Traditional vs Redemptive Historical Preaching

Not open for further replies.

5 Solas

Puritan Board Freshman
Did anyone hear the debate at the Greenville Seminary theology conference in 2002 concerning John Carrick =Traditional preaching opposed to William Dennison = Redemptive Historical preaching.
What are your thoughts on the debate if you could remember?
The reason why I ask is we had a Visiting minister this past Lord's day I believe this Redemptive Historical preaching is what i heard.
Kerux website emphasizes this Redemptive Historical approach that embraces Ridderbos, Vos, Gaffin an eschatological typology approach.
Kerux is operated by William Dennison's brother James Dennison they are teaching at NorthWest Theological Seminary thats embraces Geerhardus Vos approach does anyone familiar with this Seminary and what are your comments?
In a article in the Banner of truth website it mentions that John Carrick attacked the extremes of Redemptive Historical movement I am wondering who are these ones in that extreme movement. Carrick said he wants balance Indicative/Imperative preaching he had said that Redemptive Historical preaching is like a plane passing by but never touching the ground.
Has anyone read his Imperative Preaching i think that the name of his book any comments on his book.
Those who go to Seminary is this issue something that is brought up in class.
Thank you for responding.:candle:
I tend to side with Carrick. Without diminishing the value of the redemptive historical perspective I think the take Carrick has is more biblical. Look at Paul. It is full of the indicative and imperative. Again there is a law/gospel disintegration. Gospel impels Christians into holy living out of gratitude. Indicative > Imperative. How could one preach through James in a RH vein without addressing the practical?

Here is an audio lecture that people can check out for free at Greenville's website. I listened to it a while back and found it very edifying.

My :2cents:

Fred, I would love to get your opinion on this.

[Edited on 2-11-2004 by crhoades]
Not open for further replies.