Friday, July 08, 2016

Jehovah: The Meaning of the Name


               The Tetragrammaton is correctly pronounced Jehovah, as it is rendered in the Authorized Version (Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2, etc.).  A previous post discussed some of the evidence for this fact, but did not elaborate on the meaning of the Name.  Revelation 1:4-5, explains the significance of the Tetragrammaton as oJ w·n kai« oJ h™n kai« oJ e˙rco/menoß, ho on kai ho en kai ho erchomenos, “He who is, and who was, and who is to come.”  Likewise, the Hebrew Yehowah (hODwh◊y) is the fusion of yehi howeh hawah (hÎwDh hRwøh yIh◊y), “He was” (Qal perf 3ms) “He is” (Qal part ms) “He will be (Qal impf 3ms [same as juss]),” into one word, as recognized by a number of modern scholars, such as “Hölemann in his Bibelstudien . . . in common with Stier and others.”[1]  The vocalization Jehovah, unlike the corrupt modern alternative Yahweh, thus properly represents the eternal self-existence of the one true God and is in accordance with the inspired explanation of Revelation 1:4-5, 8.  Wilhelmus a Brakel explains the classical interpretation of the significance of Yehowah or Jehovah as follows:
[I]t has pleased the Lord to give Himself a name by which He wishes to be called—a name which would indicate His essence, the manner of His existence, and the plurality of divine Persons. The name which is indicative of His essence is hDOwh◊y or Jehovah, it being abbreviated as hDy or Jah. The name which is indicative of the trinity of Persons is MyIhølTa or Elohim. Often there is a coalescence of these two words resulting in hIwøhTy or Jehovi. The consonants of this word constitute the name Jehovah, whereas the vowel marks produce the name Elohim. Very frequently these two names are placed side by side in the following manner: Jehovah Elohim, to reveal that God is one in essence and three in His Persons.
The Jews do not pronounce the name Jehovah. This practice of not using the name Jehovah initially was perhaps an expression of reverence, but later became superstitious in nature. In its place they use the name yÎnOdSa or Adonai, a name by which the Lord is frequently called in His Word. Its meaning is “Lord.” When this word is used in reference to men, it is written with the letter patach, which is the short “a” vowel. When it is used in reference to the Lord, however, the letter kametz is used, which is the long “a” vowel. As a result all the vowels of the name Jehovah are present. To accomplish this the vowel “e” is changed into a chatef-patach which is the shortest “a” vowel, referred to as the guttural letter aleph. Our translators, to give expression to the name Jehovah, use the name Lord, which is similar to the Greek word ku/rioß (kurios), the latter being a translation of Adonai rather than Jehovah. In Rev 1:4 and 16:5 the apostle John translates the name Jehovah as follows: “Him which is, and which was, and which is to come.” This one word has reference primarily to being or essence, while having the chronological connotation of past, present, and future. In this way this name refers to an eternal being, and therefore the translation of the name Jehovah in the French Bible is l’Eternel, that is, the Eternal One. . . Jehovah is not a common name, such as “angel” or “man”—names which can be assigned to many by virtue of being of equal status. On the contrary, it is a proper Name which uniquely belongs to God and thus to no one else, as is true of the name of every creature, each of which has his own name. (pgs. 84-85, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 1)
Regrettably, the critical Hebrew text very frequently corrupts the Hebrew Yehowah or Jehovah into Yeh-wah, contrary to the true meaning of the Name and the preserved Hebrew Textus Receptus.  If we use a corrupt modern Bible version translated from an inferior Hebrew text, let us set it aside for the Authorized Version.  When we see the word “Jehovah” in the Authorized Version, or see “LORD” or “GOD” in all capitals, let us think on the glorious self-existence of the covenant-keeping Jehovah, and be stirred up to give Him the holy reverence and love that He so richly deserves.

For more on the subject of the Hebrew vowel points, please read the essays on the subject here.  More specifics on the validity of the name Jehovah is here.



See here for this entire study.




[1]              Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 46.

Wednesday, July 06, 2016

Hillary Clinton, Legal Relativism, and the Church

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Hillary Clinton felony violated that federal law.  In the words of Andrew C. McCarthy:
With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust.
Here's the applicable statement from FBI director James B. Comey:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
You will notice that the law says nothing about intent.  This does not mean, of course, that a prosecutor could not have proven intent.  I believe intent would have been easy to prove in this case. Why did Hillary Clinton have a private server?  She needed to be able to cover for illegal activities -- that is very easy to see.  However, the law doesn't require a demonstration of intent.  Yet, Comey says, "we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton...intended to violate laws."

Comey did say there is evidence Secretary Clinton was "extremely careless in [her] handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," the very definition of "gross negligence."  Concerning what Comey was doing, Andrew McCarthy again writes:
It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged.
Comey set up "intent" as a straw man, one not necessary to convict Hillary Clinton of a felony.

Since Comey came down with his explanation of the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton, as would be expected, most of her supporters are happy.  One, they are a crowd of people who do not care if she violated the law or threatened the security of the United States.  Two, they can take laws and make them mean whatever they want them to mean.  This system of interpretation has been called "loose constructionism," a fruit of progressivism and postmodernism.

Institutionally, the United States has departed from God, and, therefore, absolute truth.   Beyond saying anything is right or wrong anymore, this nation cannot say what anything means.  The naturalist believes only nature, matter in motion, exists without God, so is also left without an explanation for the laws of logic.

My family and I went whitewater rafting today on the Colorado River, and while we floated through the canyon along highway 70, our guide explained how that the river wore this ravine over a period of 15,000 years.   Our family met that comment with silence.  For one, I knew that naturalists say more like 15 million years, so I was laughing to myself about the 15,000 versus 15,000,000.  I asked him where all the sediment went from all of these deep caverns, and he said it went to Lake Powell.  I asked and exclaimed, "All of it went into that one lake?  Wow!"  He wasn't sure on that question. What I'm saying is that people can make up whatever they want when they are naturalists.

Without assuming the existence of the laws of logic, no one has any meaningful way of communicating, reasoning, or proving anything.  Words mean whatever is convenient for whatever preference someone wants to take.  In the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Richard A. Epstein writes in his "Linguistic Relativism and the Decline of the Rule of Law":
Both the narrow and broad conceptions of the rule of law presuppose that the tools of ordinary language are powerful enough to allow judges and scholars to formulate legal rules that make implementing the rule of law possible. Unfortunately, many scholars despair that the tools of textual analysis are not strong enough to meet the persistent challenges of the linguistic skeptic.
How or why did this change?  Epstein later in the same article gives some examples of how or why the change:
[T]he writers in the progressive tradition (who first ushered in and then defended the Court’s New Deal jurisprudence) [took] the general position that . . . key constitutional words [were] deeply plastic and filled with inherent ambiguity. . . .  [D]oubt paves the way for the rise of the Fourth Branch of Government—the independent administrative agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and the National Labor Relations Board—whose “duties,” Justice Sutherland said, “are neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative,” without giving any idea as to how these novel terms map onto the constitutional structure. Once this degree of linguistic freedom is given, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to distill clear meanings from established texts whose meaning had once filtered through a set of shared historical experiences.
Linguistic relativism leads to legal relativism.  Epstein continues:
So why then the legal relativism—that is, some notion that there are no independent grounds for preferring one outcome to another—which surfaces in different ways in different contexts? The simplest explanation is the best. Let a judge assume that there are fixed meanings to controversial terms, and the scope of judicial discretion in interpreting statutes or constitutional texts is necessarily limited. For progressive law professors . . . those linguistic straitjackets would reduce the opportunity to transform constitutional doctrine. 
Now I want to go straight to my major point of this post.  Conservatives decry the perversion of law through linguistic and then legal relativism.  The uncertainty of language and then laws results in the sanction of illegal activity.  The criminals play games with words and the law, like "it depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."  Evangelicals might say they hate the linguistic relativism.  Do they?

