If you can read more than three pages per month, you’ll catch us before long. 🙂

With that said, I am very excited to see you guys discussing Vos’ seminal work; I know I am going to learn a ton of great insights from you guys.

My main question regards the locus of revelation. It seems that Scripture itself bears witness to Scripture as the locus of revelation, but Vos seems to place revelation in the historical redemptive acts to which Scripture points. Am I missing something here?

I think one of the reasons that Vos stayed is because he was no controversialist and hated schism. He was a child of the Secession of the Dutch church and only agreed to go become a professor at Princeton when those slandering him for being a supralapsarian would not cease. Then, at Princeton, he had to face the Confessional Revision controversy, and by the time people were leaving to form Westminster, he was likely sick of it. Further, those starting Westminster were mostly his students (John Murray, Cornelius Van Til, J. Gresham Machen), so he probably felt as though he was too old.

I think it’s important when reading Vos to remember that he didn’t like change and that whatever polemical spirit he may have had while younger died down and almost ceased entirely before Westminster began. He would regularly strive to say strictly what the Confession said, regardless of his affinity for its language. So I think it’s likely that, even including all other reasons mentioned, Vos stayed at Princeton because it was familiar.

I thought I had read that also but wasn’t sure. thanks.

I believe this was mainly because his wife was quite ill. He needed to keep his pension and insurance largely to care of her.

We haven’t recorded the third episode yet. We’ll try to get through the next ten pages or so, I imagine.

Justin, I believe David Calhoun has a brief discussion on this question in his second volume of his history of Princeton Seminary. If I remember correctly nobody knows for sure. However, Vos was getting close to retirement and things like pension may have influenced his decision to stay. Vos retired from Princeton in 1932.

I think we are dealing with 2 different issues here. One is hermeneutics and the other issue is the result of an author’s hermeneutic, that is the actual story or theme(s) that scripture tells according to the author. I think it is very exciting and it has caused me to understand scripture and my relationship to God in a revolutionary (for me) new way.

Christ-Centered Biblical Theology is what you are referring to. GG is correct as to 1. It seems to me that Vos was more concern with the methodology of doing biblical theology and did not do as much biblical theology as is currently being done. Read several biblical theologies and you will see what GG is referring to in 1. I don’t know enough about Robinson-Herbert to comment on it. GG says he is a BT addict and so am I. Read through several Biblical Theologies and you will get a better understanding of what they are trying to do. For sure read Beale’s A New Testament Biblical Theology.

I have not read Goldsworthy but someone may find this review of Goldsworthy’s book by Hamilton interesting.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/christ-centered_biblical_theology/

It seems Goldsworthy doesn’t buy into the covenantalism (al la WCF) of Vos & disciples who are coming out of a Presbyterian & Reformed background. I wonder if Hamilton would also level his criticism concerning Goldsworthy’s lack of emphasis on “Author Intent” against Vos et al. It would seem so.

I would be interested in a program laying out the landscape of BT in evangelical circles, e.g., Vos, Goldsworthy, Vaughn Roberts, Hamilton, Gentry & Wellum (“Kingdom Through Covenant”) & New Covenant Theology, Michael Williams (“Far as the Curse is Found”).

I thought it was interesting how Dr. Tipton drew the most basic distinction along the lines of Scripture viewed as divine revelation (e.g., Vos) verses as an autonomous description of religion (e.g., Gabler). That seems like the most critical distinction. Although Hamilton seems committed to Scripture as revelation he also seems to put the priority on determining the author’s intent.

There are a lot of voices out there and sorting through it is sort of daunting.

1. In Ch 4 of his book, Goldsworthy argues that Vos leaves out key aspects of historic redemptive themes (eg, creation in Gen 1, the Lord’s resurrection, ascension, much Pauline theology). Vos gives praise for Vos’ important contributions but says the absent material is noteworthy. He concludes “Vos does not provide us with a satisfactory example of a *comprehensive* biblical theology.” [my emphasis]

2. In ch 8 Goldsworthy compares two approaches of the historic-redemptive method. The Robinson-Herbert method vs the Vos-Clowney method. Goldsworth defends the Robinson-Herbert method though it is interesting that he says this is a bit like the 39 Articles approach vs the Westminster Confession approach. Goldsworthy is Anglican so prefers the ‘flexibility’ of the Robinson-Herbert method and the 39 Articles.

If will be interesting to see if others are aware of Goldsworthy’s views and can comment on them.