Best place(s) to start with Geerhardus Vos?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

clawrence9008

Puritan Board Freshman
I am wondering where the best place or places to start in Geerhardus Vos' bibliography would be, as I am interested in reading him extensively in the future. I perceive that with a man of his theological insight and depth, diving headfirst into some of his more exhaustive works might be a little overwhelming. I intend on listening to Reformed Forum's reading of his sermon "The Wonderful Tree" on the Lord's Day, and I have read his sermon "Rabboni" before (awesome!), so I have a very basic introduction to him.

My thoughts on order:
1) Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos or Grace and Glory
2) Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments
3) Pauline Eschatology
 
Biblical Theology is dense. It's a fabulous work but 10 pages can be quite a stretch. It's been something like 15 years since I've read it and I still remember the insights about the tents of Japeth being pitched in the tents of Shem (May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his servant.”). Reformed forum's literally been going through a few pages per full length episode for years now.

I recommend the Banner of Truth Grace and Glory to start. It's a lovely collection of that's utterly profound and deeply devotional. J. Gresham Machen was overwhelmed by the sermon on Mary Magdalene meeting Jesus "Rabboni!" and his sermon on Heavenly Mindedness about the detail that Abraham and the Patriarchs always dwelled in tents rather than permanent dwellings in Canaan is superb.

If you scour their archives, Reformed Forum did readings of the 6 public domain sermons from Grace and Glory a couple of years ago on the Theology Simply Profound label. It's devotional doctrine in the best sense of the word.
 
On a scale from easiest to hardest, his sermons are the most most straightforward while compilations of his journal articles, such as Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, are challenging. Then again, small bites in self-contained pieces have their place.

The professor clearly progressed in his thinking as he aged, and I found works such as Reformed Dogmatics -- from his younger years -- less intuitive. If you were engaging his work in an academic setting you'd almost certainly have to know this work, but it would not be recommended as a first read

I started with Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testament and was aided by an older Bible translation (I believed he worked from RSV) and Greek reference materials. I really appreciated his Eschatology of the Psalter. Pauline Eschatology needs the context his Biblical Theology.
 
I don't know about easiest, but his Biblical Theology is the most important to read, because it's the historical basis for all modern Reformed biblical theology — for example, the work of Gaffin.
His eschatological ideas are also important, and you can get the gist of them from his paper "the teaching of Jesus concerning the kingdom of God and the Church."
I don't attribute much importance to his Reformed Dogmatics. Since it was very recently translated, it hasn't influenced other authors hardly at all, and as a presentation of Reformed dogmatics it is lacking, especially in comparison to, say, Van Mastricht, Turretin, or Brakel.
His sermons are ok. I don't find them as moving or convicting as, say, Jonathan Edwards or Samuel Rutherford, but they're better than the average sermon preached in the modern american pulpit.
 
Grace & Glory can be download free from Monergism as well in EPUB for Readers, or PDF for Computers.

Grace and Glory (eBook) | Monergism

by Geerhardus Vosin ePub, .mobi & .pdf formats16 sermons preached at Princeton Seminary in the early 1900's by the great scholar of Biblical Theology. Also
www.monergism.com
 
clawrence9008 said:
I am wondering where the best place or places to start in Geerhardus Vos' bibliography would be, as I am interested in reading him extensively in the future. I perceive that with a man of his theological insight and depth, diving headfirst into some of his more exhaustive works might be a little overwhelming. I intend on listening to Reformed Forum's reading of his sermon "The Wonderful Tree" on the Lord's Day, and I have read his sermon "Rabboni" before (awesome!), so I have a very basic introduction to him.

My thoughts on order:
1) Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos or Grace and Glory
2) Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments
3) Pauline Eschatology
Click to expand...
I just started Pauline Eschatology. I can read Van Til more quickly than I can read this.
 
When I was going into my first year in seminary, I asked my friend who was already there for one book I should read before classes started, and he told me to read Biblical Theology. It was really, really difficult. I profited immensely from his Reformed Dogmatics when I read through it later and my inkling is that it's easier to read than his biblical theology. Volume two on anthropology is small, and the last portion deals exclusively with the Covenant of Grace (around 60 pages). You could get it and decide if you want to read the volume straight through or just the section on the Covenant of Grace. For me, the fact that it's recently translated makes it all the more valuable. You might find yourself feeling like a man digging up buried treasure (I definitely did)!
 