God is One.  His Word is One.  The meaning is perspicuous.  It's plain.  We do not have a linguistic excuse with ordinary meaning of the language of scripture.  What has evangelicalism done?

Evangelicalism (and much of fundamentalism) plays Clintonian games with scripture in numbers of different ways.  I could point you to several, but I want to focus on one:  the new and unbiblical approach of essentials and non-essentials.

Intent is not found in the federal law violated by Hillary Clinton.  Conservatives act like they can know that.  It's ordinary language.  It's really easy to understand "gross negligence" equal to Comey's "extremely careless."  Any right thinking of ordinary language in the law know she is a felon.

How much more sad is the violation of God's law than the violation of United States federal law? Evangelicals justify disobedience with their "essentials and non-essentials."  They assume that language cannot be understood.  They make God unclear.  To evangelicals, He is less clear than human law, federal law, therefore, their people are required only in a very short list of essentials. Most of what God has said has been reduced to non-essentials.  The non-essentials are in there, but they don't have to be kept.  For all intents and purposes, even the conservative evangelicals are linguistic relativists.

Judgment must begin in the house of God.  If we can't obey God, His Word, in the church, why would we expect obedience to lesser laws?  The doubt and uncertainty in the church justifies what's happening in our nation.  Our churches are full of spiritual criminals.  Church leaders allow them to get away with it.  They justify it with linguistic relativism that is not characteristic of the clarity of God.

Sunday, July 03, 2016

Reports of Revival in America

In the 2000 years of Christianity, American churches seem unique at having blended big special calendar events with the assembling and worship of a church.  If America were ever to end, churches won't keep trying to integrate church with July 4th.  It wouldn't work any more.

Of several patriotic themes, church leaders harmonize national revival with their preaching and their programs.  Sub-categories to national revival have been titled the first and second great awakenings. These are treated as biblical in proportions and often added as sources for doctrine and practice. Many, including myself, reject the second as a great or even an awakening, more of a source of some of the most serious errors in the whole world since.  Jonathan Edwards criticizes even the first in his Treatise on the Religious Affections.

Most orthodox, conservative biblical theologians agree the first great awakening was the great awakening.  From a human perspective, the first was great, and all sorts of benefits to America have been tied to its results.  Even while the first was occurring, folks attempted to get on the bandwagon through various means, producing unbiblical works and consequences eschewed by Jonathan Edwards.

The great awakening was no kind of contrived plan orchestrated by people looking for an event. There was no yearning for a previous experience, because one hadn't been had.  America needed a great awakening and was ready for it.  George Whitefield came and preached, not impersonating anything.  It happened.

Whitefield didn't need a song man, building the atmosphere with his stirring music.  Whitefield exposed scripture with dense salvation theology.  He gave strong biblical explanation of the gospel.

The second came from men who tried to cook the first from a box.  It was happening whether it was happening or not, so it happened, even though it didn't.  It didn't happen, but it was said to have happened.  What didn't happen was celebrated as though it did.  This has occurred and occurs, that is, men calling and then celebrating something like it did happen, when it didn't.  If it could happen once, it can happen again and again.

The box says that you know you've got an awakening, a revival, if you see a certain size of results:  big crowds, numbers of professions, and emotion. The second emphasized revival techniques to bring hearers to immediate decision using new measures intended to heighten emotions. The crowds and the professions grow.  That validates it as a revival.  Why do some people get this experience when others don't?   The explanation is a man with power, people who want it more and for a longer period than others.

