# Historical theology book by Gregg Allison



## cih1355 (Mar 24, 2011)

Does anyone here on the PB know anything about Gregg Allison? His book about historical theology will be available for purchase in April. Here is a link to the book: Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine: Gregg R. Allison: 9780310230137: Christianbook.com


----------



## TomVols (Apr 9, 2011)

I've been reading it for a couple of days now. VERY GOOD. Rather than look at doctrinal developments by era, he looks at, say, how the doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture has developed from the Early Church Fathers to modern times. Chapter layouts virtually mimick Grudem's. So far, I recommend it wholeheartedly. The binding is a lot like the newer edition of Grudem's Systematic Theology, so that's a minus, but it's a small one (Zondervan could be worse). I wonder when CBD and Amazon will start selling it?


----------



## CharlieJ (Apr 9, 2011)

Based only on your comments, Tom, I'm quite concerned by that approach to history. There's a term for that - "Whig" history. It's a modernist assumption that past is merely a prelude to the present, which stands at the culmination of history. As a result, it interprets the past through the grid of the present. You can't do justice to history by applying the grid of a 20th/21st systematic theology to the past. Besides, such an approach assumes that individual doctrines have a discrete existence that can be abstracted from the context in which they occur. In Patristics, that's called "proof-texting the Fathers," and it's a discredited approach.


----------



## TomVols (Apr 9, 2011)

I couldn't disagree more. Pelikan has a similar work. No one is discounting the era of which these theologians are part. It is simply a method of being able to access the information in a more developed fashion. Other histories have similar approaches. By your reasoning, we should never have texts on Presbyterian history or Baptist history or the history of preaching because this segments the various fields from the larger whole. No proof-texting is implied or required. It is a collection difference, not an interpretative difference.

Read the book, then give an assessment. Mine is only a few chapters old, so I may be wrong. And my few lines were in no way comprehensive.


----------



## MarieP (Apr 9, 2011)

cih1355 said:


> Does anyone here on the PB know anything about Gregg Allison? His book about historical theology will be available for purchase in April. Here is a link to the book: Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine: Gregg R. Allison: 9780310230137: Christianbook.com


 
In just ran into him yesterday eating lunch at the SBTS cafeteria. He was eating meat, so I guess he's safe.

Seriously, I haven't read the book or taken any of his classes...just had to comment though.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Apr 9, 2011)

CharlieJ said:


> Based only on your comments, Tom, I'm quite concerned by that approach to history. There's a term for that - "Whig" history. It's a modernist assumption that past is merely a prelude to the present, which stands at the culmination of history. As a result, it interprets the past through the grid of the present. You can't do justice to history by applying the grid of a 20th/21st systematic theology to the past. Besides, such an approach assumes that individual doctrines have a discrete existence that can be abstracted from the context in which they occur. In Patristics, that's called "proof-texting the Fathers," and it's a discredited approach.


 
So a book on Calvin's view of justification/atonement etc would be a foolhardy endeavor? I see the issue as more of doing the subject well vs. badly instead of the approach in general being bad.

CT


----------



## MarieP (Apr 9, 2011)

Speaking of SBTS cafeteria stories, one time I was waiting as they grilled a sandwich for me, and Dr. Tom Nettles walks up behind me. He asks, "So is that a sandwich made for someone in particular, or can anybody take it?" I grinned and said, "Yes, it was made particularly for me, but you can ask and you'll have one for yourself as well..."


----------



## CharlieJ (Apr 10, 2011)

No, a book on Calvin's view of justification and atonement would not be foolhardy, since Calvin consciously wrote about justification and atonement, and those categories accurately express his own concept of the issue. 

Here's the problem: the book is tied to Grudem's outline. Those categories, though, are the *result* of a particular line of historical development within one sub-section of Christianity. That particular arrangement itself is based on and reinforces a certain set of theological conclusions. No one in the 5th century or the 13th century would have or could have written a systematic theology with those categories. They employed other organizational schemes, other basic principles, other hermeneutical priorities, and other theological emphases. So, you can't take the work of Gregory of Nyssa or Thomas Aquinas or Martin Luther and analyze it based on Grudem's categories, not without seriously undermining the attempt to understand them "in their own context." Also, in what Grudem chapter do you put the teachings on monasticism, canon law, penance, theosis, cardinal virtues and vices, and other things that don't show up in contemporary evangelical theology?

I don't believe that this approach will lead to understanding the actual development of doctrine(s) in their historical contexts.


----------



## TomVols (Apr 10, 2011)

> So, you can't take the work of Gregory of Nyssa or Thomas Aquinas or Martin Luther and analyze it based on Grudem's categories, not without seriously undermining the attempt to understand them "in their own context."


While I understand and appreciate your concerns, I respectfully disagree. You can understand their contextual work based on the concept studied. Why can't a chapter on the history of the Lord's Supper refer to the historical context?


> Also, in what Grudem chapter do you put the teachings on monasticism, canon law, penance, theosis, cardinal virtues and vices, and other things that don't show up in contemporary evangelical theology?


The chapters in which they influence that particular subject under discussion. 

I, for one, am glad we get a treatment that gives weight to the thoughts of the thinkers, rather than just their historical contexts. Some historical theologies are barely more than church histories, and I'm being generous. We must understand the era of the early church fathers to be sure, but if we never get a full treatment of what they actually thought, what good is it? It's like learning all about swimming pool water, without knowing about Mark Spitz.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Apr 10, 2011)

CharlieJ said:


> Based only on your comments, Tom, I'm quite concerned by that approach to history. There's a term for that - "Whig" history. It's a modernist assumption that past is merely a prelude to the present, which stands at the culmination of history. As a result, it interprets the past through the grid of the present. You can't do justice to history by applying the grid of a 20th/21st systematic theology to the past. Besides, such an approach assumes that individual doctrines have a discrete existence that can be abstracted from the context in which they occur. In Patristics, that's called "proof-texting the Fathers," and it's a discredited approach.


 
What exactly is wrong with the "Whig" approach to history? It seems that to reject it means that various beliefs just fell out the sky, yesterday. If a certain doctrine was not addressed, then one can simply say it was not addressed. But even here, options on unaddressed things tend to be limited by a person's other explicit beliefs.

CT


----------