A Geerhardus Vos Anthology

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

A Geerhardus Vos Anthology

In some ways an anthology might be the best way to start with Geerhardus Vos. His material is not always simple. And for the advanced reader who is familiar with Vos, this is a handy resource…
tentsofshem.wordpress.com tentsofshem.wordpress.com
 
I agree on starting with Grace and Glory. If you want to read Biblical Theology soon, I would actually suggest reading a more modern popular level book that can get you started on that biblical theological trail, something like Gospel and Kingdom by Goldsworthy (the first in the Trilogy), or The Unfolding Mystery by Clowney. If you have an idea of what the overall project is, then you can understand him fairly well.
 
A lot of (likely excellent) advice from a lot of people who are more well-studied than I above, but I disagree about Reformed Dogmatics. I've read Grace and Glory and parts of Biblical Theology and his shorter writings, but I think his RD is an great place to start. It was my first systematic when I was becoming Reformed and the extended catechism format really helped me follow along. His Covenant Theology was eye-opening to me at that time. Having since dug into other systematics I realize how "entry-level" it is, but I really have a soft spot for it and I think it's a good introduction to his thought - not that I'm an expert. I think you have a better sense of who is preaching the sermons in Grace and Glory having read the RD.
 
My seminary class recently read through Vos' Biblical Theology. All I will say is that many of us were surprised that this work is so highly spoken of.

That said, I recall profiting from Vos' study in the below article:

  • Vos, Geerhardus. "The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology," in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, 234-6
 
Alexander Suarez said:
My seminary class recently read through Vos' Biblical Theology. All I will say is that many of us were surprised that this work is so highly spoken of.

That said, I recall profiting from Vos' study in the below article:

  • Vos, Geerhardus. "The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology," in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, 234-6
Click to expand...
That's too bad. I would question the judgment of anyone who is willing to throw shade on one of the very best books ever written in Christian history.
 
Alexander Suarez said:
All I will say is that many of us were surprised that this work is so highly spoken of.
Click to expand...

No no please, brother. Say more. Seriously. Please and thank you.

I devoured Vos' RD and it helped me get over a personal hurdle I was encountering re: Turretin.

(Yes I agree with Charles Johnson that Turretin > Vos in RD but Vos was a critical stepping stone for me personally).

I eagerly picked up Biblical Theology and struggled with its density - especially compared to RD and his Natural Theology.

I have been reading Goldsworthy Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics as a way to springboard myself - get a running start into Vos' BT.

(I never knew about Gospel and Kingdom until now sadly).

Please share your full thoughts here. Many clearly tout BT as the gold standard of Biblical theology in the Reformed tradition. And these are posters I have come to trust.

Can you please explain why they are mistaken and cite evidence for a better source for Biblical-theological methodology?

Thank you so much in advance!
 
greenbaggins said:
That's too bad. I would question the judgment of anyone who is willing to throw shade on one of the very best books ever written in Christian history.
Click to expand...
Rev. Keister,

This is one of those comments that leave me scratching my head. It is one thing to say there are good observations in it, but "one of the very best books ever written in Christian history"? Perhaps I missed something.

In terms of fleshing out my original statement with specified particulars, it will take me sometime. Lord willing, I will attempt to come back around and share in a thread of its own so that I can be corrected and/or all be edified.
 
Alexander Suarez said:
My seminary class recently read through Vos' Biblical Theology. All I will say is that many of us were surprised that this work is so highly spoken of.

That said, I recall profiting from Vos' study in the below article:

  • Vos, Geerhardus. "The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology," in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, 234-6
Click to expand...

My guess is that looking back on him fifty years later, we kind of already think in those terms (thanks to him). And it isn't a very riveting read (I speak as a Vosian). I think starting with his Anthology is much better.
 
Alexander Suarez said:
Rev. Keister,

This is one of those comments that leave me scratching my head. It is one thing to say there are good observations in it, but "one of the very best books ever written in Christian history"? Perhaps I missed something.

In terms of fleshing out my original statement with specified particulars, it will take me sometime. Lord willing, I will attempt to come back around and share in a thread of its own so that I can be corrected and/or all be edified.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should listen to some of the Reformed Forum's many, many podcasts on this book and revise your opinion.
 
I'll make another thread about why I don't think Vos's RD is all that great. To be fair, it's probably better than a lot that's come out since the mid-19th century (Schleiermacher, Barth, etc), and it's probably on-par with other well-known works of the past two centuries (Charles Hodge, Dabney, Berkhoff).
 
greenbaggins said:
Perhaps you should listen to some of the Reformed Forum's many, many podcasts on this book and revise your opinion.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have listened to a number of them. If I recall, last I checked, they have not completed their review of the book (something they started in December of 2013).

