Gaffin, a New Paradigm in Theology

5/26/2018 Gaffin, a New Paradigm in Theology

1/13

WTJ 56 (1994) 379-90

REVIEW ARTICLES

A NEW PARADIGM IN THEOLOGY?*

RICHARD B. GAFFIN, JR.

With the author's death (onJuly 13, 1993) this book becomes his legacy

for the church's well-being in its theological task. Eminently readable and

thoroughly impressive in its design and execution, it is not just for profes

sional theologians and pastors but seeks to familiarize and engage a wider

audience with the issues at stake. Gordon Spykman has been valued by

many as a person and colleague (my own contacts with him over the years,

though brief and sporadic, were always engaging and stimulating). We will

honor him best by giving careful attention to this bequest, particularly hischallenging vision for the renewal of Reformed dogmatics.

This "new paradigm" contains elements that result in a significant re

casting of both the foundations and the main body of systematic theology.

I take these up in reverse order.

I

In formulating and reflecting on specific doctrines Spykman's overridingconcern is "to give the historical-redemptive pattern of biblical revelation

a firmer place in Reformed dogmatics" and so to highlight that not just

some parts of Scripture but "the entire biblical story line has an eschato-

logical thrust" (p. 135). Accordingly, the key biblical motifs of creation,

fall, redemption, and consummation structure the presentation as a whole;

these categories, each in turn, provide the major sections of the book (Parts

Two-Five). Throughout, a governing concern is to stress the inherent bond

between creation and redemptionthat the two are not divorced or inopposition but integrally related as the latter restores and perfects the

former By design (see the diagram p 135) a trinitarian pattern is also to


2/13

former By design (see the diagram p 135) a trinitarian pattern is also to

380 WESTMINSTERTHEOLOGICALJOURNAL

(1) I agree thoroughly that systematic theology needs to give careful,

methodologically selfconscious attention (more, certainly, than has been

thecase in the past) to the history of redemption/revelation. Ultimately,

that demand resides in its nonspeculative, exegetically based character. If

itssource and normisGod's inscripturatedword,thenitsown formulations

and ongoing reflection must exhibitunwaveringsensitivity to the redemp-

tivehistorical, eschatological orientation of Scripture (the church's record

of that history) as a whole. Within a Reformed context specifically, the

pioneeringworkofGeerhardus Vos and, more recently,ofHerman Ridder

bos inbiblicaltheology, not to mention others, has resulted in adawning

awareness of the historicalredemptive challenge that faces Reformed

dogmatics.To Spykman's creditand this is the greatest strength of thebookhe is thefirstto seek to meet this challenge in a comprehensive way.

At the same time, however, we ought not to exaggerate the newness of

such an undertaking and its discontinuity with past efforts. Thatwarning

is especially in order for the Reformed tradition. Writing earlier in this

century(1916),Vos himself made the important observation that Reformed

theology "has from the beginning shown itselfpossessedof a true historic

sensein the apprehensionofthe progressive characterofthe deliverance of

truth. Its doctrine of the covenants on its historical side represents the firstattempt at constructing a historyofrevelation and may be justly considered

the precursor of what is at present calledbiblicaltheology."l

(2)I am not as sure as is Spykman that a redemptivehistorical approach

necessitatesabandoning the socalled loci methodoftraditional dogmatics.

After all, strictly speaking, that method simply calls for a topical presen-

tationof doctrine, and it is difficult to see why thebiblicalmaterials pre-

clude such an approach. If, quite appropriately, we compare the teaching

ofScriptureasa whole to a great epic drama, thensystematictheology maybe seen as one large plot analysisreflection on the various actors, their

actionsand interactionunder appropriate headings (e.g.,God, man, sin,

salvation, the church,etc.).To be sure, there has been an undeniable ten-

dency in traditionalsystematictheology to dehistoricize the Bible,2but that

hardly means that an "abstract and rationalist" treatment is "inherent"

in the loci method, as Spykman maintains(p.135).A historicalredemptive

awareness should go a long way toward counteracting any approach that

diminishes the eschatologicallydriven dynamic of biblical revelation or

tends toward handlingtopics in a way that isolates them from each other

and misses important interconnections (as has happened most notably, and


3/13

and misses important interconnections (as has happened most notably, and

A NEW PARADIGM IN THEOLOGY? 381

unfortunately, in conventional treatments of eschatology, where it is left

for lastoften little more than an appended chapter).

