structure of theological presentation, tracing Warield’s

he heology of B. B. Warield own views from prolegomena to eschatology. Zaspel is

committed to letting Warield speak for himself, thus
By Fred G. Zaspel. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Press, 2010.
very little extraneous material crops up in the conver-
sation, save when Zaspel needs to disabuse erroneous
To speak of 19th century Princeton theology is to speak
views of Warield by letting Warield defend himself.
of a robust Christian orthodoxy. From its inception in
Zaspel gives the reader pure Warield wherever possible,
1812 to the beginning of the twentieth century Princeton
sometimes summarizing but oten quoting Warield,
and orthodoxy were synonymous. Charles Hodge (1797-
and thereby crats a compelling record of what Warield
1878) set the standard high, followed by his capable son
himself might have written if he had taken the time to so
Archibald Alexander Hodge (1823-1886). Hodge the
order his thoughts.
younger was succeeded by the eminently capable Benja-
min Breckinridge Warield (1851-1921), polemic theolo-
Zaspel’s version is particularly helpful in a couple of
gian who guarded the sacred ire of Reformation dogma
areas where Warield’s views are debated—inspiration
through some of the most important years of Princeton’s
and evolution. For example, ater review-
history as theological liberalism was gain-
ing Warield’s debate with Charles A Briggs
ing its hegemony in Presbyterian life.
(111f), Zaspel dismisses the recent criti-
cisms of Warield’s views by men like Er-
he Hodges let the world substantial liter-
nest Sandeen, Jack Rogers and Donald Mc-
ary records of their systematic theological
Kim, citing John Woodbridge compelling
understanding. B. B. Warield, however,
refutation of the Roger-McKim proposal.
despite his voluminous scholarly output,
Zaspel also tackles the recent claims from
let no such witness. his is due partially
well-known scholars that Warield was an
to the fact that Warield was an apologist
enthusiastic supporter of theistic evolution
and concentrated his eforts on a more
(369f). Zaspel examines the evidence for
narrow range of topics—bibliology and
this carefully and concludes that, at best,
sanctiication, among others. However,
Warield was “non-committal” toward
later students of Warield have wished for
evolution. Indeed during his early student
an in-depth, ordered presentation of his
years, largely under the inluence of James
thought, a ready reference to the massive
McCosh, Warield embraced an evolution-
corpus of material that would distill the
ary construct. But, according to Zaspel, Warield grew
essence of his views in a manageable format. Fred G.
less certain of this model as time went on. his was due,
Zaspel has rectiied this want. Siting and weighing the
Zaspel argues, perhaps to the fact that Warield saw the
massive amount of Warield’s own scholarly writings, his
creation of Eve as a major obstacle to an evolutionary
personal correspondence, and the notes of his students,
paradigm. In the end, Warield’s views are uncertain.
Zaspel has woven together a theological treatise Warield
“hat Warield actually committed himself to a doctrine
himself might well have written, and of which he likely
of evolution is diicult if not impossible to airm, simply
would be gratiied.
because, although there are some indications that he en-
tertained the idea, he never admitted accepting it” (386).
Ater an introductory chapter putting Warield into his
Princeton context, Zaspel begins by examining Warf-
he longest sections in the book treat the doctrines
ield’s view of theology as an apologetical task. From here,
of salvation including Warield’s views on sanctiica-
Zaspel organizes his material according to the standard
tion. he perfectionism and the Keswick, deeper life
68 | Credo Magazine | August 2012 www.credomag.com | 68
movement received some of Warield’s most trenchant
criticism. Zaspel does a commendable job unpacking
Warield’s thought in this area. he shortest sections
regard Warield’s views on ecclesiology and eschatology,
doctrines over which he little contended. he inal sec-
tion of the book includes a ine summary of Warield as
a polemicist.
Zaspel’s reconstruction of Warield serves as an impor-
tant introduction to the great theologian. It will likely
not be the inal word that a student of Warield will ex-
amine. he serious student will want to turn to the writ-
ings of Warield himself to read his own words in their
context. But Zaspel’s treatise will stand as a good start-
ing point from which to begin to probe the signiicant
thought of Benjamin Breckenridge Warield. Zaspel is to
be thanked for his eforts in bringing Warield near by
constructing a systematic presentation Warield might
well have written himself.
Jef Straub
Professor of Historical and Systematic heology at Central
Baptist heological Seminary
Christ-Centered Biblical
heology: Hermeneutical
Foundations and Principles
By Graeme Goldsworthy. Downers Grove, IL: InterVar-
sity Press, 2012.
Understanding the big picture of the Bible and how the
storyline of Scripture unfolds and inds its terminus in
Jesus Christ is a subject that no serious Christian can
ignore. Biblical theology is the discipline that seeks to
trace and synthesize the variety of biblical themes across
the canon of Scripture, helping us understand the cen-
tral message of the Bible and its Christocentric focus
throughout since the Scripture is the coherent and uni-
ied Word of God. Graeme Goldsworthy, one of the
most articulate and well-known scholars in the ield of
biblical theology has provided another important re-
source for those seeking to better understand the struc-
ture of the Bible and the progress of redemptive history
which culminates in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
his present work in many ways recapitulates and adds
to his previous works: According to Plan: he Unfold-
ing Revelation of God (1991), he Goldsworthy Triology
(2000), and Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics (2006). Be-
fore distilling particular strengths and weaknesses of this
latest installment, Goldsworthy’s understanding of bibli-
cal theology – its nature and structure – along with his
approach to typology will be briely presented below.
he discipline of biblical theology (BT) has lacked a
coherency among evangelicals in regard to its validity
and practice (29), but there has also been a neglect of
BT for a host of reasons, not least due to the fact that the
method, principles of BT, and its relationship to biblical
studies has not attained a consensus among theologians
(33-36). Important theological and hermeneutical pre-
suppositions result in difering conceptions of BT (38-
55). Nevertheless, as Goldsworthy rightly highlights, the
nature of Scripture as a progress of revelation of events
in history that is uniied since one divine Author has
www.credomag.com | 69