You might hear, "They prayed fifteen years for this and now it has come."  The parallel in the theology of revivalism is that saints prayed in Jerusalem for a period and then got the answer in Acts 2, attempting to make that event normative as a revival.  You hear the same language:  the Holy Spirit has come down, has visited, has been poured out.  Part of the scenario is also a meeting.  It has to be people traveling in to meet.  Some sort of daring, bold, abnormal consciousness is reached, alive in an atypical fashion.

Let's say you had an obedient church.   A true gospel was being preached everywhere in town and even beyond.  The people are growing.   The people are evangelizing.  That church, however, isn't seeing the crowds, professions, and emotion, so a revivalist observes that it's missing something.  However, if everything experienced was all good, and revival is good, why can't that be revival?  

God isn't good enough.  Obedience isn't good enough.  The Bible isn't good enough.  There's always got to be something more.

Many different sources (one, two, three) report revival in Burlington, NC with "Evangelist" C. T. Townsend, based on the same superficial criteria for the second great awakening.  After everything proceeding from the second, one would think that folks would have learned.  Just like people sought for a second after the first, the discontent perpetuates itself.  So much is wrong here.

Can we stop looking for revival across America, like this is part of our national heritage, and start looking for believing the Bible and obeying it?  Revivals will come when they come.  If they don't, all you're left with is believing the Bible and obeying it. That's enough.

I come back to July 4th.

************

As an addendum to this post, I have experienced "revival."  My senior year in high school, I attended a large Christian school that began a fad at the time (it might still be happening) called "school camp."  The entire school would pack up and go to camp the first week of school and hear revivalist preaching morning and evening.  The camp schedule left very little time for sleep, so everyone would be very weary.  Besides "preaching" with a main emphasis on emotional manipulation, there was the use of the invitation.

As I look back at my high school years, a majority of 150 or so students were unconverted.  Out of the 45 graduates in my class, I'm the only either pastor or missionary.  My experience was that many of the students in our school were worldly and ungodly.

During the week of school camp, by the estimations of many, we experienced revival.  Seventeen students made professions of faith.  At the end of the week, there were many very emotional testimonies to how God had changed their lives.  As I lived through the rest of that senior year, I guarantee you that very little changed, including in almost all of the lives of those who made professions of faith.  However, we had "revival."

What I'm saying is that I know what "revival" looks like.  I mean "revival," and not actual revival. What people call revival and seek in the way of revival, I experienced that.

Friday, July 01, 2016

Keswick's Biblical Strengths: where Keswick is Correct, in an Analysis and Critique of So Great Salvation by Stephen Barabas, part 3 of 4

               Perhaps the clearest way to indicate the positive truths affirmed by both Keswick and its critics is to examine the doctrine of sanctification confessed by that staunch advocate of the theology and revivalistic[1] piety of Old Princeton and inveterate opponent of Keswick, B. B. Warfield.  Truths confessed by both Keswick and by Warfield can by no means be labeled Keswick distinctives, but would evidently be the common inheritance of classic evangelical spirituality.  The tendency of Keswick apologists to create orthodox friends of their theology in a historically inaccurate way[2] probably makes Warfield the best choice to illustrate non-Keswick evangelical piety.  Higher Life apologists could claim that writers who lived before the origination of the Convention and advocated classically orthodox piety were actually Keswick antecedents simply because of their advocacy of Biblical truths such as living by faith and dependence on the Holy Spirit.  Similarly, men who lived after the origin of the Keswick Convention could be labeled by Higher Life apologists as Keswick advocates who simply did not recognize what they were affirming.[3]  However, it is most doubtful that any Keswick writer would wish to affirm that B. B. Warfield was truly a defender of Higher Life truth, just in disguise.  His writings, therefore, provide a safe avenue for a determination of what is involved in evangelical non-Keswick piety.
               Warfield, receiving the truth common to old evangelicalism, emphasized the need to depend on the Christ and the Holy Spirit for strength in sanctification, rather than being self-dependent.  Indeed, he recognized such dependence was the very essence of religion:  [The] attitude of trust and dependence on God is just the very essence of religion. In proportion as any sense of self-sufficiency or any dependence on self enters the heart, in that proportion religion is driven from it.”[4]  The “central truth of complete dependence upon the free mercy of a saving God,” Warfield affirmed, “is an absolutely essential element in evangelical religion” which “underl[ies] and g[ives] its form and power to the whole . . . movement” and is key to “a great revival of religion.”[5]  Warfield recognizes that confusing Christian holiness with mere “righteous conduct and of self-sanctification or moral character-formation,” so that “the individual Christian sanctifies himself,”[6] is part of a view of God, sin, and salvation that is a “profoundly immoral doctrine.”[7]  The believer must not rely upon his own works for either justification or sanctification.  Teaching these truths, Warfield approvingly cited the “the words of the revival hymn” calling men to “‘cast our deadly doing down’ and make our appeal on the sole score of sheer helplessness . . . [rejecting] . . . self-dependence and [the] power of self-help.”[8] He states that the “very cor cordis of the Gospel” is expressed in the words of the hymn:
Nothing either great or small,
Nothing, sinner, no;
Jesus did it, did it all,
Long, long, ago. . . .

