JDKetterman
Puritan Board Freshman
Dr. Carrick of Greenville Seminary has a critique of Redemptive Historical preaching: http://www.gpts.edu/resources/index.html. I was wondering what everyone's position on redemptive historical preaching.
A Critique of Redemptive Historical preaching
- Thread starter JDKetterman
- Start date
- Status
elnwood
Puritan Board Junior
Carrick also wrote a book on it called The Imperative of Preaching: A Theology of Sacred Rhetoric.
http://www.amazon.com/Imperative-Preaching-Theology-Sacred-Rhetoric/dp/0851518265
It's not so much a critique of Redemptive Historical Preaching as much as an extreme form of R-H that says, in a nutshell, that examples other than Jesus should not be used, and we should not use imperatives in preaching, instead pointing to Christ.
John Frame briefly covers the topic in this article, which Carrick cites in his book.
http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/1999Ethics.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Imperative-Preaching-Theology-Sacred-Rhetoric/dp/0851518265
It's not so much a critique of Redemptive Historical Preaching as much as an extreme form of R-H that says, in a nutshell, that examples other than Jesus should not be used, and we should not use imperatives in preaching, instead pointing to Christ.
John Frame briefly covers the topic in this article, which Carrick cites in his book.
http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/1999Ethics.htm
JDKetterman
Puritan Board Freshman
I'll have to buy the book. Much of what he says in this lecture I agree with. However, I think he's painting with a broad brush when he's talking about the "Redemptive Historical school." I'm not exactly sure who he is defining as the RHS, but a lot of what he says has been pretty much hammered out in RHS schools...
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I downloaded it. Thanks for the link.
elnwood
Puritan Board Junior
The redemptive-historical is the moniker that these groups use, although it is actually a distortion of redemptive-historical preaching. I don't want to name names, but those schools of thought do exist, they are dangerous, and they need to be addressed.
My pastor, Gene Cook, was accused of being a moralistic preacher and a number of people left the church over that issue (and others as well).
Pastor Cook interviewed John Frame on the topic. Unfortunately, I don't think the interview is free anymore, but if you're interested, it's worth the 98 cents.
http://tnma.blogspot.com/2006/10/interview-with-dr-john-frame-on-tnm.html
Guido's Brother
Puritan Board Junior
I listened to the lecture with some interest since I have been trained in what I was told was "the redemptive-historical method." I have some thoughts:
1. It seems to me that there is some equivocation or confusion between the redemptive-historical method developed by Schilder c.s. and that of Vos. At one point Schilder is (wrongly, in my opinion) identified as the father of r-h, and then at another point Vos is. There is some overlap, but I think they are different developments.
2. As I was trained, "redemptive-historical" was not a homiletical, but a hermeneutical issue. In my seminary training we were repeatedly taught that a sermon without application is not a sermon. For this reason, when Carrick is speaking positively (i.e. not critiquing anyone), I can agree wholeheartedly.
3. Carrick demonstrated a lack of familiarity with the Dutch side of the debate when he identified Trimp and Douma as "critics" of the redemptive-historical method. Trimp's book "Preaching and the History of Salvation" is subtitled "continuing an unfinished discussion." It is a contribution to a discussion from someone within the redemptive-historical tradition. Yes, there are some critical elements, but identifying Trimp as a critic of r-h would be like identifying David Powlison as a critic of nouthetic counselling.
4. It is interesting to note that Carrick comes down hard on Schilder c.s. in the first 10 minutes as being those who preach the indicative and never the imperative. First, I'd like to know how may sermons from Schilder (real sermons preached in churches, not the "Schilder Trilogy"), Carrick has read. Second, this comment is interesting because Schilder is often being (mistakenly) associated with the Federal Vision and its confusion of law and gospel. I recall a comment from someone (Clark or Horton?) who quoted D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones to the effect that if you've never been charged with antinomianism, you've never preached the gospel. It seems to me that Schilder is being charged with a sort of homiletical antinomianism -- that's got to be a good thing, right?
What this illustrates is that, if one is going to be making critiques of Schilder and others, you have to take the time to read the authors for yourself (preferably in Dutch) and become familiar with the tradition. Otherwise these critiques come across as careless and sophomoric.
5. Carrick may well be qualified to speak about Vos and his disciples and what goes by the name of "redemptive-historical" in the North American context. But then he should just stick to Vos c.s.
1. It seems to me that there is some equivocation or confusion between the redemptive-historical method developed by Schilder c.s. and that of Vos. At one point Schilder is (wrongly, in my opinion) identified as the father of r-h, and then at another point Vos is. There is some overlap, but I think they are different developments.
2. As I was trained, "redemptive-historical" was not a homiletical, but a hermeneutical issue. In my seminary training we were repeatedly taught that a sermon without application is not a sermon. For this reason, when Carrick is speaking positively (i.e. not critiquing anyone), I can agree wholeheartedly.
3. Carrick demonstrated a lack of familiarity with the Dutch side of the debate when he identified Trimp and Douma as "critics" of the redemptive-historical method. Trimp's book "Preaching and the History of Salvation" is subtitled "continuing an unfinished discussion." It is a contribution to a discussion from someone within the redemptive-historical tradition. Yes, there are some critical elements, but identifying Trimp as a critic of r-h would be like identifying David Powlison as a critic of nouthetic counselling.
4. It is interesting to note that Carrick comes down hard on Schilder c.s. in the first 10 minutes as being those who preach the indicative and never the imperative. First, I'd like to know how may sermons from Schilder (real sermons preached in churches, not the "Schilder Trilogy"), Carrick has read. Second, this comment is interesting because Schilder is often being (mistakenly) associated with the Federal Vision and its confusion of law and gospel. I recall a comment from someone (Clark or Horton?) who quoted D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones to the effect that if you've never been charged with antinomianism, you've never preached the gospel. It seems to me that Schilder is being charged with a sort of homiletical antinomianism -- that's got to be a good thing, right?
What this illustrates is that, if one is going to be making critiques of Schilder and others, you have to take the time to read the authors for yourself (preferably in Dutch) and become familiar with the tradition. Otherwise these critiques come across as careless and sophomoric.
5. Carrick may well be qualified to speak about Vos and his disciples and what goes by the name of "redemptive-historical" in the North American context. But then he should just stick to Vos c.s.
R-H interpretation is an important, even critical aspect of biblical hermeneutics and preaching. It cannot be neglected. But neither can the imperatives.
Carrick's critique focuses on an over-emphasis in some R-H preaching on the indicative, even to the point of attacking or deploring imperatives in preaching. As if that was "moralism".
There are errors of moralism. And they have found their way into Reformed and Presbyterian churches. This has occurred due to the 20th century's neglect of classic, covenant theology in our own churches (as R. Scott Clark has pointed out). Dispensationalism's influence has been far-reaching. First such an approach reduced the preaching text to the NT, then reduced the imperatives to "decide for Christ".
The reaction was equally bad, as problems with human behavior spun out of control due to "we're not under law (of any kind)" teaching. The OT was mined for moral examples. The FAITH of the OT was deformed from faith-in-Christ (to come). Hermeneutically, only previous revelation was "relevant" to interpretation of different passages (see Walter Kaiser's Toward an Old Testament Theology).
The R-H resurgence, led by various elements (especially at the Westminster Sems), helped in the recovery of a wholistic preaching ministry. But some made R-H into the tool of "right" interpretation. And anything other than a "Christological" evaluation of a text = "error". Well, that's the silver-bullet approach to the perennial, and HARD work, of biblical interpretation. And that's the real "error". And in it's worst forms, extreme R-H is little distinguishable from pure allegorization (because of insufficient correctives in individual approaches).
We need the Christological, and the Biblical, and the Historical, and the Theological, and the Practical elements of textual treatment. Sometimes my sermons are heavily R-H. Because that's where I see the "weight" in the text, or simply the need of the congregation. Other sermons balance out the various emphases. Christians need it all, and we preachers need to be constrained to the text, in order to present it fully, over time teaching the "whole counsel".
Carrick's critique focuses on an over-emphasis in some R-H preaching on the indicative, even to the point of attacking or deploring imperatives in preaching. As if that was "moralism".
There are errors of moralism. And they have found their way into Reformed and Presbyterian churches. This has occurred due to the 20th century's neglect of classic, covenant theology in our own churches (as R. Scott Clark has pointed out). Dispensationalism's influence has been far-reaching. First such an approach reduced the preaching text to the NT, then reduced the imperatives to "decide for Christ".
The reaction was equally bad, as problems with human behavior spun out of control due to "we're not under law (of any kind)" teaching. The OT was mined for moral examples. The FAITH of the OT was deformed from faith-in-Christ (to come). Hermeneutically, only previous revelation was "relevant" to interpretation of different passages (see Walter Kaiser's Toward an Old Testament Theology).
The R-H resurgence, led by various elements (especially at the Westminster Sems), helped in the recovery of a wholistic preaching ministry. But some made R-H into the tool of "right" interpretation. And anything other than a "Christological" evaluation of a text = "error". Well, that's the silver-bullet approach to the perennial, and HARD work, of biblical interpretation. And that's the real "error". And in it's worst forms, extreme R-H is little distinguishable from pure allegorization (because of insufficient correctives in individual approaches).
We need the Christological, and the Biblical, and the Historical, and the Theological, and the Practical elements of textual treatment. Sometimes my sermons are heavily R-H. Because that's where I see the "weight" in the text, or simply the need of the congregation. Other sermons balance out the various emphases. Christians need it all, and we preachers need to be constrained to the text, in order to present it fully, over time teaching the "whole counsel".
JDKetterman
Puritan Board Freshman
As I was listening to it today, he mentioned a debate in the Netherlands about whether or not it was correct to preach about examples. Dr. Carrick seems to take the affirmative that it is Biblical to preach about examples when the indicative is tied to the imperative. For those of you who preach redemptive historically, do you believe in exemplary preaching (examples:Jesus, Abraham, Issaic, David)?
Do you believe there has been a over-reaction within Reformed circles about using Saints as examples?
Do you believe there has been a over-reaction within Reformed circles about using Saints as examples?
SolaGratia
Puritan Board Junior
Biblical Interpretation
I am currently studying this matter by reading books from both the Grammatical, Historical, and Theological Interpretation AND the Redemptive Historical Preaching.
In our Reformed and Preb. Churches I think that other than the Federal Vision Heresies that the church is currently facing we have the problem of our Churches not preaching according to the Reformed tradition.
I think this topic is very important in our churches right now. We must take a closer look at what our members are hearing from the pulpits. Sadly, as I just found out this topic is also related as to why our seminaries are not in aggrement which each other when it comes to how and what our pastors should preach. For example, just look at the authors below we have solid old school Reformed authors with new comtemporay authors.
From the Grammatical, Historical, and Theo. Interpretation Side I have;
1. Principles of Biblical Interpretation, Louis Berkhof
2. The Claims of Truth Vol.1, Collected Writings of John Murray
From the Redemptive Historical Preaching
1. Redemption The Triumph of God's Great Plan by Derke P. Bergsma
2. Christ-Centered Preaching by Bryan Chapell
Has anyone else study this matter or read any of the books related to this matter?
I am currently studying this matter by reading books from both the Grammatical, Historical, and Theological Interpretation AND the Redemptive Historical Preaching.
In our Reformed and Preb. Churches I think that other than the Federal Vision Heresies that the church is currently facing we have the problem of our Churches not preaching according to the Reformed tradition.
I think this topic is very important in our churches right now. We must take a closer look at what our members are hearing from the pulpits. Sadly, as I just found out this topic is also related as to why our seminaries are not in aggrement which each other when it comes to how and what our pastors should preach. For example, just look at the authors below we have solid old school Reformed authors with new comtemporay authors.
From the Grammatical, Historical, and Theo. Interpretation Side I have;
1. Principles of Biblical Interpretation, Louis Berkhof
2. The Claims of Truth Vol.1, Collected Writings of John Murray
From the Redemptive Historical Preaching
1. Redemption The Triumph of God's Great Plan by Derke P. Bergsma
2. Christ-Centered Preaching by Bryan Chapell
Has anyone else study this matter or read any of the books related to this matter?
JDKetterman
Puritan Board Freshman
I've read Edmund Clowney's Preaching Christ in All of Scripture, and Graeme Goldsworthy's book, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics. Both of these books I found to be very helpful. A great deal of my books are Biblical theological. When reading the text through a redemptive historical framework, to me it makes the imperatives a lot more sense. It lets me know what God requires of me in His Law, and how I should live because of what has already taken place.
My pastor takes a mixture of Redemptive historical and evangelical (traditional) approaches to preaching.
My pastor takes a mixture of Redemptive historical and evangelical (traditional) approaches to preaching.
SolaGratia
Puritan Board Junior
JD,
Besides the redemptive historical framework have you read from the grammatical, historical, and theological interpretation? Also, are you familiar with Louis Berkof?
Besides the redemptive historical framework have you read from the grammatical, historical, and theological interpretation? Also, are you familiar with Louis Berkof?
dannyhyde
Puritan Board Sophomore
Gil,
Your categories are too simplistic. It's not as if someone on either of your "sides" would reject the other. For example, while Berkhof follows the GH method in his book on hermeneutics, have you read any of his sermons? For example, in the volume Riches of Divine Grace? His sermons were Christ-centered, experiential, doctrinal, grammatical, etc. all in one.
SolaGratia
Puritan Board Junior
Pastor Hyde,
Thanks for your input, I am new to this and I am trying to further understand preaching and how to read and look at the scriptures. Normaly Pastors will preach according to what they learn at seminaries. Therefore, it seems to me that our pastor are preaching according to what seminary he attended and what was the influence GH, RH, or American Evangilical forms of preaching.
My understanding is that RH and American Evangelical preaching are new and thus not Historical Reformed.
Thanks for your input, I am new to this and I am trying to further understand preaching and how to read and look at the scriptures. Normaly Pastors will preach according to what they learn at seminaries. Therefore, it seems to me that our pastor are preaching according to what seminary he attended and what was the influence GH, RH, or American Evangilical forms of preaching.
My understanding is that RH and American Evangelical preaching are new and thus not Historical Reformed.
Guido's Brother
Puritan Board Junior
As Trimp (who is a child of the r-h tradition) points out, there is a right use of examples. I believe the key is the text -- does the text and its context (all of Scripture) lead the preacher to that? And if so, how? And then, how do we make the application of that example to the congregation?
For myself, I find it often helpful to think along these lines:
Character in text --> testimony to Christ (how will vary) --> application to believer (often through union with Christ, but there is variety here too).
I'll admit that it's a bit schematic and it doesn't always work with every text. But often it does...
I too have found the books of Graeme Goldsworthy and Bryan Chapell to be helpful resources.
JDKetterman
Puritan Board Freshman
I have read a lot on grammatical and theological interpretation, but I admit that I have only studied a little of the historical. I'm very familiar with Louis Berkof (He's one of the reasons why I am Reformed). I appreciate everyone's insights on here.
If one reads Berkhof properly, it will be seen he is correcting GH interpretation, and insists attention must be given to a third dimension -- the theological element.
Vos was not RH, but held to the "history of revelation," of which redemption was a significant part. The RH school, such as is held by Ridderbos, is the result of a later development in biblical theology called the salvation history approach, most notably espoused by Cullmann. This approach was helpful in many ways because it was a reaction to the history of religion school; but as an end in itself it is quite destructive of much that is good in reformed biblical theology. Let's not forget the reason why Vos is often esteemed the father of reformed biblical theology -- it is because he was willing to acknowledge the inevitability of dogmatic presuppositions in the discipline and to stand up forthrightly for the authority of the reformed faith to inform one's approach to exegesis.
Vos was not RH, but held to the "history of revelation," of which redemption was a significant part. The RH school, such as is held by Ridderbos, is the result of a later development in biblical theology called the salvation history approach, most notably espoused by Cullmann. This approach was helpful in many ways because it was a reaction to the history of religion school; but as an end in itself it is quite destructive of much that is good in reformed biblical theology. Let's not forget the reason why Vos is often esteemed the father of reformed biblical theology -- it is because he was willing to acknowledge the inevitability of dogmatic presuppositions in the discipline and to stand up forthrightly for the authority of the reformed faith to inform one's approach to exegesis.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
I don't think this struggle over RH and GH is new or modern. We see similar struggles between the Antiochan and Alexandrian schools long ago. 
- Status
