Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
View attachment 2454Any of my Reformed Brethren on the PB read "Right Reason and the Princeton Mind" by Paul Kjoss Helseth yet? Just picked it up and am enjoying it so far...
"Right Reason and the Princeton Mind" by Paul Kjoss Helseth
- Thread starter Backwoods Presbyterian
- Start date
- Status
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Yes, and it's a careful treatment of the Princetonians, demonstrating that Scottish Common Sense Realism, though paradigmatic at old Princeton (1812-1929), did not have the kind of dominance that has often been claimed. Sydney Ahlstrom of Yale, in a 1955 Church History article, claimed that Hodge, Warfield and company were so in the thrall of the Scottish philosophy as to be rendered more theologians of the Enlightenment than of the Bible. Ahlstrom's arguments were an extension of the Calvin vs. the Calvinists approach that Barthians at the time were making across the theological board. The Calvin vs. the Calvinists approach has, in general, been refuted by Muller, Venema, Beeke, etc.
As a Van Tilian, I would also criticize the Princetonians at points with respect to their epistemology. But I have also become convinced that the Princetonians were neither merely rationalists or empiricists who put the Bible on a procrustean bed to fit their enlightenment theological models. I think rather that they were theologians ultimately guided by the Bible and the Westminster Standards and less in the grip of the Scottish approach than hitherto argued. My research into Hodge has proven to me that Hodge, as did Warfield, did not make an appeal to autonomous human reason but to reason rightly employed, which only ultimately the regenerate enjoy. They are not perfectly consistent in this, but there are parts of Hodge's ST that takes an approach that sounds transcendental.
I could say much more, and do in some soon to be published materials. It's a good read as is Hoffecker's brand new book on Hodge.
Peace,
Alan
As a Van Tilian, I would also criticize the Princetonians at points with respect to their epistemology. But I have also become convinced that the Princetonians were neither merely rationalists or empiricists who put the Bible on a procrustean bed to fit their enlightenment theological models. I think rather that they were theologians ultimately guided by the Bible and the Westminster Standards and less in the grip of the Scottish approach than hitherto argued. My research into Hodge has proven to me that Hodge, as did Warfield, did not make an appeal to autonomous human reason but to reason rightly employed, which only ultimately the regenerate enjoy. They are not perfectly consistent in this, but there are parts of Hodge's ST that takes an approach that sounds transcendental.
I could say much more, and do in some soon to be published materials. It's a good read as is Hoffecker's brand new book on Hodge.
Peace,
Alan
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