Doing is a deadly thing,
Doing ends in death . . .

Cast your deadly doing down,
Down at Jesus’ feet,
Stand in Him, in Him alone,
Gloriously complete.[9]
Consequently, helpless dependence on the perfectly sufficient Christ is the attitude of the Christian:
[The] characteristic . . . [of] the children of the Kingdom . . . [is to] lay happy and thoughtless . . . in Jesus’ own arms. Their characteristic was just helpless dependence; complete dependence upon the care of those whose care for them was necessary. . . . [T]he Kingdom of heaven is made up of those who are helplessly dependent on the King of the Heavens . . . [like] infants who are to be done for, who can not do for themselves.[10]
Warfield stated:
[The] evangelical quality of all really evangelical faith [is found in] . . . whoever recognizes in the recesses of his soul his utter dependence on God; whoever in all his thought of salvation hears in his heart of hearts the echo of the soli Deo gloria of the evangelical profession . . . these fundamental principles—which underlie and give its body to all true religion—[ought] to work themselves freely and fully out in thought and feeling and action.[11]
Warfield explained elsewhere that this utter dependence on the Holy Spirit is characteristic of the Christian piety of all Bible-believing Protestant denominations:
The evangelical note is formally sounded by the entirety of organized Protestantism. That is to say, all the great Protestant bodies, in their formal official confessions, agree in confessing the utter dependence of sinful man upon the grace of God alone for salvation, and in conceiving this dependence as immediate and direct upon the Holy Spirit, acting as a person and operating directly on the heart of the sinner. It is this evangelical note which determines the peculiarity of the piety of the Protestant Churches. The characteristic feature of this piety is a profound consciousness of intimate personal communion with God the Saviour, on whom the soul rests with immediate love and trust.[12]
Every single spiritual good comes from the Holy Spirit, Warfield taught, and Biblical religion necessitates utter dependence on Him.  Possession of the Spirit is the highest glory of the believer:
[T]he Spirit of God is the author of all right belief and of all good conduct,—to assure us that then, too, on Him depended all the exercises of piety, to Him was due all the holy aspirations and all the good accomplishments of every saint of God. And certainly the New Testament tells us in repeated instances that the Holy Spirit was active throughout the period of the Old Dispensation, in all the varieties of activities which characterize the New. The difference between the two lies not in any difference in the utter dependence of men on Him[.] . . . Paul . . . is full of joy . . . to have . . . God’s Holy Spirit . . . working faith in him[.] . . .  He claims no superiority [to other believers] in the matter. If he has a like faith, it is because he is made by God’s grace to share in a like fountain of faith. The one Spirit who works faith is the common possession of them and of him; and therein he finds his highest privilege and his greatest glory. . . . [T]he operations of the Spirit . . . Paul represents as the height of Christian privilege to possess.[13]
Warfield unabashedly identified himself with those in the history of doctrine who were the champions of the grace of God.  He labeled self-dependent moralism the very antithesis of Biblical Christianity:
[The] entire system . . . [of the] champion[s] of grace . . . revolved around the assertion of grace as the sole source of all good in man as truly and as completely as did that of Pelagius around the assertion of the plenary ability of the unaided will to work all righteousness. . . . [W]e are aided by the grace of God, through Christ, not only to know but also to do what is right, in each single act, so that without grace we are unable to have, think, speak, or do anything pertaining to piety[.] The opposition between the two systems was thus absolute. In the one, everything was attributed to man; in the other, everything was ascribed to God. In them, two religions, the only two possible religions at bottom, met in mortal combat: the religion of faith and the religion of works; the religion which despairs of self and casts all its hope on God the Saviour, and the religion which puts complete trust in self; or since religion is in its very nature utter dependence on God, religion in the purity of its conception and a mere quasi-religious moralism.[14]
Clearly, rejection of self-dependence, a recognition of the need to trust in the Lord Jesus and the power of the Holy Spirit for strength to live the Christian life, and a rejection of sanctification sourced in the believer’s works, are by no means Keswick distinctives.
               Warfield taught that the essence of Christianity is that “all [is] of God and nothing of ourselves”—God’s unmerited love gives His people all. Since “the Christian life as a life” is one “of continuous dissatisfaction with self and of continuous looking afresh to Christ as the ground of all our hope,”[15] believers must always look to the Lord Jesus and depend on Him for grace:
We may rightly bewail our coldness: we may rightly blame ourselves that there is so little response in our hearts to the sight of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, or even to the manifestation of His unspeakable love in the death of His Son. Oh, wretched men that we are to see that bleeding love and not be set on fire with a flame of devotion! But we may be all the more thankful that it is not in our frames and feelings that we are to put our trust. Let us abase ourselves that we so little respond to these great spectacles of the everlasting and unspeakable love of God. But let us ever remember that it is on the love of God and not on our appreciation of it that we are to build our confidence. Jesus our Priest and our Sacrifice, let us keep our eyes set on Him! And though our poor sinful hearts so little know how to yield to that great spectacle the homage of a suitable response, His blood will yet avail even for us.
“Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to Thy cross I cling”—
here—and let us bless God for it—here is the essence of Christianity. It is all of God and nothing of ourselves.[16]
Through the “gospel the eye is withdrawn from self and the face turned upward in loving gratitude to God, the great giver [in a] . . . continual sense of humble dependence on God and of loving trust in Him.”[17]  Warfield noted the teaching of Scripture that, in the workings of the Lord towards His people, “[a]t every step it is God, and God alone, to whom is ascribed the initiative; and the most extreme care is taken to preserve the recipients of the blessings consequent on His choice from fancying that these blessings come as their due, or as reward for aught done by themselves, or to be found in themselves.”[18]  Nothing was the product of the believer’s own strength; thus, Warfield could encourage believers:
Faint not! It is not your own strength—or rather weakness—that is . . . in question; it is the power of Almighty God. . . . It was of His own purpose that He called you; the grace that has come to you was given you from all eternity. . . . It is this Almighty God who is using you as His instrument and organ. Nothing depends on your weakness; all hangs on His strength.[19]
Since every aspect of salvation was sourced in God alone, Warfield passionately warned of the dangers of self-sufficiency and called upon men to live by faith and to surrender themselves entirely to the Lord:
The very point of this passage [Habbakuk 2:4] is the sharp contrast which is drawn between arrogant self-sufficiency and faithful dependence on God . . . [I]t is by faith that the righteous man lives . . . the righteous appear . . . as men who look in faith to God and trustingly depend upon His arm. . . . Here we have, therefore, thrown into a clear light the contrasting characteristics of the wicked, typified by the Chaldæan, and of the righteous: of the one, the fundamental trait is self-sufficiency; of the other, faith. This faith, which forms the distinctive feature of the righteous man, and by which he obtains life . . . is a profound and abiding disposition, an ingrained attitude of mind and heart towards God which affects and gives character to all the activities.[20]
Indeed, “[T]he very core of Old Testament religion . . . [is] entire self-commitment to God [and] humble dependence on Him for all blessings,” so “[s]elf-sufficiency is the characteristic mark of the wicked . . . while the mark of the righteous is that he lives by his faith (Hab. 2:4).”[21]  Warfield wrote that trusting in God and rejecting self-dependence was not just the very core of Old Testament true religion, but of all true religion in any dispensation whatever:  “Now this attitude of trust and dependence on God is just the very essence of religion. In proportion as any sense of self-sufficiency or any dependence on self enters the heart, in that proportion religion is driven from it.”[22]  Consequently, Warfield extolled those in church history he understood as recognizing that the essence of true religion is dependence on God, despair of any confidence in themselves, and rejection of mere religious moralism.  Such an understanding is key to being filled with love and joy in believing:
Self-despair, humble trust, grateful love, fullness of joy—these are the steps on which his own soul[23] climbed upward: and these steps gave their whole color and form both to his piety and to his teaching. In his doctrine we see his experience of God’s seeking and saving love toward a lost sinner expressing itself in propositional form; in his piety we see his conviction that the sole hope of the sinner lies in the free grace of a loving God expressing itself in the forms of feeling. In doctrine and life alike he sets before us in that effective way which belongs to the discoverer, the religion of faith as over against the religion of works—the religion which despairing of self casts all its hope on God as over against the religion that to a greater or less degree trusts in itself: in a word, since religion in its very nature is dependence on God, religion in the purity of its conception as over against a quasi-religious moralism. . . . [W]e are admitted into the very life of [the godly man] and are permitted to see his great heart cleansing itself of all trust in himself and laying hold with the grasp first of despair, then of discerning trust and then of grateful love upon the God who [is] his salvation . . . [such truths have] perennial attractiveness and [the] supreme position . . . [for] edification.[24]
Warfield believed that those advocating the doctrinal system he embraced were in a special way “called upon to defend the treasures of truth that had been committed to the[m] from the inroads of that perpetual foe of the grace of God which is entrenched in the self-sufficiency of the natural heart.”[25]  Warfield believed that part of his calling as a defender of the faith was, in a special way, to fight against that awful foe, self-sufficiency.  He wrote:  “As over against all teaching that would tempt man to trust in himself for any, even the smallest part, of his salvation, Christianity casts him utterly on God. It is God and God alone who saves, and that in every element of the saving process.”[26]  Justification, sanctification, glorification, and everything else in the doctrine of salvation was all sourced in God, not in man himself.  Since every aspect of salvation comes from God, Christian life involves despairing of confidence in oneself and a humble and joyful trust in the Lord alone.  B. B. Warfield, and the old evangelical piety of his theological tradition, emphasized these truths—they were by no means the peculiar possession of the Kewick theology.