There is also the other side of the matter to consider here: if Scripture is

trulyGod'sword, then its historically progressive and differentiated diversity exists not as some doctrinal quagmire but as a concordant, mutually

reinforcing unitya unity in diversity that, with all the rich residue and

imponderables that no doubt remain (e.g., Eph 3:8,19), enables the church

to answer the question, what does theBible(not just Isaiah, Paul, etc.) say

about "x" (= any topic appropriate to Scripture)? Answering that question

must remain a distinguishing concern of systematic theology.

(3) Several questions are prompted by Spykman's creation-fall-redemp

tion-consummation structure, particularly his use of the latter two categories.Would not a better pattern be the triad creation-fall-redemption, subsuming

consummation under the last and developing it undertwomajor subdivisions:

redemption present and redemption future (the proverbial "already-not

yet")? This would have the advantage, faithful to Spykman's own intention,

of making clearer (what traditional Reformed theology has largely missed)

the eschatological dimension oftheChristian life and the present existence

of the church, grounded in the fact that not only the justification but the

regeneration/renewal already experienced by believers at the core of theirbeing is nothing less than eschatological in nature (e.g., "new creation,"

2 Cor 5:17; "raised with Christ," Eph 2:5-6).

A more substantial question concerns the distinction between the ac

complishment and application of redemption, that is, between the once-

for-all work of Christ and the ongoing appropriation ofitsbenefits in the

life of the church and the individual believer. That distinction, if not

entirely missing, is virtually eclipsed in Spykman's treatment of soteri-

ology (Part Four: the Way of Salvation); it is at best implicitly in viewin section 7 (the Christian Life). This omission is puzzling and poten

tially troublesome.

Certainly we should agree that traditional treatmentsoordo saluashave

been overextended and, at points, counterproductive, blurring, for instance,

Calvin's sublime focus (at the beginning of Book Three of theInstitutes)

on union with the exalted Christ. But the question of the Philippian jailer

(Acts 16:31) remains a legitimate one, and Paul's answer, for one, provides

the church with a distinct area for reflection. Nor is the notion that we

become "contemporaries" with Christ (p. 481) helpful; union with Christ

in his death and resurrection with all the mystery involved does not


4/13

in his death and resurrection with all the mystery involved does not

382 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICALJOURNAL

the other. Where that happens, invariably the sufficiency and historical

finalityofChrist's death and resurrection become eclipsed or denied.Ulti-

mately the gospel stands or falls with the distinction between redemption

accomplished and applied.Moreover,the redemptivehistorical frameworkof Scripture itself gives rise to that distinction. The present time of the

church is "between the times," a (vibrant, Spiritfilled) hiatus in Christ's

one work, bracketed by his resurrection and return (e.g., 1 Thess 1:910

neatly captures theessenceof this hiatus: the church, in its basic identity,

consists of those ''turned to God from idols to serve the living and true

God"with thefullagenda that service involvesjust asthey "wait for his

Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead").

(4)Sofar as the treatment of specific themes and doctrines is concerned,suffice it to say that Spykmanisalmost always fresh and thoughtprovoking;

there is a wealth of material throughout that repays careful reading. For

example,on the question of origins (about which he has obviously thought

agreat deal), his intriguing proposal (p.154) ofacategorical distinction in

Genesis 1:12:3between "creating time" (days 16) and "creational time"

(day 7) deserves further consideration. Among other helpful areas that

might be mentioned are thesectionson the relationship between covenant

and kingdom (pp. 257ff.), the modern questof thehistoricalJesus(pp. 382ff.),

Pentecostand the comingof theSpirit (pp.4161.),and, in general, those

sections on the church and the consummation.

Writinga onevolume dogmatics is a daunting undertaking. Inevitably,

the author is faced with deciding what issues to include and how much

attention to devote to each. In that respect, Spykman's decisions may be

secondguessedat several points.Mostpuzzlingis the sparse treatment, at

leastformally and explicitly, of Christology: twentyone pages distributed

about equally between person and work(the latter presented under the

prophetpriestking motif), preceded by nineteen pages on the NT docu-ments assourcesand the modern history/kerygma debate, and followed by

thirteen pages on the coming of the Spirit! One might expect that Chris-

tology,especially Christ'swork, wouldbecome nothinglessthan the center-

pieceof a redemptivehistorically attuned dogmatics.

Also bafflingis thevirtuallynonexistent discussion of the significance of

Christ's suffering and deatha passing reference to his active and passive

obedience and brief mention of his death as a ransom and forensic, sin

bearing sacrifice (pp.41011). Without any explanation being given, theconflicting theories oftheatonement that continue to confront the church

as well as the crucial question of its extent are passed over without a word


5/13

as well as the crucial question of its extent are passed over without a word


human wholeness that he verges on a kind of monism that leaves no place

for the bodily-nonbodily distinction/duality required by the biblical

materials. Subsequently, this monism leaves him at a distinct disadvantage

in discussing the intermediate state (which he does wish to recognize). "Tolive beyond the present bodily life but short of the state of glory is 'an

inconceivable mode of existence' " (quoting Ridderbos'sPaul).Yes, cer

tainly. But that does not mean that "We have no anthropological clues"

(p.552), That conclusion hardly does justice, for instance, to Phil 1:23 and

2 Cor 5:6-8 (nowhere does Spykman even mention the latter).

Particularly disappointing, even disturbing, is the handling of election

and reprobation. At issue here is not that this discussion does not come up

until the very end of Part Four (on soteriology, pp. 507-12). Relative placement is in part a pragmatic issue and more than one alternative is defen

sible. But it is gratuitous, for instance, to observe (p. 508) that Calvin failed

to capitalize on an important insight when in the final edition of theIn-

stitutes he shifted his treatment of predestination to its location in Book

Three (after justification) from where it is in earlier editions, in Book One

(under providence), but left the substance of the doctrine unchanged.

It is that Augustinian doctrine of "double predestination," subsequently

taken up by Reformed theology and expressed, representatively, by Louis

Berkhof, that Spykman emphatically rejects. Some of the most forceful,even passionate, and pastorally laden writing in the entire book occurs

here. The notion of a definite number of elect and reprobate, fixed from

eternity, he believes, can only create uncertainty and despair; it is hardly

"believable, preachable, teachable, and liveable" (p. 509). "To shed the

unbearable weight ofthistroublesome caricature" (p. 509), he historicizes

election/reprobation (close, it appears, to the view of Berkouwer and Her

man Ridderbos that election is the "depth dimension" of what can occur

when the gospel is preached). "In Christ election is now a greater realitythan our reprobation in Adam" (p. 510). Consequently, " . . . we may claim

election as a present historical reality" (ibid.); " . . . just as wearejustified

by faith, so we are also elect by faith in Christ" (p. 511).

This view calls for a more careful exposition, and response, than I can

give it here. But if I have at least represented its thrust fairly, a couple of

observations are in order.

(1) An unbiblical decretal deductivism is by no means a purely imagi

nary danger for Reformed theology. Further, we ought to agree that redemptive history, not the divine decree,isthe dominant concern of Scripture. But

the two may not be set in opposition or otherwise played off against each


6/13

the two may not be set in opposition or otherwise played off against each

384 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

Despite the theologically (and personally) winsome manner in whichBerkouwer, say, has recently articulated his influential views on election, Idare to say that if Reformed theology is to remain true to itself and, more

importantly, to Scriptures like Rom9:6ff.and Eph 1:4-5, it will continueto maintain, with its classical confessions, the asymmetrical (the not "in thesame manner" of Dort) "equal ultimacy" of God's individual, differentiating election and reprobation "before the foundation of the world," thatis,as already fixed and "predetermined" when creation comes into existence and history begins.

(2) Also, while it would be quite unfair simply to dub Spykman's view as"Arminian," it has at least to be asked whether in the long run this viewwill be able to effectively challenge or even maintain itself over against

Arminianism and other "free will" constructions.

II

Nearly one-fourth of the entire volume is devoted to introductory matters(Part One: Foundations). I suspect that Spykman would have consideredthis treatment of theological prolegomena and related concerns its mostsignificant part, providing his most valuable and enduring contribution

(the rest of the book, he tells us, "is intended as a consistent following-through on [its] spirit and thrust," p. 135). Without thinking to have dealtadequately with it here, I draw attention, along with its strengths, to severalsubstantial reservations I have.

