"Right reason" and the Princeton mind

[Reformed Covenanter]

Has anyone here read Paul Kjoss Helseth's book, "Right reason" and the Princeton mind: an unorthodox proposal (P&R, 2010)? This book is one I really should have got to earlier, but I have only just commenced reading it. The basic thesis sounds reasonable enough, and I was encouraged that the published elected to go with footnotes as opposed to endnotes - would that more would do likewise!

 

[Logan]

Not heard of it but I'm somewhat familiar with the Princetonians.

Question: the book summary states "The 'orthodox' consensus is that Presbyterian professors at Old Princeton Seminary (1812-1929) betrayed traditional Reformed theology by claiming that human reason was in certain significant ways unaffected by the fall." (then the book argues against that). Is that really perceived as the "orthodox consensus"? It seems to me that Turretin and Calvin would have to be included in that "betrayal" as well then.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I have read it, here is my review on Goodreads.

 

[RamistThomist]

Not heard of it but I'm somewhat familiar with the Princetonians.

Question: the book summary states "The 'orthodox' consensus is that Presbyterian professors at Old Princeton Seminary (1812-1929) betrayed traditional Reformed theology by claiming that human reason was in certain significant ways unaffected by the fall." (then the book argues against that). Is that really perceived as the "orthodox consensus"? It seems to me that Turretin and Calvin would have to be included in that "betrayal" as well then.

I agree with you. The author in another interview did try to state that Turretin didn't use right reason in the same way that the Princetonians did. Most scholars, though, place him within that spectrum.

 

[MW]

It appears to me that the problem was not theological but practical. The rise of inductive science and Hodge's adherence to the inductive approach committed the orthodox theology to an impossible task.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Not heard of it but I'm somewhat familiar with the Princetonians.

Question: the book summary states "The 'orthodox' consensus is that Presbyterian professors at Old Princeton Seminary (1812-1929) betrayed traditional Reformed theology by claiming that human reason was in certain significant ways unaffected by the fall." (then the book argues against that). Is that really perceived as the "orthodox consensus"? It seems to me that Turretin and Calvin would have to be included in that "betrayal" as well then.

Logan, by "orthodox consensus" the author is referring to historiographical orthodoxy, not theological orthodoxy.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I have read it, here is my review on Goodreads.

Thanks, Benjamin.

 

[TylerRay]

I haven't read this, but I have read B. B. Warfield: Essays on his Life and Thought, which includes two chapters by Helseth; and I have heard a lecture by the man given at the 2012 GPTS Spring Conference. All of these addressed Princeton, epistemological realism, and reformed orthodoxy. They were all very helpful as well. The man understands the Princeton mind, and does a great job defending it.