Warfield on the Sacraments

[py3ak]

In the Selected Shorter Writings, v.1, pp. 325-338 there are two articles by Warfield, one on baptism, one on the Lord's Supper, which I found very interesting and illuminating.

Because my knowledge on this topic is shallow, I would like to know if in these articles B.B. Warfield is idiosyncratic in his conclusions or his argumentation, or if he is in line with the stream of confessional Reformed tradition.

Here is a link to the one on baptism: Christian Baptism - Benjamin B. Warfield - Reformed Literature

And here is a link to the one on the Lord's Supper: BENJAMIN B. WARFIELD, "THE FUNDAMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER" 1201

 

[Wayne]

Ruben:

Starting with his article on baptism, Dr. Warfield is clearly well within the classic Reformed explication of baptism.
And you are right, there is much there that is illuminating.

But it was a long enough article, and you might have noted something I missed. Was there anything that raised questions for you? The one surprise for me was his inclusion of the washing of hands or feet.

 

[Wayne]

And again on the Lord's Supper, I would say definitely yes, Warfield is well within standard Reformed understanding. If anything, he brings out aspects not usually touched on.

Noting the date of the article, 1901, it is a reflection of his mature thought. And noting the publication, The Bible Student, it was written for a conservative and receptive lay audience. (it wasn't intended to be a polemical article; almost more in the older style of a sacramental meditation.

Oh! Which reminds me of something you might enjoy: John Willison's Sacramental Meditations

 

[py3ak]

Thanks for the input and the book recommendation, Wayne. I found Warfield's remarks very attractive, and was wondering if his approach and positions were consistent with the preceding Reformed tradition, because I don't know enough about it to be sure that he is. In general, he is one of my favorite authors.

 

[Wayne]

Thus far Warfield has only puzzled me on two things.
1. His argument for deaconesses, in which he admits he only has one verse to stand on, and so then proceeds to argue from church history.
2. His seeming capitulation on revision of the Westminster Standards. Perhaps at best, he took the matter as a fait accompli and simply moved on [recalling his subsequent & famous quote "You can't split rotten wood"].

Samuel Rutherford's Communion Sermons, posted by one of our own, would be another treasure to consult.

 

[py3ak]

I have valued Warfield very highly, but his argument in The Plan of Salvation that God saves the maximum number of people that He can save consistently with His own glory struck me from the first as being unacceptable. Other points that people have mentioned for criticism have been his acceptance of some form of evolution and acceptance of the critical text.
But for precision of exegesis and conception and statement, for poetic thought and expression, as a preacher he seems to me unequalled. And the two articles in v.2 of the Selected Shorter Writings that he devotes to the question of race seem to me to be models of Christian charity and firmness.

 

[Wayne]

I forgot about his views on evolution.

 

[dudley]

We Presbyterians who are Reformed Protestants believe The Lord is present spiritually only (HC 78-80, WCF 29)

Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22ff., Luke 22:19ff, 1 Cor. 11:24ff.

I believe Warfield complies with our beliefs as Reformed Protestants and Presbyterians that the bread and wine are symbols only of his sacrifice on Calvary. The Lords Supper is a memorial of that pascal sacrifice, not a sacrifice itself.

Warfield says:
"The bread and wine of which we partake at the Lord's table are in like manner, according to our Lord's precise declarafion, the representations of his body and blood -- his body given, his blood poured out for us What is done in the two feasts is therefore precisely the same thing: Jesus Christ is symbolically fed upon in both".