Always Reforming: Explorations in Sys. Theology

[elnwood]

Has anyone read this? The description is intriguing.

Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology - Edited By: A.T.B. McGowan By: Gerald Bray, Henri Blocher, Stephen Williams, Kevin J. Vanhoozer - Christianbook.com

"Do changing perspectives trample tradition? Since the 16th century, the Reformation's call to be semper reformanda - always reforming - has led some to abandon received orthodoxy. Others have progressed toward rigid confessionalism. These essays by eleven distinguished Reformed theologians traverse the full terrain of systematic theology to help refresh and renew the present and future church."

 

[JohnOwen007]

Yes I have read it. It's a great collections of essays, showing that the reformed theological tradition doesn't remain static. Henri Blocher's essay was particularly a stand out.

 

[Casey]

Any others have comments on this book who have read it?

 

[greenbaggins]

I haven't read it all yet. I was very disappointed with Gamble's contribution. Some people today seem to think that the only danger afflicting the church is a reification of doctrine. Gamble's essay, in effect, prevents systematic theology from ever exercising any kind of control on exegesis and biblical theology. Gamble truly does advocate replacing ST with BT. Not good.

 

[Casey]

I haven't read it all yet.

I haven't read it all yet either! I'm in Reymond's chapter now (Christology), and his method (so far) seems familiar to me, but was wondering what others thought of:

1. McGowan's Introduction, which seems a bit disparaging regarding confessions? I thought he could have shown better respect for them (and their place in the task of systematic theology) while still maintaining the necessary truth that they are by no means to be placed alongside the Scripture.

2. Bray's essay on the Trinity, where he seems to suggest that the concept of "substance," as that which expresses unity, is illegitimate philosophical language?

3. And Williams' essay on System, where I can't quite put my finger on it, but he seems to speak disparagingly of systematic theology, though he's never willing to nail down any doctrine -- like his examples of Calvinism vs. Arminianism, he seems to suggest "there's a better way" that would transcend these differences? And Berkouwer is right in denying the doctrine of reprobation? This essay seemed to me to be all over the place, and there were many interesting and even penetrating insights (particularly the necessity of keeping doctrine tied to our spirituality), but then there also seemed to be some questionable stuff going on. As I said, I couldn't quite put my finger on it.

Thoughts?

 

[elnwood]

I ended up buying the book. So far I've only read the chapter on McGowan, and does an excellent job of summarizing the history of interpretation of the atonement, the modern challenges to penal substitution, and how we ought to uphold this doctrine. It's written at a very scholarly level. If the other chapters are anywhere near as good as this one, it is well worth getting.

 

[DMcFadden]

I haven't read it all yet. I was very disappointed with Gamble's contribution. Some people today seem to think that the only danger afflicting the church is a reification of doctrine. Gamble's essay, in effect, prevents systematic theology from ever exercising any kind of control on exegesis and biblical theology. Gamble truly does advocate replacing ST with BT. Not good.

Lane, are you as tired as I am of people disparaging ST as if it were an alien invader stealing from us the Bible? The cockiness of some of the advocates of BT has become tedious.

 

[greenbaggins]

I haven't read it all yet. I was very disappointed with Gamble's contribution. Some people today seem to think that the only danger afflicting the church is a reification of doctrine. Gamble's essay, in effect, prevents systematic theology from ever exercising any kind of control on exegesis and biblical theology. Gamble truly does advocate replacing ST with BT. Not good.

Lane, are you as tired as I am of people disparaging ST as if it were an alien invader stealing from us the Bible? The cockiness of some of the advocates of BT has become tedious.

I am so tired of it that I am writing a Ph.D. thesis about it (with reference to the Federal Vision).

 

[AV1611]

I am so tired of it that I am writing a Ph.D. thesis about it (with reference to the Federal Vision).

For what it's worth, after I gave a talk on the RPW the minister said that he was worried about my Biblical Theology which I took to be a good thing It is a great worry, for me, that old established categories are being abolished in the light of "new wisdom". 'We need a robust theology of apostacy that does full justice to the Scriptures' I hear, when pressed this means returning to the Arminian view. Hmmmm. One question I do have, is when in the psalms, for example, justification is more than forensic how do we understand it? (a new thread?)

 

[Casey]

I haven't read it all yet.

I haven't read it all yet either! I'm in Reymond's chapter now (Christology), and his method (so far) seems familiar to me, but was wondering what others thought of:

1. McGowan's Introduction, which seems a bit disparaging regarding confessions? I thought he could have shown better respect for them (and their place in the task of systematic theology) while still maintaining the necessary truth that they are by no means to be placed alongside the Scripture.

2. Bray's essay on the Trinity, where he seems to suggest that the concept of "substance," as that which expresses unity, is illegitimate philosophical language?

3. And Williams' essay on System, where I can't quite put my finger on it, but he seems to speak disparagingly of systematic theology, though he's never willing to nail down any doctrine -- like his examples of Calvinism vs. Arminianism, he seems to suggest "there's a better way" that would transcend these differences? And Berkouwer is right in denying the doctrine of reprobation? This essay seemed to me to be all over the place, and there were many interesting and even penetrating insights (particularly the necessity of keeping doctrine tied to our spirituality), but then there also seemed to be some questionable stuff going on. As I said, I couldn't quite put my finger on it.

Thoughts?

Anyone?

 

[ChristianTrader]

I haven't read it all yet. I was very disappointed with Gamble's contribution. Some people today seem to think that the only danger afflicting the church is a reification of doctrine. Gamble's essay, in effect, prevents systematic theology from ever exercising any kind of control on exegesis and biblical theology. Gamble truly does advocate replacing ST with BT. Not good.

I did not see anything in his article that would be outside the normal viewpoint of an experienced historical and systematic theology professor.

CT