Whenever reading or talking with a good historian, one of the most fascinating things to learn is common misconceptions. I’m sure you know what I’m talking about. Some quote gets lifted from its context or a story gets so dreadfully exaggerated that the person can seem either like a mythical figure or a real scoundrel. Through one way or another, these misconceptions become the accepted opinion, until a good historian comes along and researches the facts for himself.
Unearthing common misconceptions characterized my discussion with Fred Zaspel on B. B. Warfield. Zaspel has produced his new The Theology of B. B. Warfield, and in reading Warfield – all of Warfield – he found that many interactions with the “Lion of Princeton” have either misread him or failed to read him fully. Since there is no biography on Warfield, stories about him have turned into legend. Zaspel is good story teller, so let him introduce you to B. B. Warfield.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Thank you for this wonderful post. Upon learning that B.B. Warfield’s wife was struck by lightning and he cared for her over the next 40 some years and still taught at Princeton, I purchased his 10 volume set. Incredible. Thank you again for the due recognition for the next generation of theologians.
[...] You can listen to the interview here. [...]
[...] Starke interviews Fred Zaspel in the light of Zaspel’s work on the Lion of Princeton: Zaspel has produced his new The [...]
just now getting into the book … it is a remarkable work and it is likely that the church today would have been deprived of the blessing … how providential that warfield’s ministry comes to light just when we need again at the present hour. dr. zaspel has done us a great service.
I really appreciated the interview. However, at one point Zaspel referred to Warfield as a presuppositional apologist. Nothing could have been futher from the truth. While Warfield would technically fall under the broad heading on Classical apologetics, he was very close in practice to evidentialism. He affirmed the validity of the theistic proofs but primarily appealled to the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus as the best argument for the faith. He was also critical of Kuyper’s method of apologetics. As many of you may know Kuyper’s method was the beginning of presuppositionalism as Kuyper was a big influence on Van Til. For those interested, Kim Riddlebarger’s PhD dissertation (on Warfield’s apologetic method)is available on-line. Riddlebardger sees Warfield as an evidentialist.
http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/b-b-warfield-the-lion-of-pr/
When describing Kuyper’s apologetic, Warfield said that for Kuyper, Christianity remains the “great assumption.”
Warfield was certainly not a presuppositionalist.