Comments on: According to Plan: Some Questions for Further Thought

By: Derek

Derek — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:34:29 +0000

Very good post…

and sorry for going way off topic here but I want to suggest a thought based on the statement:

“I cannot make sense even of Wright’s view of justification without some kind of imputation/incorporation grounding it”.

The mistake (maybe) is in marrying “imputation/incorporation”. When I read Wright, his doctrine of Justification makes sense if understood as “incorporation” (for sure!), but not “imputation”. I don’t think he sees the two as being the same or even near the same.

I maybe mistaken (wouldn’t be the first time).

Press on.

By: Kingdom People – May 2009 « Kingdom People

Kingdom People – May 2009 « Kingdom People — Sun, 31 May 2009 08:33:40 +0000

[...] Graeme Goldsworthy’s According to Plan Introduction Summary (Part 1) Summary (Part 2) Strengths Some Questions for Further Thought [...]

By: Ted Weis

Ted Weis — Fri, 22 May 2009 13:36:59 +0000

A book that builds off Goldsworthy and boils down further the story of Scripture is “God’s Big Picture: Tracing the Story-Line of the Bible”
by Vaughan Roberts.

It’s a very good work that summarizes the Scripture as all about the kingdom of God.

By: Bill Blair

Bill Blair — Fri, 15 May 2009 12:19:18 +0000

Goldsworthy explains the relationship between biblical an systematic in his book “Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics.” I suggest you read it to better understand the foundation of his beliefs. It is not, however, written with the layperson in mind. The three big takeaways are 1) Why Christ is the center of Scripture, 2) We can’t avoid presuppositions; therfore, we must adopt the correct ones, and 3) the hermeneutical spiral which describes how Scripture informs theology and theology then informs us about Scripture further. Essentially, we have arrived at central doctrines from Scripture whicn frame how we should interpret Scripture.

If that sounds confusing it is, but the book is great because I will have to read it again to understand it well enough to communicate what it means.

By: Hefin

Hefin — Sun, 10 May 2009 23:55:36 +0000

I think a bit of wider reading in the Goldsworthy corpus would allay any fears re. downplaying Systematic Theology (e.g, Goldsworthy’s “Thus Saith the Lord: The Dogmatic Basis of Biblical Theology”, his somewhat eclectic Presuppositionalism, and his employment of Trinitarianism and orthodox Christology) and in fact a careful reading of chapters 2-7 of According to Plan reveals a firm commitment to Systematic Theology, even an implicit denial of the linear Exegesis –> Biblical Theology –> Systematic Theology –> Practical Theology model.

As for authorial intent – again Goldsworthy is concerned to discover what the original human authors intended (read chapter 7 final paragraph) but he does not see the full original divine intention exhausted by the original human intention. The constraint on the discovery of the divine intentionality is what God actually does: the revelation of Himself in Chriat and Him Crucified. BTW “authorial intent” means quite different things to different people. Schliermacher’s Romantic version of it would be quite different to what most evangelicals mean by it.

On the incarnational analogy – “abusus non tollit usum”

By: Dana

Dana — Fri, 08 May 2009 16:27:45 +0000

Trevin, is there really someone who would say that you shouldn’t preach the cross and Christ Jesus from Isaiah because of authorial intent? Who would that be? I’d truly be interested in the authors who say that. There is an important distinction, it seems to me. The meaning of the text is an anticipation of a suffering servant Messiah to come. The significance of the text is that we now know Jesus as the fulfillment of that promise in Isaiah, through the cross. And the application is “Believe on the Lord Jesus who suffered in your place and, alive today, is returning for his people” etc. Is this meaning/significance/application distinction evident in Goldsworthy’s book?

By: JohnO

JohnO — Fri, 08 May 2009 15:30:39 +0000

I think ‘authorial intent’ needs to be the first, but not primary, means of exegesis. Start there. Add in the interpretations and uses of that text by the writers in the context you are studying (whether it be Second Temple Judaism, Patristic, Medieval, Reformation, or Contemporary), which of course builds on other people’s uses, just like any other literature. Of course if we are not doing ‘historical’ or ‘biblical’ theology, you start leaning on more contemporary uses and interpretations and less on authorial intent. That makes some people uncomfortable. But the method, regardless of how you use the text, should be the same. Otherwise we are just doing special pleading all over the place, right?

By: Rob Davis

Rob Davis — Fri, 08 May 2009 12:49:35 +0000

Thanks, Trevin!

By: Trevin Wax

Trevin Wax — Fri, 08 May 2009 12:46:19 +0000

Rob,

Good question. Surely there is a danger of over-systematizing the Scriptures to the exclusion of the biblical manner in which the sacred writings were given us.

The usefulness of systematic theology, however, is the manner in which certain biblical teachings across the canon can be brought together and united. For example, I refer back to the interview I recently had with Michael Bird and the question of “imputation of Christ’s righteousness.” It is clear that Paul did not teach this doctrine in so many words, the way that many systematicians have later articulated it. Yet it is also clear that a doctrinal systematization of many of Paul’s statements will lead one to this formulation. As a side note, I find imputation even in the writings of someone like N.T. Wright, who demonstrates an aversion to the systematization of this doctrine. Yet, I cannot make sense even of Wright’s view of justification without some kind of imputation/incorporation grounding it.)

Another example would be the Trinity. The early church fathers were involved in a sort of systematization of the New Testament teaching about God. The Bible teaches the Trinity, and yet it does not do so in a systematic fashion. The value of systematic theology is in the way it helps us make sense of the Scriptures and brings clarity to the way we think about biblical teaching.

Hope that is helpful!

By: Rob Davis

Rob Davis — Fri, 08 May 2009 12:16:17 +0000

Trevin, I’ve personally struggled with the value of systematic theology, by itself, and have more often than not emphasized biblical theology almost to the exclusion of systematic theology.

“And biblical theology, by itself, can sometimes result in a neglect of the other disciplines, especially systematic theology.”

What do you see as the value, in and of itself, of systematic theology (while avoiding the danger you specified)?