The book reviewing machine, Trevin Wax, has posted on Goldsworthy’s book on preaching.
Rather than seeing our study of Scripture as an encounter with mere facts about God, Goldsworthy maintains that theology is about an encounter with God himself, in the person of Jesus Christ. Biblical theology shines a spotlight on Jesus Christ as the one who perfectly reveals God to us.
Personal knowledge of Jesus Christ is vital to correctly understanding the Bible (47). The unbeliever approaches the Old Testament without any presuppositions that would point him to see the progressive nature of Old Testament theology as leading to the New Testament fulfillment. But the Christian approaches the Old Testament after first believing in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Knowing that the gospel revealed in the New Testament is in accordance with the Scriptures (the Old Testament), the Christian can follow the progressive revelation of the Old Testament to its fulfillment in the New (55).
Pointing to the incarnation of Jesus Christ (the Word of God that is both divine and human), Goldsworthy argues for a similar understanding of Scripture. We must not downplay the divine or human aspects of the Word of God. The Bible is the very Word of God – a divine revelation that points to Jesus Christ.
On the other hand, the Bible is given to us through human beings within their own history and culture. The individuality of each author is highlighted, not obliterated. Being a word that is both divine and human, Goldsworthy argues that the truth of God is conveyed without error. “When we speak about the infallibility of the Bible, we mean that it conveys exactly what God intended it to” (63).
Read the full post here.
IMHO Goldsworthy does not deliver what he promises when he says that OT texts should be interpreted in their own setting and culture first before then viewing them in light of the whole redemptive-historical scheme. From my rather limited reading of his work almost every time he encounters an OT text he just reads into it the output from his cookie-cutter scheme. I also agree with Seifrid in the most recent SBJT issue that there is a danger of trusting in the scheme instead of Christ himself.
By: Charles Halton on May 11, 2009
at 3:36 am
Charles, just curious what IMHO means? I am sure that I am supposed to know it but I don’t.
Further, I would agree that Goldsworthy perhaps falls into the same trap of many from a Reformed perspective. Westminster and Dordt have already implanted the grid from which Biblical Theology is derived.
A broader grid, perhaps like Eichrodt’s seems to grant the OT material its own abiding voice while not abdicating its place as the first part of two testaments of revelation.
By: angelabmooney on May 11, 2009
at 8:50 am
IMHO means “in my humble opinion.” I had to learn it from a friend of mine; these acronyms in the electronic world are a whole new language!
By: Charles Halton on May 11, 2009
at 8:54 am
The fact that “humility” was in the phrase is unfortunately why I have probably never heard of it.
.
By: jeffmooney on May 11, 2009
at 3:40 pm