(1) Part One moves through an opening historical survey, concentratingon Protestant developments from the Reformation on, to the contemporarysituation. This overview, in turn, provides the framework for Spykman todevelop his own position, including the "new directions" theological prolegomena ought to take (pp. 76ff.). The historical and contemporary analysis

is predominantly negative: Over its long history Christian theology hasbeen plagued by a number of dualisms, especially that between nature andsupernature, resulting in a variety of irremovable impasses and enervatingtensions. These false dualisms, in turn, trace back to fateful attempts in thechurch, almost from the beginning, at synthesizing theology with non-Christian philosophies of the day. Accordingly, the only escape from harmful dualisms is to challenge and abandon all such synthesis. As much as any,then,the dominant concern of Part One is the relationship between philosophy and theology; "the major thesis . . . is . . . that the most fitting prolegomena to a Reformed dogmatics is a Christian philosophy" (p. 101, cf.107). Specifically, developments in the neo-Kuyperian movement, associ


7/13

107). Specifically, developments in the neo Kuyperian movement, associ


importance of Kant and the noumenal-phenomenal disjunction for subsequent theology, for instance, is handled with admirable clarity (pp. 29-30,41-42).Among other strengths, along with combating false and objectionable

dualisms,isthe emphasisonthe creator-creature distinction and the antithesis(in a religious, directional sense) as fundamental motifs in theology.

(2) Spykman notes more than once the importance of recognizing thatevery dogmatics necessarily stands in a particular tradition. Within thelarger mainstream of ''the Reformed-Calvinist wing of the ProtestantReformation," his "primary indebtedness" is to "the Dutch Reformedtradition in distinction from that of Scottish Presbyterianism" (pp. 5-6).That is an understatement. In fact, the latter is virtually nonexistent in

Spykman's theological universethe Hodges are not even mentioned,and one finds a single reference to Warfield and a handful of passingreferences to several others in this tradition. Worth noting, in contrast, arethe appreciative comments about the old Princeton theologymentioningWarfield, for oneright at the close of Herman Bavinck's lengthy survey ofthe history of dogmatics.3

Instructive is Spykman's single reference to Warfield (in the section,pp. 37-39, with which he closeshis historical survey). In the disagreement between Kuyper and Warfield on the nature and place of apologetics, Spykman sides emphatically with Kuyper (as do I). Certainly, thedifferences involved in this debate are not to be minimized. But when hedraws the basic conclusion that "we are confronted with profoundlydifferent approaches totheology" (p. 38, my emphasis), he goes too farafateful exaggeration because it results in total neglect of the theologicalwork of Warfield and others in the Presbyterian tradition. Surely, Kuyper andBavinck, on the one hand, Warfield and Geerhardus Vos, on the other, wereunaware of a "profound" theological distance between them. Where, for

instance, if not at Princeton, were Kuyper'sStone Lectures delivered (andwarmly received)?

I strongly suspect that this lack of regard for British-American Calvinismis closely linked to what is not unfairly described as Spykman's antipathytoward seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy. There he seems to findlittle other than the darkening clouds of synthesis thinking with its balefuldualisms, reappearing after the temporary respite brought by the brightsunshine of the Reformation (esp. pp. 24-25). Repeatedly, this theology ispilloried with the pejoratives "scholastic" and "scholasticism" (thoughthese labels are never really defined; presumably they are self-evidentlybad!) Such a negative assessment inevitably blurs Spykman's own stance


8/13

bad!). Such a negative assessment inevitably blurs Spykman s own stance,


Worth mentioning in this connection is the valuable work of Richard

Mller in rehabilitating the Reformed "scholastics" and redressing the

distortions of the prevailing model of reading theological history since the

Reformation (with which Spykman appears to be operating). He shows thedeep and cordial continuity, despite all the differences in method, between

the theology of the Reformers and the seventeenth century.4

How in this light should we assess the use of the termReformationalchosen

for the book's title and occurring throughout? Coined or at least gaining in

currency during the past several decades, it has seemed to evoke a renewed

and expanded Reformed vision. Spykman, however, associates it, in effect,

with a narrowing of the Reformed tradition that closes us off from the full

range of resources available there. When I, for one, read seventeenth-century theologians like Witsius and Turretin and Owen, I knowdespite

the differences in time and culture, in method and style, despite, yes, the

criticisms, the corrections, even the rejections that are necessarythat they

are my valuable companions in the same spiritual and theological pilgrimage.But I am much less sure about that when I read (and often learn from)

the likes of Barth, Weber, HendrikusBerkhof,and Thielickewhom Spyk

man frequently cites, often with criticisms to be sure, some quite searching

and substantial, but nonetheless, apparently, as involved in a common

theological task. "Reformational," as used by Spykman, has a certain

ambiguity needing to be clarified.

(3) Spykman's new paradigm is largely governed by his "three-factor

alternative" (see esp. pp. 59-63, 75 and the diagram there). This proposal

he finds implicit in the "inarticulate impulse" finally arising, after centu

ries of wrestling, in much contemporary theology; what ' 'others appear

unwittingly to be groping for is precisely what lies at the heart of this

renewal effort in Reformed dogmatics" (p. 60). Perennial problems in the

ology, those dead-end dualisms, have remained intractable because of thetwo-factor approaches to the creator-creature relationship repeatedly

adopted. The only solution lies in three-factor theologizing: God-Word-

creation, with "the Word of God as the pivotal point, the normative

boundary and bridge between the revealing God and his responding creatures" (p. 60).

