Learning more than the Reformers?

[arapahoepark]

On the Reformed Reader Blog on came across this on one of the comments and am wondering how would you respond to it?

Shane, in response to your comment about the Reformers being brilliant linguists and well-rounded scholars: I would say: “yes and no.” There was large range of competency among the various reformers and their successors. The work is uneven at best. Oftentimes, the real problem is that they have limited access to manuscripts and other contextual resources. I suppose my real reason for responding though, is that sometimes I get the feeling that some within the Reformed tradition think that “we figured the Bible out in 1517,” and there’s nothing new to learn. I recall the late John Stek (OT prof at Calvin Theological Seminary, 1961-1990) lamenting how when he entered seminary in the late 1940s the professors literally told the students that Louis Berkhof had summarized everything that the Bible had to offer. “The Reformation figured it all out, and all you boys need to do is memorize Berkhof. No one can discover anything new in the Bible.”

I understand what he is saying but still.

 

[Philip B]

I don't quite trust the veracity of an indirect quote of an unnamed professor more than 60 years ago, especially when we're getting it third hand. (Or is it fourth hand? I lost count.) I hardly think it's fair to use that to characterize even "some within the Reformed tradition."

I suspect the real problem, though, is that some outside the Reformed tradition are too readily looking for new and novel interpretations. They don't like to be told that their new take on Scripture was actually hashed out several hundred years ago and shown to be error.

 

[RamistThomist]

Maybe this could be it: many of the Reformers never fully broke with the medieval metaphysics. Calvin was breaking with it, but in his sections on the doctrine of God and Christ (the former being only a few pages) he defaults to the standard Western position. Martin Bucer, for example, was a Thomist.

 

[jwithnell]

The healthiest view is to see the reformers as one part of your arsenal. They are great, in their own right, and should be studied. But there's been a great deal of good scholarship since then. As the church is challenged, she finds Biblical ways to answer. It's been that way since the early church fathers.

 

[arapahoepark]

But there's been a great deal of good scholarship since then.

Let me ask another question or phrase it better anyway. As you say there is new scholarship (no doubt) how does that either inform the text or change interpretations? I guess that is what I am trying to get at. We've seen a few instances where people say it revolutionizes the interpretations which aren't exactly true (NPP, ANE comparative studies); so how far does it go?
Anyone can answer I am not just asking you Jwithnell but, rather using your quote as an example.
I ask because it seems when people argue about new scholarship its as if they think it invalidates reformed theology.

 

[Peairtach]

It doesn't in any way overthrow the confessional accomplishments, but just builds on them and "burnishes" them.