tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post3024683935268371990..comments2024-03-07T06:52:34.516+00:00Comments on Exiled Preacher: Paul Helm on propositions and speech actsGuy Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-36209870159337934122007-05-05T21:44:00.000+01:002007-05-05T21:44:00.000+01:00As a textbook that was supposed to accompany a stu...As a textbook that was supposed to accompany a student through two / three years of seminary classes, I'm not sure that it is too long for an introduction. Maybe there are different kinds of introduction. You must have a look at the <I>Introductory Volume</I> sometime, or the <I>Summary of Christian Doctrine</I> to see if these Berkhofs help you understand why the quintessential Berkhof is as long as other introductions, e.g. Dabney. <BR/><BR/>Me? I don't think the problem with Berkhof lies within Berkhof but in the way what Berkhof is is misunderstood by those who claim to love its subject best.<BR/><BR/>Every blessing tomorrow.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17759257675723564468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-48177819063708979642007-05-04T22:28:00.000+01:002007-05-04T22:28:00.000+01:00John,If Berkhof's STh was just an intro, then it's...John,<BR/><BR/>If Berkhof's STh was just an intro, then it's far too long. John Frame's <I>Salvation Belongs to the Lord</I> serves as a far better intoduction to the discpline (from what I've read so far.Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-46789142607915863372007-05-04T12:24:00.000+01:002007-05-04T12:24:00.000+01:00Yes, Guy,but John Murray was not writing an introd...Yes, Guy,<BR/>but John Murray was not writing an introduction to Systematic Theology and Louis Berkhof was. That's the whole root of the trouble here. People will insist on treating of Berkhof as if his work is a Systematic Theology. It isn't, it's an introduction.<BR/>• That's why there are lists of verses for students to look up for themselves. <BR/>• That's why the exegeses aren't shown because they should be looked for in commentaries on the texts and works on individual doctrines.<BR/>• That's why the questions at the end of chapters can't always be answered by searching Berkhof; you are supposed to look in a <B>real</B> Systematic Theology to answer these questions.<BR/>• That's why so much of Berkhof looks as though it's been plagiarized from Strong. A introductory textbook ought not be an original piece of work.<BR/><BR/>When Murray advised Cornelius van Til not to go take Berkhof's old job it was because he thought that van Til wasn't qualified rather than that he opposed the Calvin College way of doing Systematic Theology.<BR/><BR/>What I'm saying is, criticise Berkhof for what it is or more cogently for how badly it's been published (Sorry, <I>Banner</I>; great price, lousy proof reading and indexing, appalling lack of reference to the missing <I>Introductory Volume</I>) but let's not criticise it for what it's not.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17759257675723564468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-44255722336096072612007-05-04T10:11:00.000+01:002007-05-04T10:11:00.000+01:00John,Trams were a bit before my time. But I agree ...John,<BR/><BR/>Trams were a bit before my time. But I agree with you concerning John Murray's approach to STh. I'm doing a series on his theological method at the moment. I haven't yes got to his proposals on the relationship between STh and Biblical Theology. But he regarded BTh as "indispensible" to STh, and of course his theology was thoroughly exegetical. He did not give a statement of doctrine and then back it up with a string of proof texts <I>a la</I> Berkhof. His systematic theology was mined from Scripture.Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-29823730954803767152007-05-04T09:14:00.000+01:002007-05-04T09:14:00.000+01:00Guy,How to keep my response within bounds? But how...Guy,<BR/>How to keep my response within bounds? But how is it broken? And what is it to fix it? Take two parallels, one near, one far:<BR/>• Far parallel is the replacement of tramways in the earlier part of the twentieth century. Was the system broken down? You bet it was and no wonder after the lack of investment but the principle of tram operation was not flawed. Buses are good but they are not trams, not an improvement on trams and not a direct replacement for trams.<BR/>• Near parallel is the abandonment of Vos's <I>Biblical Theology</I> because of a failure to grasp why Vos ends his work where he does. By taking something else and making out that it is the same as Vos only immeasurably improved we have both encroached onto the territory that Systematic Theology might be best fitted to rule and drowned out much that Vos was actually saying. Vos's <I>Biblical Theology</I> wasn't broken in the way his would be successors thought it to be broken so their 'fix' produces something new and IMHO not so good.<BR/><BR/>Two fixes for Berkhof I recommend are: <BR/>• John Murray's method of recasting dogmas, redefining concepts and coining terms that more accurately fit the synthetical ideal of Systematic Theology. <BR/>• The translation of Bavinck into English so that now Berkhof's introduction points to something accessible rather than a big book in Dutch.<BR/><BR/>A third fix would be to get the Introductory Volume, of course but doing something that isn't Systematic Theology and calling it Systematic Theology is not a fix. It's a fudge.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17759257675723564468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-70568543295276377362007-05-03T23:02:00.000+01:002007-05-03T23:02:00.000+01:00John,I'm not so sure that STh isn't broke. Surely ...John,<BR/><BR/>I'm not so sure that STh isn't broke. Surely Reformed Dogmatics should also be reforming Dogmatics? Why not try to make some improvements to STh?Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-35223550059605713332007-05-03T21:10:00.000+01:002007-05-03T21:10:00.000+01:00Guy,you ask, 'But does it follow that the task of ...Guy,<BR/>you ask, 'But does it follow that the task of theology is to abstract the Biblical proportions from the drama of redemption?' It follows that the task of <B>systematic</B> theology is almost exactly that and as they say, 'If it's not broke…'<BR/> <BR/>This is a major reason why I hate systematic theology. It has to be everything in the minds of its minions who are quite willing to destroy it to get at the golden eggs it lays.<BR/><BR/>Not all theology is dogmatic theology so when something says that it is dogmatic theology it ought to do exactly what it says on the tin.<BR/><BR/>Berkhof himself in his prolegomenous volume, <I>Introductory Volume to Systematic Theology</I> explains why other methods of organisation — the Trinitarian method, the analytical method, the covenantal method, the Christological method and the method based on the kingdom idea — don't work. The synthetical method, of what we have come to think of as Systematic Theology, is the only method, says Berkhof, 'That will yield the desired unity in Dogmatics.'<BR/><BR/>Doing something differently might be to do something better but if the something better isn't systematic theology why call it that? You're all loving it to death.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17759257675723564468noreply@blogger.com