I hesitate to comment on this proposal because I'm unsure that I really

fathom either it or Spykman's enthusiasm for it. Functioning almost magic-

wandlike, it provides the solution to virtually all previously unresolvabletheological problems (see, e.g., his comments on predestination, pp. 62-63,

d th d t i f S i t 122 25 b t h d h f h t


9/13

d th d t i f S i t 122 25 b t h d h f h t

A NEW PARADIGMINTHEOLOGY? 387

previous Reformed theology? Why, as he thinks, must the organic view of

inspiration entail the three-factor approach?).

A troublesome area, already noted by other reviewers, looms large here.

Ifitbe the case that Christ is at the center ofGod'srevelation, if for us theWord of God is to be identified primarily with the incarnate Word (and,

inseparable from him, with his inscripturated Word"Christ's letter to his

church," to paraphrase C. Van Til),5then the Word of God can hardly be

the reified entitybetweenGod and his creatures that it seems to become for

Spykman, at least in his three-factor approach.

The palpable tensions with Chalcedonian Christology at this point are

all the more surprising since he makes explicit use of that historic creed

to support his three-factor worldview (p. 75). But the Chalcedoniannegatives cited"unseparated," "undivided," "unchanged," "unconfused"

hardly function to describe an intermediate factor or being, a tertium

quidbetween God and the creation (as Spykman himself rightly recog

nizes later in discussing Christology, pp. 402-3); the one mediator be

tween God and man is the [God-]man, Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5). One is

left unsure how Spykman relates Christ as God's Word to his notion of

God's Word as "bridge and boundary" between God and creation, or

how he is able to maintain (as he certainly wants to) the organic wholeness of God's self-revelation. This Christological ambiguity, it seems, is

hardly a peripheral matter.

Further, it is difficult to see how the three-factor approach can properly

relate God's transcendence and immanence (pardon the two-factor ap

proach!). "I live in a high and holy place, but also with him who is contrite

and lowly in spirit" (Isa 57:15). The religious relationship between God and

ourselves, in its deepest dimensions, is at stake here. Certainly, the God

whom we know and worship is present only as he mediates himself to us,always as he is "clothed in creatureliness," but it is he, truly, not some

mediation distinguished from him, who is present with us and whom we

know and worship. Spykman would certainly not deny that (e.g., p. 340),

but the three-factor approach, especially since it is so fundamental to his

entire outlook, needs to be reconsidered.

(4) Spykman's theological prolegomena do not really lead into ("intro

duce") the redemptive-historical approach taken in the main body of his

dogmatics. Instead, it seems to me, they tend to undermine that approach;there is a basic tension between Part One and Parts Two-Five. That tension

exists primarily because of his conception of theology and correlatively of


10/13

exists primarily because of his conception of theology and correlatively of


A major concern for Spykman is to redefineor,more pointedly, to restrictthe conventional understanding of theology, especially, it seems, as he hasencountered it within his own Reformed tradition. One of the regrettable

outcomes of dualistic and synthesis thinking, he believes, is theology's tendency to overextend itself and, all told, to think too highly ofitself, especially its dogmatics (the proverbial "queen of the sciences" label). We mustbe done with any such plaguing "triumphalist pretensions" (p. 106). Putin its proper place, theology is concerned specifically with confession as ahuman activity. The preferred designation proposed is the neologism "pis-tology," that is, concentration on faith in its various senses (esp. pp. 104-5).The "normative movement" (p. 102), in which this delimited disciplinehas its role, runs from faith grounded in Scripture to a worldview commonto all believers, which, in turn, underlies all the special sciences, includingphilosophy and theology in their interaction.

At issue here is not the inevitably faith-qualified nature of all humanendeavors nor the notion of underlying, controlling worldview, nor that forboth Reformed dogmatics and Christian philosophy Scripture is "[t]henoetic point of departure" (p. 101). These are important insights that Spykman effectively reinforces. But the question is what function, spelled out,Scripture ought to have. And here I remain uneasy with his neo-Kuyperian

epistemology, particularly as it accents the difference, structurally, betweenpretheoretical and theoretical thinking, with the Bible and confessionexemplifying the former, theology the latter.