See here for this entire study.






[1]              While Old Princeton’s theologians recognized that doctrinal error hinders revival and were careful to diagnose and warn about pseudo-revival, they rejoiced to both promote and experience genuine spiritual revival.  The love for revival in Princetonians such as Archibald Alexander, who was himself converted in a revival (pgs. 68-69, Studies in Southern Presbyterian Theology, M. H. Smith.  Jackson, MS:  Presbyterian Reformation Society, 1962) and who wrote Thoughts on Religious Experience (Philadelphia, PA:  Presbyterian Board of Publications, 1844), can hardly be disputed.  Similarly, Warfield “experience[d] a revival while an undergraduate student at Princeton, one that left a deep and lasting impression” (pg. 568, The Theology of B. B. Warfield:  A Systematic Summary, F. Zaspel).
[2]              E. g., pg. 16, So Great Salvation, Barabas.
[3]              For example, Keswick apologist John R. VanGelderen writes, “Amazingly, I have been in several settings where speakers had just taught Keswick theology and then said, ‘Now I’m not taking about Keswick,’ or, ‘I’m not talking about the deeper life.’ . . . [W]hen they criticize the term Keswick . . . they are undermining what they themselves teach” (pg. 108, The Faith Response, John R. VanGelderen).
[4]              Pg. 213, The Power of God unto Salvation, B. B. Warfield. Philadelphia: PA:  Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1903.
[5]              Pg. 357, Calvin and Calvinism:  The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. 5, B. B. Warfield. Bellingham, WA:  Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2008.
[6]              Pg. 24, Studies in Perfectionism, Part One, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. 7, B. B. Warfield.  Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008.  Italics in original.  Warfield is critiquing the theologically liberal perfectionism of Albrecht Ritschl.
[7]              Pgs. 160-161, 63-64; cf. pg. 100, Studies in Perfectionism, Part One, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. 7, B. B. Warfield.  Warfield does not limit his reference to the immorality of Ritschl’s system to the German rationalist’s perfectionist doctrine of sanctification; Ritschl’s doctrine of justification and other parts of his system are certainly included and are mentioned in the immediate context of some of the pages referenced.
[8]              Pg. 99, Christology and Criticism:  The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. 3, B. B. Warfield. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008.
[9]              Pgs. 323-324, Faith and Life, B. B. Warfield. New York, NY: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1916.
[10]             Pg. 78, Faith and Life, B. B. Warfield. New York, NY: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1916.
[11]             Pg. 356, Calvin and Calvinism:  The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. 5, B. B. Warfield. Bellingham, WA:  Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2008.
[12]             Pg. 87, The Plan of Salvation: Five Lectures, B. B. Warfield. Philadelphia, PA:  Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1915.
[13]             Pgs. 237-238, Faith and Life, B. B. Warfield. New York, NY: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1916.
[14]             Pgs. 40-41, The Plan of Salvation: Five Lectures, B. B. Warfield. Philadelphia, PA:  Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1915.
[15]             Pg. 90, Studies in Perfectionism, Part One, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. 7, B. B. Warfield.
[16]             Pgs. 253-254, The Power of God unto Salvation, B. B. Warfield. Philadelphia: PA:  Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1903.
[17]             Pg. 213, The Power of God unto Salvation, B. B. Warfield. Philadelphia: PA:  Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1903.
[18]             Pg. 12, Biblical Doctrines:  The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. 2, B. B. Warfield.  Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008.
[19]             Pg. 408, Faith and Life, B. B. Warfield. New York, NY: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1916.
[20]             Pgs. 469-470, Biblical Doctrines:  The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. 2, B. B. Warfield.  Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008.
[21]             Pg. 11, Biblical Doctrines:  The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. 2,  B. B. Warfield.  Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008.
[22]             Pg. 213, The Power of God unto Salvation, B. B. Warfield. Philadelphia: PA:  Presbyterian Board of Publications, 1903.
[23]             Warfield speaks here of Augustine of Hippo.  In light of Augustine’s strong advocacy of sacramental salvation and of the idea that outside of the Catholic Church there was no salvation, Warfield’s high estimation of Augustine needs not a little modification.  Nevertheless, Warfield’s statements still show what the Princetonian higly valued as true piety.
[24]             Pgs. 252-253, Studies in Tertullian and Augustine:  The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. 4, B. B. Warfield.  Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008.
[25]             Pg. 144, Studies in Theology:  The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. 9, B. B. Warfield.  Bellingham, WA:  Logos Bible Software, 2008.
[26]             Pg. 59, The Plan of Salvation: Five Lectures, B. B. Warfield.  Philadelphia, PA:  Presbyterian Board of Publications, 1915.