In the past, Reformed theology has emphasized systematic theology and polemical theology.
This doesn’t mean that Reformed theology is indifferent to exegetical theology. Far from it!
And, in this respect, I’m not contrasting Reformed theological method with other theological traditions.
The traditional emphasis in Reformed theology can be paralleled in traditional Catholic, Lutheran, and Arminian theology as well (although Catholic theology accentuates historical theology to a greater degree).
My point, rather, is that there’s a certain style of doing theology according to the period in question. It depends on the conceptual resources available to a theologian at that time and place.
And I say all that to say this: I think we’re beginning to see a shifting emphasis in Reformed theological method. A shift towards exegetical theology.
And there’s an obvious reason for that: Reformed theology, with its rule of faith (sola Scriptura), has always aimed at grounding its theology in the teaching of Scripture, so this is a natural development in traditional Reformed priorities.
The difference is that the art of exegesis has improved over the years. We have hermeneutical resources that earlier Reformed theologians didn’t.
As a result, Calvinists are beginning to produce OT and NT theologies.
Now, this is a difference of degree rather than kind. On the one hand, as I said, Reformed theology has always been deeply concerned with the text of Scripture.
On the other hand, even OT and NT theologies need some organizing principles to arrange their exegetical conclusions into some sort of logical order. So they use thematic principles to structure their material. That isn’t fundamentally different from systematic theology.
The main difference is that these newer works are written by Bible scholars rather than systematic theologians. As such, the coverage is more exegetically intensive, and that marks a genuine advance.
This doesn’t mean we should consign Bavinck or Berkhof or Turretin to the trashcan. Works like that retain a very useful place in the grand scheme of things.
But if I were recommending, to a new Christian, a few books that would lay a solid foundation for his faith, I’d begin with the OT and NT theologies which are being published by Reformed Bible scholars. Three major works have already been published, while another one is in the pipeline:
1. Tom Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Baker 2008).
2. Tom Schreiner, Paul, Apostle of God's Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology (IVP 2006).
3. Bruce Waltke, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Zondervan 2007).
I’d throw in one caveat. Waltke is generally conservative, but occasionally, in comparative mythology or higher criticism, he strikes a false note.
4. According to his academic webpage, Gregory Beale is also working on a NT theology:
“Contracted in 1998 to write a New Testament Biblical Theology for Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, Michigan). 300-400 pages.”
http://www.wheaton.edu/Theology/Faculty/beale/publications.html
Dear Steve,
ReplyDeleteI'd like to ask you a question related to your observation that Reformed theology is emphasizing the exegetical theological aspects of it more of these days and times.
I have often thought there was a connection between Calvinism and Complementarianism, but this blog article finally brings attention to it. In particular, I thought the first comment in the thread by Pete was very good.
So Steve, what do you think of relationship between Calvinism and Complementarianism? Do you think something's there?
P.S. By the way, I have thought that the "C's" represented some of my doctrinal distinctives:
"C" for Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
"C" for Calvinism
"C" for Complementarian
"C" for Creationist (Anything but Macro-Evolution)
"C" for Cessationist (Albeit very soft, nondogmatic cessationist).
"C" for Christ-follower!
"This doesn’t mean that Reformed theology is indifferent to exegetical theology. Far from it!"
ReplyDeleteExegete Galatians 2. You can't because the exegesis would prove PAul to be a false apostle, and then you'd know why Paul says "all those in Asia have turned away from me" (2nd Timothy 1:15) Galatia is in Asia, and apparently the Asians exegeted Galatians 2 and found Paul out for the liar he is, as did the Ephesians (also Asians) per Revelation 2:2.
PaulSceptic said:
ReplyDeleteExegete Galatians 2. You can't because the exegesis would prove PAul to be a false apostle . . . Galatia is in Asia, and apparently the Asians exegeted Galatians 2 and found Paul out for the liar he is . . .
So PaulSceptic thinks the apostle Paul is a liar.
Yet PaulSceptic also says:
and then you'd know why Paul says "all those in Asia have turned away from me" (2nd Timothy 1:15)
Except PaulSceptic doesn't think Paul lied in 2 Tim. 1:15.
Perhaps PaulSceptic would care to explain how he knows when the apostle Paul is lying and when the apostle Paul is not lying?
This post by you, Steve, has a vibe of a rare false note. Anyway, a guy named Geerhardus Vos, and a guy named Meredith Kline existed. Whenever I read something about biblical theology that avoids mentioning those two names (especially the first name) it is suspicious. Usually it is theological liberals doing their thing: "Hey, let's just pretend Vos never existed, that way we don't have to be held to his standard of Reformed orthodoxy when we work in the biblical theology realm ourselves. I mean, why should we allow Vos to ruin our fun?"
ReplyDeleteTHE PURITAN SAID:
ReplyDeleteThis post by you, Steve, has a vibe of a rare false note. Anyway, a guy named Geerhardus Vos, and a guy named Meredith Kline existed. Whenever I read something about biblical theology that avoids mentioning those two names (especially the first name) it is suspicious. Usually it is theological liberals doing their thing: "Hey, let's just pretend Vos never existed, that way we don't have to be held to his standard of Reformed orthodoxy when we work in the biblical theology realm ourselves. I mean, why should we allow Vos to ruin our fun?"