A substantial problem is that, with this approach, Scripture becomes theconcern of everyone in general but of no one, or no one special discipline(or set of disciplines), in particular. The church cannot afford that outcomewith the sort of neglect of Scripture that will follow. Central within thewider context of God's revelation (Word of God) that the entire creation

order is, is his special, redemptive revelation centered in the incarnateChrist. For the church, Scripture, as the record of that revelation, has acorrespondingly crucial, leading function (both in view ofthetotally enervating consequences of sin on our capacity to know and its uniqueness,within the total organism of revelation, as languageverbal revelation inthe strict sense). It seems difficult to deny, then, to put it negatively, thatto this special, inscripturated revelation there should be a specific, specialized human response; answering to theology in the one sense ("speaking of

God") is theology in the other sense ("speaking about God"), with Scripture as its distinguishing concern, its central subject matter. In other words,the essence of theology is biblical interpretation (the Reformers understood


11/13

the essence of theology is biblical interpretation (the Reformers understood


I do not hesitate to speak of the special, proprietary right of theology toScripture (and so also to speak about Godin a careful, methodologicallyself-conscious and responsible waythat, too, can and should be an act of

worship). That right the church has recognized from the beginning andproceeded accordingly (however otherwise wrongheadedly or disastrouslyat times). To view theology in this way is not to enfranchise a theologicalguild that deprives other believers of free access to the Bible and lords itover the other special disciplines. Rather, it is to provide those disciplinesand the whole church with the shepherding, ministerial services they cannot afford to be without. We can become too preoccupied with circumscribing theology in relation to other fields of study. The forces at work intheology arefirstof all centripetal, not centrifugal. Where theology remainscentered on Scripture, the boundary questions, though still present, will beless urgent (and more likely to be resolved).

Confession itself, especially the corporate confession of the church, istheologicalassertion. That at least is how sixteenth and seventeenth-centuryProtestantism understood what it was doing (or must we now abandon, orsubstantially revise, the Reformed Creeds?). More importantly still, theBible may not be categorized as confession but not theology, as Spykmanapparently does (e.g., p. 103). The distinction between theoretical and

pretheoretical thought, whatever else is to be said about it, describes acontinuum that, in the case of the Scriptures, cuts across them as a whole.

Within a Reformed context, no one has done more to alert us to theredemptive-historical subject matter of Scripture than Vos and Ridderbos.A large measure of the fruitfulness and exciting stimulus of their workcomes from their approach, for instance, to the apostle Paul as a theologian("the genius of the greatest constructive mind ever at work on the data ofChristianity").6 Anyone who says, categorically, that Scripture does not

contain theology needs to reread much of Paul or large stretches of theargumentation in the Book of Hebrews. As interpretation of Scripture, ourtheology is interpretation of interpretation, interpretation of and basd onthe divinely inspired interpretation of redemptive history provided by thebiblical, especially the NT, writers.

Seen in that light, the church is involved with the NT writers (withoutdenying or undermining their unique inspired and canonical authority) ina commontheologicaltaskby reflecting on their work and drawing out itsimplications; with a commonfocuson the subject matter of the gospelChrist, crucified and exalted; and from a common context orvantage point

now that Christ has departed and sent his Spirit. . . until he returns. . . .


12/13

now that Christ has departed and sent his Spirit. . . until he returns. . . .


The redemptive-historical substance of Scripture serves to define what

theology ought to be. The two, I judge, stand or fall together. That linkage

between redemptive history and theology Spykman denies or at least does

not consider, and so the perceptible dissonance between the stance headopts in Part One and what he sets out to do in Parts Two-Five.

This review has raised substantial criticisms. That, however, should not

be seen as any lack of appreciation for the singular significance ofthisbook

and the important undertaking it embodies. For us pilgrims who remain

behindto employ the old scholastic distinction between the theology of

vision or glory and the theology of the wayfarerSpykman has left us in

his debt. For he has set us on the path toward a most worthy, even if never

perfectly attainable, goala Reformed dogmatics that does full justice tothe history of redemption, systematic theology that is bound to promote the

unity, holiness, and catholicity of the church, because, from start to finish,

its center is the apostolic focus on "the revelation of the mystery hidden for

long ages but now revealed" (Rom 16:25-26).

Westminster Theological Seminary

Philadelphia


13/13

^ s

Copyright and Use:

Asan ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission

from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific

work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,

or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association

(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American

Theological Library Association.

Gaffin, a New Paradigm in Theology

Documents

Transcript of Gaffin, a New Paradigm in Theology