology heavily. Could you speak a little bit about Warfield and his relationship with his wife, especially towards the end of her life, and the types of things that Warfield did? And do you think his care for his wife in that time impacted his theology at all?
I don’t. I’ve heard that said, and I think way too much is made of it. Some famous quotes about his caring for his wife, the pathos of that shows through in his book on Counterfeit Miracles and things like that. I don’t see it at all. The fact is, we know very little about his relationship with his wife. I mean, his letters and what we do know of their home life, we know that they had a wonderful relationship. They were very close. It seems that they would spend their evenings sitting in the living room there together in the Hodge home next to the classroom building. And he—we would read—she was a sharp gal; she was intellectual herself, and they would—it seems that they would share their reading with one another and he explained his arguments to her and whatnot. And she was really with him in all of that stuff on every level. I think that they had a wonderful marriage. My point is: I don’t see—maybe I should put it this way—I think the matter of his caring for her in her extended illness is a little bit over-romanticized. I don’t deny it; I just don’t see the evidence. What we do find is that Warfield certainly cared for his wife in those last years when she was an invalid. They had hired help there that made some… and servants there in the house who did the cooking and whatnot; I’m sure they had their part. And he didn’t leave home more than a couple of hours at a time for many years in order to be home with her. And all of that speaks very well of that, but to say that it affected his theology, I think, is just going way beyond the evidence.
Interesting, that is interesting. Now, a question in terms of our listenership and just in terms of how to encourage some of our listeners, especially I’m thinking here of pastors or perhaps elders and thoughtful laypeople. Obviously you would recommend more reading of Warfield, and I’m just wondering if you could give some suggestions to our listeners as to where to begin their reading of Warfield, and to really start getting their juices flowing for reading him.
Recommendations for Reading Warfield
Great question. If you want a large smattering of various kinds of writings—that is, devotional and academic, theological and whatnot—the Selected Shorter Writings, the two volumes, that’s the place to start. If you want to get a taste for his heart and whatnot, there’s just nothing like his little book of sermons, Faith and Life. Now, he has two others, The Savior of the World and The Power of God unto Salvation, more sermons there. But Faith and Life would be the place to start with his sermons, and the Selected Shorter Writings. After that, I think, would be a wonderful place. Then you’ll see something of his work in various fields of theology as well.
Very good. And I just have found Warfield to be a clear writer, very much in that vein of, of course, preceding and in many ways the teacher of J. Gresham Machen—that just clear, crisp way of writing with both learning and piety.
That’s right. That’s one of the things that just attracted me to him is his learning was unmatched either in depth and breadth. It was just incredible, the amount of information he had at a hand’s grasp. And so he could, as I say, answer the liberals or anyone else for that matter, speak on any subject, and all of the literature was immediately at his command. His learning was just unparalleled. But with that, he had a heart that was just as deep. And his passion for the gospel—he just had a heart that he taught for Christ. And you’ll often find him repeating even Schleiermacher’s phrase about dependence. Warfield would pick that up, and of course he would interpret it through another grid. He would agree: this is what religion is, it is our absolute dependence; and he would reference that to Christ, and he would refer to himself and to Christians generally as men and women who are utterly dependent upon Christ for everything. And that devotional aspect of Warfield just pulses through all of his writings, even in some of his most academic and intellectual work.
Well, I think you’ve given us already then a hint where we might go. If, let’s say, a listener is a young aspiring scholar, wants an area of theological or historical research, and he’s thinking about B.B. Warfield as his object of study—if you had a student, an aspiring scholar, come up to you and say, “Doctor, tell me: where would you recommend that I go in Warfield to open up a field of research?” What aspect of his theology, of his thought, of his life would you like to see the next generation mine the depths of?
The Person and Work of Christ
The person and work of Christ. That was his center. From what we hear about Warfield today, we would think that the inspiration of Scripture was his center. It was not. In fact, very consciously, the person and work of Christ was. And in terms of his most literary output, it was the person and work of Christ. He wrote more on that than any other single thing. He wrote passionately. He wrote with precise theological definition. He wrote from the standpoint of a man whose heart was just caught up in love with Christ. I’d love to see more work on that, on Warfield’s teaching of the person and work of Christ.
Very good. And where else should you go? You think about it. That’s an excellent place to go. And it’s apropos, and it just flows well and describes who our great God is, that He came to be with us and to reveal Himself to us, and the pinnacle of that revelation is in the person of the Savior, our Savior, the very Son of God who took on human flesh. This has been a great… go ahead.
Well, as you say, in his day, the fight was with the Kenotic theology to explain Christ in human terms, and he went after that with everything he had. And yet when he would conclude with it, it would be, again, with his heart of devotion. The Christian heart just will not allow anything other than the full God-man that the Scriptures give us. What the Scriptures present before our—this is one of those phrases—before our “adoring gaze” is not a deified man or a humanized God, but the one who is the God-man. Because of his humanity, we can rely on his sympathy; because of his dignity, we can look to him as our mighty savior. We have to have both. And the Christian heart just won’t do without having both.
And that’s very doxological, and that’s how it should be when we study theology and we read our Bibles and pray and study our God: we should see Him more and more for who He is—Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And that’s the beautiful thing about Warfield, in that he saw that God and that he applied that doctrine of God and the revelation of Scripture consistently throughout his work.
Dr. Fred, thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate the time that you took to join us today. And I wanted to mention a little bit, you’ve done some work with To Every Tribe Ministries in Brownsville, Texas, is that correct?
Yes.
Now, where might the listener find more information about To Every Tribe, and what might they do to help?
It’s toeverytribe.com. Wonderful. And they can find out everything about what they are as a training school for missionaries going to unreached people.
Wonderful. They’re doing a wonderful work. Well, we want to encourage people to check out the website and see how you might support that ministry, both in prayer and maybe financially. So visit it at toeverytribe.com.
And of course you can visit us online at reformedforum.org. There you’ll find all of our resources as well as information about all of our other programs and initiatives, including live video that we hope to be doing at reformedforum.tv. We’ve got all sorts of things going on there and if you are able, we would encourage you to visit reformedforum.org and visit at the top of the page—we have a “Donate Now” button. If you are able, we are listener-supported and you can really help us out even with just a few dollars’ donation; it goes a long way in helping to distribute these programs. We want to thank everybody for listening. We hope you join us again next time on Christ the Center.