****************************************
i) The standard of Reformed orthodoxy is normally defined by the historic Reformed confessions, creeds, and catechisms (e.g. WCF, 3 Forms of Unity).
ii) Kline held many idiosyncratic views. Since when he is the benchmark of Reformed orthodoxy?
iii) Vos was a pioneer. He retired in 1932. Subsequent Reformed scholars have built on his insights. Why would I send a reader to the basement instead of the penthouse?
iv) Are you suggesting that men like Beale and Schreiner are liberals?
v) The works I mentioned are more comprehensive that Vos. Cover a wider range of topics.
vi) My point, in this post, is not to trace the history of redemption from Eden to the New Jerusalem. That’s a worthwhile exercise, but that’s not the only worthwhile exercise. That diachronic treatment leaves a lot of Biblical teaching on the cutting room floor.
What’s wrong with having treatments that analyze the theology of major Bible writers, or major books of the Bible?
This sentence:
ReplyDelete"This doesn’t mean we should consign Bavinck or Berkhof or Turretin to the trashcan. Works like that retain a very useful place in the grand scheme of things."
with its passive praise for such foundational sources for Reformed Theology itself (not just the names but systematic theology itself) is what is a bit troubling.
>ii) Kline held many idiosyncratic views. Since when he is the benchmark of Reformed orthodoxy?
Kline was fully within the realm of orthodox classical covenant theology, as was Vos. The only reason you wouldn't direct a beginner to Kline is because it is advanced covenant theology. Personally I'd send beginners to Packer's Concise Theology, Berkhof's Manual of Christian Doctrine, and the Word of God itself. Pilgrim's Progress as well.
>What’s wrong with having treatments that analyze the theology of major Bible writers, or major books of the Bible?
Nothing, but you, in this post, are putting biblical theology in a forefront role. It doesn't belong there. That is a recipe for chaos and confusion. Every false teacher inside or outside the camp grins wide at the thought of biblical theology being on center stage.
I'd also note that Douglas Moo is coming out with a Pauline theology as well.
ReplyDeleteI'm currently reading Schreiner's New Testament Theology, and it's excellent.
THE PURITAN SAID:
ReplyDelete"Nothing, but you, in this post, are putting biblical theology in a forefront role. It doesn't belong there. That is a recipe for chaos and confusion. Every false teacher inside or outside the camp grins wide at the thought of biblical theology being on center stage."
Any false teacher can also write a systematic theology. Theological method doesn't select for orthodoxy.
What I'm putting front and center is exegetical theology. For that I make no apologies.
>Any false teacher can also write a systematic theology.
ReplyDeleteActually no, they can't. When false teachers put their cards on the table in the way systematic theology demands they are exposed. Read the latest Federal Vision systematic theology? Nope. They know better.
Biblical Theology, on the other hand, is the land of mush that false teachers love to work their sophistry in.
Biblical Theology serves Systematic Theology. Turning beginners to biblical theology is like selling someone parts of a radio rather than a whole, working radio.
It very much is not enough to turn people to Reformed biblical theology. It's the genre itself that lends itself to deception. Reading any biblical theology one can't determine it's orthodoxy without having apostolic biblical truth from systematic theology prior.
THE PURITAN SAID:
ReplyDelete>Any false teacher can also write a systematic theology.
Actually no, they can't. When false teachers put their cards on the table in the way systematic theology demands they are exposed. Read the latest Federal Vision systematic theology? Nope. They know better.
Biblical Theology, on the other hand, is the land of mush that false teachers love to work their sophistry in.
Biblical Theology serves Systematic Theology. Turning beginners to biblical theology is like selling someone parts of a radio rather than a whole, working radio.
It very much is not enough to turn people to Reformed biblical theology. It's the genre itself that lends itself to deception. Reading any biblical theology one can't determine it's orthodoxy without having apostolic biblical truth from systematic theology prior.
***************
Systematic theology is only as good or bad as the exegetical theology which informs it. Systematic theology is a higher level synthesis, based on exegetical theology.
And beginners are in very good hands when I turn them over to men like Beale and Schreiner.
Waltke has to be read with a bit more discernment.
Schreiner and Beale are on my wish list, based on your recommendations.
ReplyDeleteHere are a couple of interviews with Tom Schreiner on his NT Theology:
ReplyDelete1. Interview with Midlands Bible College
2. Interview with CT
BTW, I remember John Piper, whose church Schreiner attended for several years, encouraged Christian students not only to study their own field or discipline, but also to study theology.
Sure, it sounds like hard work, and it'll be easy to wonder if there's even enough time in a day to read and study so much, not to mention have time to hang out with friends and classmates and so on.
But at least in my experience school is one of the very best times to study these things. I don't think I've ever been as focused and learned so much, and on a variety of topics, as when I was in school. For one thing, everyone around you is studying; studying is your "job." So it's a different atmosphere and environment, one which is more conducive to learning. When you're working, it's different. Or at least it is for me. I'm often exhausted after a day's work and can't seem to find the mental energy to focus on, say, a work of theology. Plus, there are more people to talk to about different things, and argue with, and debate with, and the whole enterprise seems to foster the honing of one's critical thinking skills and knowledge. Or, at least, this was my experience.
So it might be a good idea for those of you like me to also take the time to read some theology and so on. Again, I think it's good to do hard things, especially when you're young and able.
Anyway, just my two cents' worth, for what it's worth, which is probably all it's worth!
Steve what about DA Carson, John Currid and Craig Keener, are they good exegetes as well?
ReplyDeleteCarson, Currid, and Keener are also good exegetes. The first two are Reformed, the third is a conservative charismatic evangelical.
ReplyDelete