Vos Group #7: The Content of the First Redemptive Special Revelation

The seventh episode of Vos Group, we arrive at chapter 4 of Geerhardus Vos’ Biblical Theology, with Lane Tipton and Camden Bucey. Having completed discussion of pre-redemptive special revelation, Vos moves to consideration of the first redemptive special revelation, which includes three curses, mention of the seed of both the woman and of the serpent, and prophecy of human suffering.


Participants: ,

Christ the Center focuses on Reformed Christian theology. In each episode a group of informed panelists discusses important issues in order to encourage critical thinking and a better understanding of Reformed doctrine with a view toward godly living. Browse more episodes from this program and learn how to subscribe.

12 Responses

  1. Michael

    Very strange and disappointing to hear you guys reference the name Peter Enns in any way that sounds like you are neutral regarding him and what he does in the name of being a Christian educator. Forget his books, have you read his blog for any of the past several years? The word noxious should be put before his name anytime it is referenced, especially by people associated with an institution Enns was allowed to stain for many years.

    If you delete this comment under some justification that Enns is “lawfully ordained” and “eminently educated” and blah, blah, blah you need to look in a mirror and say to yourself these words: “I fear the world more than I fear God.”

    1. Michael,

      We have been quite critical of Dr. Enns’ views throughout, and I thought we were on this episode as well. Honestly, I don’t know how you could have thought we were presenting them otherwise.

      1. Michael

        OK, I didn’t pick up any sense or degree of approval or condemnation when you mentioned Enns, but I could have missed it in the doctrinal (or otherwise) context. I just find him to be so ridiculously (cartoonishly) off the ranch for somebody who once taught at an iconic Reformed seminary that I find it disappointing he isn’t distanced more (publicly) by his peers or former peers.

        (I think one thing that really bothers me about him is when I read all the people who follow him and agree with everything he says. But it just shows it’s rare to have an on–the-mark understanding of doctrine and to be able to value it and to fear only God so that you believe in the supernatural and so on. That’s God’s grace doing that.)

    2. Michael, have you listened to #3 in this series? They are more extensively and explicitly critical of Enns in that one; this time they might have had the mindset that they’ve established what’s going on with Enns, so they don’t need to further belabor it at every subsequent opportunity.

      1. Michael

        Just saw your reply. Thanks, I guess I don’t remember if I listened to it. I’m sure I did, but didn’t remember Enns being discussed. I’ll check it out. These Vos talks need repeated listening anyway. I actually read Vos’ Biblical Theology when I was just learning Reformed Theology and it had a strange effect. I got so much more from it than I realized at the time. And the fact that it contains so much academic type refuting of German theologian x, y, and z you’d think it wouldn’t be that type of book that stays with you, but I guess it is.

  2. Michael

    I think a very good show idea would be to talk about all the biblical scholars who are currently giving their what appears to be deconversion testimonies on Enns’ blog (they say they still believe, but…), and just talk about how and why so many biblical scholars can be so shallow and amount to being practical atheists.

    Actually hone in on the examples they give like one of them says it was his not being able to reconcile the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke that made him abandon an inerrant Bible. (Even Enns’ followers took the guy to task on that.) Read them all to get a sense of how silly they are.

    These guys are teaching in institutions of higher learning in the name of Christian educators. I just think guys like you and people you have on this forum need to draw a line and take those guys on some rather than this silence (academic courtesy? no place for that on the spiritual battlefield) and allowing them to just coast along with no confrontation from orthodox believers in their realm.

  3. Just a quick word to say thank you for this amazing podcasr serie : every time it’s a delight ! It’s so biblicaly rich and profound, that the only problem is that once a month is not enough ! 🙂
    Daniel Saglietto (Aix en Provence, France)

    1. I thoroughly disagree — I LOVE the fact that this is only once a month, so I have no problem keeping up! Dan, maybe you should just wait 10 years for them to finish, and then you can listen to them all in a row!

  4. Hi,
    I’ve just listened the podcast 186 on historic-redemptive hermeneutics, it is very good stuff ! But i have one question, which books (most comprehensive and “in depth” ones) you would propose in order to study in depth historic-redemptive hermeneutic ?
    In Christ,
    Dan S.

  5. Mark G


    Gaffin’s article in “Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views” is a must read. See here:


    I started reading “Understanding Biblical Theology: A Comparison of Theory and Practice.” It looks to be a good overview of various approaches to BT; much broader than just Vosian Redemptive Historical. It does give one a better idea of what’s out there and what sets the Redemptive Historical apart from the rest.

  6. philspeed

    So sad to hear about Enns controversy. I am going back through the Vos group programs and trying to think careful about everything said. I just read the comments on this program and saw the comments on the Enns controversy. I looked up what I could find on the internet about this. This SBC lady was such a admirer of WTS. I have greatly benefited from books written by WTS professors over the years. I was sadden to see how many WTS professors supported Enns and 9 Trustees who later resigned. I don’t see how anyone can support Enns’ positions on scripture and consider them “Evangelical”. Evangelical does not mean anything if that is true.

Leave a Reply