Theological Advances since October 5, 1708

[py3ak]

Have there been any theological advances in the last 300 years?

Now the question is not if valuable literature has been written. But valuable theological literature can be produced without representing an advance. For instance, writing a good defense of the Confessional view of the Sabbath is useful; but it is not an advance, it is a (most useful and necessary) maintaining of a position which has already been reached.

So we can put the question a little more precisely. Have we attained to any new, but correct, theological positions. since October 5, 1708?

If you think we have, please say when they came about (if you are able to) and who originated/systematized/popularized them.

 

[py3ak]

Nobody can think of even one?

 

[MW]

It depends on what is meant by advances. Deism certainly required the church to give more careful definition of the relationship between natural and revealed religion. There has developed a more systematic approach to typology, and biblical theology has shown the need for eschatological perspective in interpretation. Post Kantian apologetics has brought presuppositionalism to the foreground. These and other branches might be regarded as advances, or simply as organic growth of elements which were already present in the stem.

 

[py3ak]

Organic growth of what was already present is a good definition of what I mean by advance.

 

[TimV]

We're so fragmented today, as I suppose we always have been, so it's hard to think of anything that 75% of the people here would agree are advances. I suppose there are a few. I love Dabney, but his defense of racial slavery show a huge cultural blind spot.

So, I'd offer the abolition of racial slavery, and any other kind that lasts more than the Biblical limit of 6 years for non-voluntary servitude. And yes, some would say it's not theological, but social, and they may be right. To me, it's theonomistic, but hey, somebody had to get the ball rolling, and I'm sure I'm not the only one that's been thinking about Ruben's question.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Organic growth of what was already present is a good definition of what I mean by advance.

Using your post about the Sabbath above, would not a defense of the confessional view basically have to be an advance if only to defend against a new enemy and the objections of that enemy. If there was not an advance then why not just have the old work reprinted.

CT

 

[Grymir]

Organic growth of what was already present is a good definition of what I mean by advance.

Using your post about the Sabbath above, would not a defense of the confessional view basically have to be an advance if only to defend against a new enemy and the objections of that enemy. If there was not an advance then why not just have the old work reprinted.

CT

I wish we had more of the good stuff reprinted instead of the junk that is out there today!

I do like the philosophical advances that relate to theology. Dabney did a great job. (I was surprised really with what he wrote. I wasn't expecting such deep and well thought out implications of modernism from him.) Sproul does it best, of course.

I can only think of a de-advancement in the last 300 years, and that's the devaluing of the scriptures as the word of God. How they are not the written word of God, but things like 'contain the words of God' or 'tell about God'. Like the Barthians and Libs try and say, even though it started with Kirkengaard. Which lead to Jesus not dying for us, but a example for us to follow. So I see this stuff which hasn't happen in church history untill after the enlightenment.

 

[py3ak]

Organic growth of what was already present is a good definition of what I mean by advance.

Using your post about the Sabbath above, would not a defense of the confessional view basically have to be an advance if only to defend against a new enemy and the objections of that enemy. If there was not an advance then why not just have the old work reprinted.

CT

CT, I don't think so. If a new line of argument (that were accurate, naturally) were employed, that would be an advance. But to reiterate in contemporary language is not to have advanced theologically --it is just to have retained what we had received.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I am not a Jonathan Edwards scholar but he was the first person I thought of when I saw the date in question. His contributions to philosophical theology in the understanding of the fall, original sin, guilt and the imputation of sin, and justification by faith were significant. Were they advances? I'll leave that to the Edwards scholars.

 

[FenderPriest]

As Andrew said above, I'd say that Edwards was an advance in clarifying the place of joy in the nature of God and the necessity of it to salvation. I'd say that in this area, Edwards was the most helpful in advancing clarity on already existing truths in Scripture.

I'd also say that Van Til's apologetics and his work in epistemology (and subsequently his disciples Bahnsen and Frame) have done one of the major advances in the 20th century to Christian thought and theology.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Organic growth of what was already present is a good definition of what I mean by advance.

Using your post about the Sabbath above, would not a defense of the confessional view basically have to be an advance if only to defend against a new enemy and the objections of that enemy. If there was not an advance then why not just have the old work reprinted.

CT

CT, I don't think so. If a new line of argument (that were accurate, naturally) were employed, that would be an advance. But to reiterate in contemporary language is not to have advanced theologically --it is just to have retained what we had received.

Okay, then I think I can flip the question. What new Theological problems/ enemies have cropped up since the date in question. It seems that the church advances as it meets new enemies. If we have a hard time thinking of new enemies then it would probably be hard to think of new advances.

CT

 

[CharlieJ]

I'm not sure how it historically worked out, but I would cite the development of adoption as a separate locus of theology and its implications for the Christian life.

Also, covenant theology has continued to advance through its interactions with other systems. James Buchanan (mid-1800s) developed the doctrine of justification in a covenantal framework in his The Doctrine of Justification. John Murray, Meredith Kline, and G.E. Mendenhall all offered some innovative data on the covenant. O. Palmer Robertson I think has done the best job taking all that data and blending it into a non-eccentric work on covenant theology.

 

[HokieAirman]

I agree with TimV that the abolition of slavery and the equality of all races (at least within the majority views of the church) is a great advance in church history. For many years, a great number of Southern churches preached the inequality of 'races other than white'.

That is, the equality of all races as 'made in the image of God'.

 

[py3ak]

That's a good question, CT. Let's add it to the original question. And let's make the terms more generous.

What theological advances have there been since January 1, 1700?

What new threats has the church confronted since January 1, 1700?

 

[Pergamum]

I think we are making advances in the sense that we are formulating positions to problems that did not exist as major issues (or not at all in some cases) 300 years ago, like positions on legal abortion, euthanisia versus "letting die", stem cell research, cloning, artifical insemination, the birth control pill, etc....

