Kim Riddlebarger. The Lion of Princeton: B.B. Warfield as Apologist and Theologian. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015. See here to purchase the book.
B.B. Warfield was a theologically conservative professor at Princeton in the late nineteenth-early twentieth centuries. In The Lion of Princeton, Kim Riddlebarger discusses the life and thought of this formidable figure.
The
book explores a lot of topics, but the most prominent topic concerns
Warfield's thoughts about the relationship between apologetics and
grace. Calvinists believe that a person cannot genuinely come to God
without a supernatural act of grace: God unilaterally transforming that
person such that the person loves God and righteousness. For
Calvinists, people are too sinful to come to God on their own
initiative, and that is why an act of transforming grace is necessary.
But B.B. Warfield was an advocate of classic apologetics, particularly
in his defense the historicity of Jesus' resurrection. For certain
Calvinist critics, classic apologetics presumes that the truth can be
ascertained by people on the basis of reason and evidence, which
nullifies the importance of transforming grace in enabling people to
accept the Gospel. These critics think that the Reformed understanding
of conversion and classic apologetics run in different, contrary
directions.
Although Warfield was Reformed, he engaged in
classic apologetics regarding Jesus' resurrection, and there are
scholars who believe that he was compromising Reformed tenets in so
doing. Riddlebarger, however, argues the opposite and presents Warfield
as truly Reformed in his thought. For Warfield, God can make use of
apologetics in drawing people to Godself. Plus, even if the truth can
be ascertained through a consideration of the evidence, God needs to
transform people so that they can truly embrace and live that truth.
Grace and reason both play a role in conversion, as far as Warfield is
concerned.
This looks pretty simple, but the book is still
meaty. For example, Riddlebarger talks about how Warfield responded to
Lessing's argument that eternal or general truths cannot be based on the
probabilities of history. Lessing's argument posed a challenge to
Warfield's belief that the truth of Christianity could be supported by a
historical defense of Jesus' resurrection, so Warfield had a lot to say
about it.
In addition, there were areas in
which it was difficult to see how Warfield's views on apologetics and
grace held together. On the one hand, Warfield seemed to believe that
the Gospel itself was rational: Warfield argued that, even if God needs
to transform a person for that person to believe a message, the message
itself can still be rational, so there is no necessary contradiction
between Calvinist views on conversion and classic apologetics. On the
other hand, Warfield also appeared to maintain that the contents of
God's revelation themselves could not be ascertained or supported by
evidence or reason, for they are beyond human beings. What can be
supported by evidence, for Warfield, were the signs that authenticated
that the message was from God (i.e., miracles, Jesus' resurrection), not
the contents of God's revelation itself. Humans can look at themselves
and conclude that they are sinners, but they cannot through reason
climb to a knowledge and understanding of God's plan to redeem them: God
needs to reveal that to them from above. But God can still
authenticate that message through miracles, and that is accessible to
human evaluation of historical evidence. Warfield apparently believes
that the contents of God's revelation and the historical signs need to
go together: God's revelation tells us the significance of the
historical signs, otherwise the signs would be isolated flukes without
much significance by themselves; and yet the signs attest to the truth
of the divine revelation, by showing it is from God. Warfield appears
to overlap with both presuppositonal and classic apologists,
notwithstanding the criticism that presuppositional apologists have made
of his work.
Riddlebarger makes other points in this book as
well. Riddlebarger argues that Warfield's thought was heavily
influenced by the Scottish Common Sense tradition. The Scottish Common
Sense tradition maintained that we should trust our sensory perception
of the world because we intuit that as common sense; it contended
against the skeptical positions of philosophers like David Hume. As
Riddlebarger demonstrates, the concepts of realism (i.e., we can
reliably sense, understand, and conceptualize the world), intuition, and
induction (we can form conclusions from specific things) that the
Scottish Common Sense tradition emphasized played a significant role in
Warfield's thought. They undergirded his focus on history in doing
apologetics (which is consistent with realism and induction), as well as
his belief that people can intuit basic truths about God (i.e., God's
existence).
Riddlebarger also discusses
Warfield's polemics against revivalism, specifically the belief among
certain revivalists that Christians could become morally and spiritually
perfect in this life. While Warfield did make contributions to
fundamentalism, Warfield also differed from many fundamentalists, in key
areas. Riddlebarger also has a chapter about Warfield's textual
criticism of the New Testament, which Warfield taught at Princeton.
Warfield believed that the New Testament was inerrant in its original
autographs, and that, through textual criticism, we could arrive at a
reliable understanding of what those original autographs said.
Surprisingly, according to Riddlebarger, Warfield was controversial
among conservatives because he acknowledged that parts of Mark 16 were
added later to the text and were not part of the original. Riddlebarger
also briefly discusses Warfield's openness to evolution; according to
Riddlebarger, Warfield had an interest in biology.
This
book is certainly informative, and it makes a contribution to scholarly
discussions about Warfield. The book was somewhat scattered, however,
and I think it could have defined terms more clearly: induction,
deduction, Thomism, etc. A glossary would have been helpful. The last
two pages were rather clear, though, and they did a fairly decent job
tying things together and making Riddlebarger's point. Riddlebarger did
not talk that much about Warfield's beliefs on biblical inspiration and
inerrancy, which were issues of importance for Warfield. Riddlebarger
mentioned those topics, but he did not really explain the nuances of
Warfield's understanding of them. That, in my opinion, is
disappointing. The book is still a meaty explanation of Warfield's
thought. A background in philosophy and theology would help a reader
appreciate this book and understand more of it; yet, a reader without an
extensive background in those things can still learn from this book.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher, in exchange for an honest review.