Wenham, Warfield, and Inspiration

I recently re-read John Wenham’s Christ and the Bible and was reminded what a helpful work it is. His purpose, as the title indicates, is to demonstrate Jesus’ view of Scripture. The survey of the evidence is excellent, treating in turn Jesus’ view of the Old Testament, his endorsement of the New Testament (ahead of time), the apostles’ understanding of their role as Jesus’ spokesmen, and concluding with an examination of the extent of the canon and the reliability of the Biblical text. Throughout he also answers objections that have been brought against each point under discussion. In the end he provides a very helpful summary of the historic Christian doctrine of Scripture. It is a truly valuable resource for anyone approaching the topic.

There is, however, a curious observation that arises from his Introduction. Here at the outset Wenham gives laudatory mention of Warfield and the momentous event he was in the history of the doctrine of inspiration. Of course. But then he goes on to claim that the argument he (Wenham) gives here (in Christ and the Bible) is substantively new. Specifically, what he has in mind is the old problem of establishing the authority of Scripture by the authority of Scripture: if we say we believe that the Bible is our supreme authority because the Bible claims to be the supreme authority, is that not reasoning in a perfect circle?

Wenham’s “new” argument circumvents this problem, arguing that quite aside from the presumption of inspiration and on any reading of the historical documents, we must say that Jesus believed and taught the doctrine.  And this is the ground on which we believe in inspiration – Jesus taught it.

All that is very good. But what is interesting is that this is not new at all. Warfield emphasized this a century ago. He stressed it at several points in his works and especially in his “The Real Problem of Inspiration” – we believe in inspiration because Jesus (and his appointed apostles) taught it.

Two observations arise from this. First, as it has been said so many times, anything in the last century written on the doctrine of inspiration is but a footnote to Warfield. It is very difficult indeed to add to the massive exposition and defense of the doctrine he provided.

Second, Wenham illustrates a point I have made elsewhere — that many today seem to reference Warfield without really reading him. No reading of Warfield could have missed this point, but Wenham thinks his argument is new.  In fact, Wenham’s argument does offer more detail on several points, sometimes considerably so, but there is nothing substantively new at all.

This second observation came to mind again while reading Wenham’s chapter on the canon. He states disagreement with Warfield but does not seem to have considered Warfield’s argument very thoroughly.

Honest, I am not on a campaign to see that every Christian read all of Warfield (even though in the back of my mind while I write this I’m thinking you’d be better for it if you did!). But I am a confessed Warfield affectionado. And we might do well to remember that when it comes to studying the doctrine of inspiration Warfield already said it, and he very likely said it better. Our study of this major point of doctrine just is not done until we have read Warfield ourselves. In God’s good providence, this was Warfield’s gift to the church, and we neglect him to our own loss.

Christianity Is the Only, Not Just the Best, Reasonable Position to Hold

The argument for the existence of God and for the truth of Christianity is objectively valid. We should not tone down the validity of this argument to the probability level. The argument may be poorly stated, and may never be adequately stated. But in itself the argument is absolutely sound. Christianity is the only reasonable position to hold. It is not merely as reasonable as other positions, or a bit more reasonable than other positions; it alone is the natural and reasonable position for man to take.

By stating the argument as clearly as we can, we may be the agents of the Spirit in pressing the claims of God upon men. If we drop to the level of the merely probable truthfulness of Christian theism, we, to that extent, lower the claims of God upon men.

Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel (P&R, 1977), 62.

Spurgeon on Substitutionary Atonement

If ever there should come a wretched day when all our pulpits shall be full of modern thought, and the old doctrine of a substitutionary sacrifice shall be exploded, then will there remain no word of comfort for the guilty or hope for the despairing. Hushed will be for ever those silver notes which now console the living, and cheer the dying; a dumb spirit will possess this sullen world, and no voice of joy will break the blank silence of despair. The gospel speaks through the propitiation for sin, and if that be denied, it speaketh no more. Those who preach not the atonement exhibit a dumb and dummy gospel; a mouth it hath, but speaketh not; they that make it are like unto their idol…

Would you have me silence the doctrine of the blood of sprinkling? Would anyone of you attempt so horrible a deed? Shall we be censured if we continually proclaim the heaven-sent message of the blood of Jesus? Shall we speak with bated breath because some affected person shudders at the sound of the word ‘blood’? or some ‘cultured’ individual rebels at the old-fashioned thought of sacrifice? Nay, verily, we will sooner have our tongue cut out than cease to speak of the precious blood of Jesus Christ!

[“The Blood of Sprinking (part 1)”, Sermon no. 1888 in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit: Sermons Preached and Revised by C. H. Spurgeon during the Year 1886; vol. 32 (London: Passmore & Alabaster), pp. 121-132 (p. 129), italics original]