Also, we have advanced in our view of the culture of the ancient near east in Bible times and can dig deeper with these additional cultural insights from archaeology, etc.

And more manuscripts have been discovered.


Plus, church and state is more separate so that missions can go forward like the church in Pre-Constantinian times and need not be viewed as an agent of the State or as a colonializing foreign power. We can return more to servanthood than an "occupation" mindset in foreign missions. I would call the lack of Christian civil states that punish ecclesiastical offenses as an advance (I don't wont no Zwinglian "rebaptisms" due to my convictions). Only the Muslims now kill people for theological error.

 

[Scott1]

Ecclesiastes 1:9
The thing that hath been, it [is that] which shall be; and that which is done [is] that which shall be done: and [there is] no new [thing] under the sun.

Not to undermine the question topic, only to note that as I tried to think of "new" advances, I could not think of any.

I really don't think anyone has improved on the theology or the carefulness of the Westminster Confession or the London Baptist Confession. We have better study helps and guides and even commentaries, but I can't say it "advances" or "improves" the substance.

I'm finding it remarkable even saying this.

 

[Pergamum]

There is a sense in which God is reclaiming the fallen creation for Himself. Christ is conquering and then He will turn the kingdom back over to His Father it seems when He has completed his reign and occupied all of His territory - this is advance.

When "advance" is only the work of man it is only rightly called "vanity" - but we are looking at many advances in God's Mission as history marches to a conclusion.


Sorry to sound all Postmillenial, but I am seeing God's glory spread across the globe and church history can be called nothing else than advance.

 

[TimV]

There is a sense in which God is reclaiming the fallen creation for Himself. Christ is conquering and then He will turn the kingdom back over to His Father it seems when He has completed his reign and occupied all of His territory - this is advance.

I like that, thanks. The smallest seed in the garden has become a huge bush, and all the birds of the field make their house there.

 

[py3ak]

There is a sense in which God is reclaiming the fallen creation for Himself. Christ is conquering and then He will turn the kingdom back over to His Father it seems when He has completed his reign and occupied all of His territory - this is advance.

When "advance" is only the work of man it is only rightly called "vanity" - but we are looking at many advances in God's Mission as history marches to a conclusion.


Sorry to sound all Postmillenial, but I am seeing God's glory spread across the globe and church history can be called nothing else than advance.

But increasing widespreadness is not the same as a theological advance. Preaching to all nations is extensive improvement, not intensive improvement.

 

[MOSES]

After reading Milton Terry's "Biblical Hermeneutics" and his presentation of hermeneutics throughout history, I can confidently say that there has been, in my opinion, a great advance in hermeneutics and exegetics (due partially to manuscript evidence, better translations etc.)

Now, it was after studying hermeneutics that I came to the preterist (creedal pret) position with confidence.

The eschatology that is presented in preterism is a great advancement, both in theology and hermeneutics.

Note: No, this is not theology proper, but it is still an advancement in theology general, being all scripture is essentially eschatological.

Note: Timeframe of advancement??? I am not quite sure. Possibly late 1600s with commentary and notes of Lightfoot, definitely late 1800s with Russell.

 

[Pergamum]

There is a sense in which God is reclaiming the fallen creation for Himself. Christ is conquering and then He will turn the kingdom back over to His Father it seems when He has completed his reign and occupied all of His territory - this is advance.

When "advance" is only the work of man it is only rightly called "vanity" - but we are looking at many advances in God's Mission as history marches to a conclusion.


Sorry to sound all Postmillenial, but I am seeing God's glory spread across the globe and church history can be called nothing else than advance.

But increasing widespreadness is not the same as a theological advance. Preaching to all nations is extensive improvement, not intensive improvement.

I would disagree here - the extension of the church to the nations so that the nations become the church IS an advance and not mere "widspreadness". As the church enlarges it changes in quality and not just in quantity. A more global perspective occurs so that the church advances in theology, gaining global perspective. We can interact more and more as the universal church should interact. Again, this is a change in quality and not mere quantity.

It is an intensive improvement that it goes deeper and gets to "new truths" of what it means truly to be a church that is global and can interact globally.

This century is the first century on earth when, in a single day, a Japanese believers can interact with a believer in Minnesota and New Guinea and Australia by phone and/or internet. This is groundbreaking and will have vast repercussions for the church. Globalization of theology is an advance.

 

[Pergamum]

Here is a related topic for another thread:

The Puritans spoke truth but were also products of their time. Their stresses, emphases, issues and concerns were Puritan concerns. If the church had matured in China instead of among a lot of Scots and Brits, our confessions would look quite different. That is not to say that the WCF is not true, but it was still a product of a place and time. As churches in Asia mature their concerns are different. If they write confessions they may add the issue of respect to ancestors instead of a chapter on the civil magistrate. As the church becomes more global it allows all Christians to mutually bless one another with a broader and wider theology and not try to "fix" the specific way in which we formulate truth into a product of white, english Christians from several hundreds years ago. The globalization of theology is an advance in that we are made aware of those issues that are completely overlooked in our own confessions and even our seminaries but weigh heavily on the hearts of eastern brothers.

 

[TimV]

If you ask what advances have been made since 1400 using the criteria used, there won't be any answers either. Or since 1400 BC. Everything is growth from the same root.

 

[py3ak]

Pergamum, the globalization of theology may lead to strictly theological advances; but it is not in itself such an advance. Consider this example: going to college may be the occasion for much intellectual advancement in an individual, but just registering and settling down in the dorm is not of itself an intellectual advance.

Tim, I disagree. There is advance, but it is anticipated advance. So as far back as Leo the Great one can find inaugurated eschatology; but there came a time when we developed the vocabulary to talk about that theme explicitly.