# Warfield and the American Reformed



## john_Mark (May 3, 2005)

Is anyone here of the understanding that Warfield destroyed American Reformed Christianity?

I am just wondering because I have run across this understanding and would like to know what you all think.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 3, 2005)

Could you explain more? Like, who is saying this and who are they contrasting Warfield to?


----------



## Ivan (May 3, 2005)

Really?! Not being an expert on Warfield, I'd not know, but I suspect that it's not true.


----------



## john_Mark (May 3, 2005)

*Examples*

Below are a couple examples and more criticisms can be found within the link. You can also find more info with a google search.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/letis1.html#majority



> Chapter Eight
> This is another contribution by me treating the first major debate between advocates of the Textus Receptus and those advocating the so-called "earlier" witnesses. This chapter makes clear that in the 16th-17th centuries the doctrine of inspiration was never discussed by the orthodox without the concomitant doctrine of Providential preservation. This chapter further makes clear that this doctrine of Providential preservation was destroyed in the 19th century by B.B. Warfield at Princeton seminary, thus bringing that institution into line with mainline liberal tendencies. Warfield did this by replacing the historic Protestant orthodox doctrine of Providential preservation with the entirely modern doctrine of "Providential restoration." Hence, he took the focus off of a preserved text and sent the Church on a chase for the "historical" text (i.e. the "autographic" text), which he believed had been corrupted by the orthodox believers. This is extraordinarily important to grasp because it signaled the beginning of locating final authority not in a preserved text as the 16th and 17th century orthodox taught, but in a yet to be "restored" text that science would bring to life at some future date. Furthermore, the chapter reveals that a new movement within the world of Biblical studies known as the "canonical approach" has come to see the wisdom of the 16th/17th century divines claiming that it is the final, or "canonical" form of the text that we should see as authoritative for exegesis, not some imaginary and illusory "autographic" form of the text.





http://www.bible-researcher.com/letis1.html#ecclesiastical




> Chapter One:
> Chapter one is the foundation to everything that follows. If the thesis of this essay is not grasped in its fullest detail and implications, the rest of the book will be nearly useless. The premise is a simple one: there was a crisis concerning verbal inspiration that arose in America at the turn of the century. Text criticism was the cause. A theory arose placing all Biblical authority strictly speaking in the autographic form of the text only, rather than in the extant copies. Professor B.B. Warfield at Princeton Seminary formulated this theory in great detail. This became one answer to this problem that was accepted amongst nearly all conservatives at the time. The only problem with Warfield's solution is that: a) it was a direct betrayal of the Westminster Confession of Faith--to which Warfield was bound by a sworn allegiance as a minister and teacher within the Presbyterian Church of his day. The Confession had taught that the extant editions of Scripture were authoritative, not lost autographs; b) by his betrayal he actually opened the door, at what was the bastion of conservative theology in America, to the threat of rationalistic Biblical criticism, which would eventually bring Princeton to adopt Barthianism and other "neo-orthodoxies." Hence, what Warfield did is a paradigm of warning to us not to go down the path he took Princeton and the mainline Presbyterian Church of his day.


----------



## smallbeans (May 3, 2005)

Oh, there's a subculture of people who think that Warfield was wrong about inerrancy being a feature of the autographs of scripture. I've run across those criticisms from time to time.

The bottom line is that your bull detector should go off whenever someone makes any sweeping claim like that such and such a figure "ruined" such and such an institution. It's never that simple. 

It is also a real minority viewpoint that there is something inferior about the eclectic Greek text.

No one is perfect, and Warfield is a giant, so people are going to enlarge any imperfections they find.


----------



## smallbeans (May 3, 2005)

Sorry, not to say that they think he is wrong about the autographs being inerrant, but that he is wrong in not also extending strict inerrancy further than that.

The upshot for me is that getting drawn into these kind of parties is counterproductive. You have guys that camp out on some particular issue as a way of getting identity. It is kind of like the way teenagers choose goth, skateboarding, preppy, etc. as "looks." Some people find comfort in a theological subculture that emphasizes one particular issue. Then, in their historiography, all the turning points or declensions are tied into people's faithfulness to the preferred opinion of the issue.


----------



## Myshkin (May 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by smallbeans_
> You have guys that camp out on some particular issue as a way of getting identity. It is kind of like the way teenagers choose goth, skateboarding, preppy, etc. as "looks." Some people find comfort in a theological subculture that emphasizes one particular issue. Then, in their historiography, all the turning points or declensions are tied into people's faithfulness to the preferred opinion of the issue.



Well said.


john_Mark-

Do a search on this Puritan Board for "King James Version Only" or variations of. 

The article mentions DA Carson and James White as opponents of whoever wrote this. You may want to consult their books on this subject to understand the perspective of the author of this article.


----------



## john_Mark (May 3, 2005)

I am aware of the author and could interact with him on another board if I chose, but I wanted to see what folks here thought too. I have also read the exchanges between he and James and this causes me some hesitation to interact directly as well.


----------



## smallbeans (May 3, 2005)

D. A. Carson has a good little book on the King James Only controversy where he does discuss the manuscript issues too. "The Text of the New Testament" by Metzger is a great book too.


----------



## Myshkin (May 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by john_Mark_
> Is anyone here of the understanding that Warfield destroyed American Reformed Christianity?




Not sure if you receive Tabletalk devotional magazine, but last month the whole issue was devoted to Warfield. If interested you could order it through Lignonier ministries. They take a very different point of view on Warfield than this author.

There is also a website devoted to Warfield that may be of help in defining just how valuable Warfield is/was to the faith.


----------



## Scott (May 3, 2005)

It is interesting that even Roman Catholics have embraced textual criticism and are not much different on that narrow point than typical protestants, whether liberal or conservative. You would think if anyone embraced an ecclesiastical text it would be the Romans. I don't know where Eastern Orthodoxy has gone on this issue but would be interested.


----------



## smallbeans (May 3, 2005)

There's really no choice in the matter - even those who believe in a majority text have various manuscripts of the majority text - textual criticism is forced onto us by the very fact of having multiple copies with variants.

What is really sad is that Roman Catholics embrace *higher criticism* so readily. I just hope that can change someday.


----------



## Scott (May 3, 2005)

Higher criticism is widespread among Catholic theologians. I have read Divino Afflante Spiritu, which is an encyclical cited by some Catholics as authorizing higher criticism, but don't think that it does. 

Is Letis right historically about the distinction between "infallible" (view of Reformation) and "inerrant" (view of Warfield and other modern conservatives) and the novelty of Warfield's doctrine? This is an issue I have never looked into.


----------



## smallbeans (May 3, 2005)

Check out "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" by the Pontifical Biblical Commission. That's where you can see a semi-official line on the use of critical methods.

I haven't studied the historical issue you ask about myself. I agree that there is wisdom in a canonical approach, but I also don't see how it would be wise to ignore any manuscripts that are extant. And why exclude textual criticism from being a part of God's providential approach to the canon? I mean, we're only 2000 years into church history; why is what we're doing now not part of that textual formation process? If anything, there is no Greek text more catholic (i.e., universal) than the Nestle-Aland - most modern translations are based on it no matter the denomination.


----------



## Scott (May 3, 2005)

I have not read Letis' book, but this example seems to refute his basic premise:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/turretin-text.html


----------



## john_Mark (May 3, 2005)

Here is something he wrote against the NASB.

http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/electronic_NL_3.pdf


----------

