Poythress on “Kinds of Biblical Theology”


Vern Sheridan Poythress’s essay, “Kinds of Biblical Theology,” which appears in the most recent issue of Westminster Theological Journal (70.1 [2008], 129-42) is available online here.

Here are the article’s subtitles:

I. History of the Expression ‘‘Biblical Theology’’
II. Vos’s View of the Relation of Biblical Theology to Systematic Theology
III. Murray and Gaffin on the Value of Biblical Theology for Systematics
IV. The Reverse Influence of Systematic Theology on Biblical Theology
V. Distinct Foci in Kinds of Biblical Theology
VI. Biblical Theologies of Individual Authors and Books
VII. Global Restructuring of Systematic Theology?
VIII. Difficulties about Restructuring


6 Responses to “Poythress on “Kinds of Biblical Theology””

  1. Poythress on “Kinds of Biblical Theology” « The Crimson Window Says:

    […] post info By jbignacio Categories: Theology Tags: Biblical Theology, Vern Poythress, Westminster Theological Journal Jim Hamilton: […]

  2. Poythress on “Kinds of Biblical Theology” « Biblical Theology « Th’eternal Promise Says:

    […] Poythress on “Kinds of Biblical Theology” « Biblical Theology […]

  3. Charles Halton Says:

    Thanks for the link! Saves me a trip to the library.

  4. John C. Poirier Says:

    Pythress’s belief that biblical theology should be guided by Reformed theology is bizarre. I thought the whole point of doing “biblical theology” was to present an apparatus for gauging the biblical integrity of a given tradition’s theology.

  5. Andrew Belli Says:

    I agree with Poirier; we may all embrace the Reformed tradition, but we stand or fall with the Text. Even the Reformers cried “Ad Fontes!” All theological systems must be informed by biblical theology, actually extracted directly from it.

    When well-meaning brothers say to me things like, “That’s not what Baptists have historically believed or practiced, etc.” I reply, “Oh, I’m sorry, I majored in Biblical Studies, not in Baptist History.”

  6. M Napier Says:

    No lasting offense intended to Poirer or Belli, while I agree with you that we stand or fall with the text, I think Poythress is just being utterly honest about his hermeneutic milieu and thus wearing his tradition on his sleeve in an unpopular and potentially wince-inducing way that again is honest. The text is read by individuals whose foundational assumptions (dare I say presuppositions?) are fostered in church communities and families etc. If you can get around your inherited hermeneutic tradition to the Text Meaning-an-sich, by all means but maybe Baptist History has a little more to say than you think?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: