Pieper's eulogy– B.B. Warfield: Dogmatics, Inspiration – America's premier Presbyterian theologian

      I have previously blogged about the great Presbyterian theologian B.B. Warfield and his communications with Prof. Franz Pieper.  Recently I came across Pieper's comments on the official memorial address given at Warfield's passing by his successor in 1921.  And we see that Pieper presents the last word on the legacy of Warfield, from the Lutheran teacher of the 20th century.  

      There are at least two surprising items of interest in this writing about Pieper's stress on the importance of teaching Christian doctrine, or Dogmatics. The background for one of these items is that opposing Lutherans in America, especially the Ohio Synod, charged the Missourians with "Calvinism" regarding their doctrine of Election. Whose teaching was Lutheran, and whose was not? Dr. Warfield, a Calvinist, gives the surprisingly definitive answer.   — Then of course we hear again of the ridicule that Warfield endured in his own circles for holding on to the doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture.  It is a shame that Prof. Mark Noll today practically treats Warfield in the same way.  Today's LC-MS treats Pieper and Walther the same way on their stand on Inspiration, as Warfield's associates treated him in his day.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 21 (Sept. 1921), p. 284-286; translation by BackToLuther, highlighting is mine. German text here.

[Page 284]

Ecclesiastical-Contemporary History. 

Too much dogmatics? In the July issue of the Princeton Theological Review, the memorial address of Dr. [Francis Landey] Patton was published that he gave on Dr. [B.B.] Warfield, who died February 16 of this year [1921]. Dr. Warfield had been Professor of Dogmatics at Princeton Theological Seminary since 1887, and Patton said that through Warfield “the department of Systematic Theology has been built up and has attained a position in this Seminary [Princeton] which it never had before.” Of course, Warfield was quite alone in the faculty at last with his adherence to the Inspiration of Scripture and his emphasis on the importance of Christian doctrine, in contrast to the common ideas about the nature of the Christian religion. This led to the reproach of his own community that he placed too much emphasis on the dogmatic education of the students. Dr. Patton addresses this accusation in his memorial address. Patton himself does not share Warfield's point of view, which was already known to us and also appears in the memorial address. But he does say in Warfield's defense (page 285), while at the same time lamenting the lack of interest in doctrine in his church fellowship: 

“You may wonder sometimes how much time should be given to Systematic Theology in the curriculum of the Seminary, and may be disposed to think that it already has in this institution rather more than its share. Let me speak freely here. You may tell the student that when he leaves the theological seminary, he should keep up his Greek and Hebrew, and prosecute a systematic course of study. But you may be sure that very few men will do it. If he has the time to study as we had who graduated fifty-six years ago, the graduate will gratify his literary appetite and consult his own tastes; but he will follow no cut-and-dried plan. If he has a self-directing mind, he will not adopt a program made by somebody else. But we must remember that times have changed in fifty years. The minister of to-day has his hands full of the activities of the church and other activities besides, and in the inevitable division of labor which has come about we have professors with whom the claims of highly specialized learning shut out to a large extent the opportunity for general reading, and pastors whose readings must come in the intervals between crowded hours, and be very general at that. And yet it is theology which must constitute the backbone of a minister’s pulpit-work, and that he may use it in a free, familiar, unconstrained expression of himself, it must by some hidden process of metabolism enter into the tissues of his being and become part of his life. It is when he is in the seminary and bring into the pulpit beautiful bouquets which they have gathered from the garden of poesy. The reason is that in many cases they have lost faith in the Gospel of salvation, and have parted company with the doctrines of redeeming grace. I am addressing myself more particularly at this moment to young men who are about to enter the ministry, and I wish not to be misunderstood. Art, science, literature, philosophy, are yours; all are yours, and ye are Christ’s and Christ is God’s; use them all in the service of the Sanctuary. Pour the red wine of the Gospel into the golden chalice of your choicest workmanship. But remember that no amount of intellectual attainment will profit you if conviction dies.”

Of course, this confident conviction of the saving truth can only be present in the preacher's heart if the preacher is unceasing in his study of Christian doctrine, in other words, if he continues to study unceasingly. Otherwise, in spite of all external activity, he becomes necessarily “stale”. Walther called this “verbauern” [rusticate]. —

We would like to say a few words about the late Dr. Warfield. Among the American Reformed theologians, Warfield was considered the most thorough expert of German modern theological literature. We may add that he also studied the writings of the Missouri Synod diligently and with great interest. Soon after Dr. Walther's death in 1887, he turned to the undersigned with a request for writings from which he could gain a clear picture of Walther's doctrinal position. We complied with the request, and the result was that the Princeton dogmatist (page 286) requested further submissions, including Synodical reports. A theologian of the General Synod who had visited Princeton published, somewhat indiscreetly, that he had found Dr. Warfield's study table covered with Missourian synodical reports. From this, too, some of our opponents in the dispute over the doctrines of Conversion and Election of Grace believed that they could accept that our doctrine of Election of Grace was identical with the Calvinist doctrine.  The fact is that Dr. Warfield recognized the difference between our doctrine and Calvin's teaching. Nor did he share our position in the doctrine of eternal election. He believed, like his predecessors Charles and A. A. Hodge, that the Election of Grace must be combined with an Election of Wrath. On the other hand, Warfield argued that the doctrine of the Missouri Synod, in contrast to other American Lutheran synods, was the doctrine of the Formula of Concord, which, like the Missouri Synod, teaches an Election of Grace but firmly rejects an Election of Wrath. Warfield has been accused of being “scientifically” backward because of his commitment to the inspiration of Holy Scriptures from within his own fellowship. They even allowed themselves to transfer him to “Borneo” with his view of the Holy Scriptures. It was a consolation to him, as he announced in letters and occasionally in publications, that a great Lutheran synod of America, whose ministry’s “scholarly character cannot be denied”, unanimously and without clauses, professed to be inspired by Scripture. F. P. [Franz Pieper]

[ref. Christian Dogmatics I, 272, Christliche Dogmatik I, 327-328]

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

      We see just how much Dr. Warfield, a Presbyterian Calvinist to the end, read from the Missourians!  It was surely embarrassing for the opposing American Lutherans to read that Warfield's study table was "covered with Missourian synodical reports".  I think I will follow Warfield in this, even if today's LC-MS scarcely does.

B.B. Warfield – studied the Missouri Synod & held to the  Inspiration of Holy Scripture