Additionally, that one needs to listen to 60+ hours of Lane Tipton and team discuss a 400+ page book, over a period of 10+ years, before they can rightly assess it is a little unreasonable. I agree that Tipton brings out and expounds many of those good insights. However, after 60+ hours of review, at what point are the expositions simply that of Vos and not of Tipton and team?
 
greenbaggins said:
Perhaps you should listen to some of the Reformed Forum's many, many podcasts on this book and revise your opinion.
Click to expand...
For the sake of the discussion here, could you state the main points?
My perception of Reformed Forum has been that they have an almost unhealthy obsession with Vos and Van Til, who are ultimately rather minor figures in the 2000 year history of the Christian church.
 
Alexander Suarez said:
Additionally, that one needs to listen to 60+ hours of Lane Tipton and team discuss a 400+ page book, over a period of 10+ years, before they can rightly assess it is a little unreasonable. I agree that Tipton brings out and expounds many of those good insights. However, after 60+ hours of review, at what point are the expositions simply that of Vos and not of Tipton and team?
Click to expand...

Agreed. That's been one of my reservations. I've read almost every single work Van Til published (many of them in the original Den Dulk print). At this point I am not going to listen to all of Tipton, though his stuff on Vos does sound interesting.
 
His insights on the relationship of biblical to systematic theology, his insights about covenantal theology being connected to the sabbatical principle, the thought that eschatology logically precedes soteriology, these things are worth the price of admission all on their own. As to Vos's and Van Til's influence, they grow all the time. Sure, they haven't had the time to be as influential as Augustine and Calvin. But minor figures in church history? Not when you're talking to a WTS grad like myself.
 
greenbaggins said:
Not when you're talking to a WTS grad like myself.
Click to expand...
Even if Church history began in 1929 and were centered entirely around Westminster Seminary, Vos and Van Til would still occupy a place alongside Machen, Stonehouse, Murray, Young, and Wilson.
There is no rational criteria by which they should reasonably become the two singular focuses of historical-theological study, as has apparently happened in some circles.
 
I'm not quite sure why there is so much acrimony in response to a simple question in the OP. Vos has undoubtedly had a formative impact on Westminster Seminary in the ways that Lane has identified, in a way that is similar to the impact of Van Til, and far more than Machen, Stonehouse and Young (you could argue that Murray is precisely the kind of Systematician that Vos argued for, as is Dick Gaffin, another towering influence at WTS). Other Reformed schools (apart for Westminster California) have not been so much influenced by him. English was his second language, and it has to be acknowledged that Biblical Theology is not easy reading, in spite of its profundity. He is also interacting with scholarly opponents of the day in places in the book, some of which material remains relevant, while other parts are less so. Generally, less academic readers will find those portions heavy going and should probably skip over them. His published systematic theology, if I am not mistaken, comes from his early years of teaching, before he moved to Princeton and specialized in Biblical Theology. So it would not be surprising if it is not his most original or best work. On the contrary, it is a mark of his ability that his early lectures contain so much that is worth publishing. I know my early notes aren't worth much.

In response to the OP, I'm surprised no one has mentioned his inaugural address at Princeton ("The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline," in Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., ed., Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980): 3-24.) This is relatively short and accessible, and it conveys clearly his commitment to a Systematic Theology that gathers the fruits of Biblical Theology and orders them accordingly, in contrast to a Biblical Theology that operates in glorious isolation of ST, or an ST that is more a subset of Historical Theology, potentially spending most of its time talking about things that the Bible doesn't actually address. That encapsulates his biggest contribution to theological education, in my mind.
 
iainduguid said:
In response to the OP, I'm surprised no one has mentioned his inaugural address at Princeton ("The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline," in Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., ed., Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980): 3-24.)
Click to expand...

In no way should anyone be surprised I didn't mention it hahaha

Thank you, Professor, and thank you all for interesting links and dialogue here. A great thread, OP, thank you as well! :)
 
No Other Name said:
A great thread, OP, thank you as well! :)
Click to expand...
I agree with Professor Duguid that this thread did admittedly get a little out-of-hand in terms of the debate of sorts surrounding Vos (and Van Til), but this was helpful to get a better picture of where I should start in the future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

JM
  • Locked
Geerhardus Vos
Replies
9
Views
2K
JM
JM
Stephen L Smith
  • Locked
The 'essence' of Geerhardus Vos
Replies
9
Views
2K
greenbaggins
greenbaggins
Y
Natural Theology by Geerhardus Vos,
Replies
0
Views
738
yeutter
Y
Reformed Covenanter
Geerhardus Vos on the three elements of saving faith
Replies
0
Views
758
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
Bladestunner316
  • Locked
Before Vos
Replies
7
Views
2K
strangerpilgrim
S
Back
Top