tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2812825755483061726.post4859357171769963943..comments2007-03-22T20:07:14.759-07:00Mike Vendselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12576003414897805207noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2812825755483061726.post-70456074332390765442007-03-22T20:07:00.000-07:002007-03-22T20:07:00.000-07:00I know Gaffin probably would want to distance himself from a Catholic approach to the scriptures, but the latter would agree as well that there is "no new public revelation" after the closing of the canon; rather, the enterprise of (Catholic) theology is also to make explicit what is implicit in scriptures. And, in considering such ideas as the Marian dogmas, to make deductions by "good and necessary consequence." (It goes without saying that Protestants consider Catholics to have gone a bit too far with the deductions.)<BR/><BR/>What intrigues me is the idea not just of understanding the underlying structure of Paul's thought, but also the question of development of doctrine in the church age (which granted, isn't exactly the question you raised).<BR/><BR/>Questions such as: what would Paul have thought about the Nicene Creed (or the WCF for that matter)? Would he have said, "Yes, of course," or perhaps would he have been a bit baffled and needed time to think through it?<BR/><BR/>That is to say, in what way are these things implicit in Paul? Does he just happen not to mention them, although they're fully clear in his mind, or does he grasp dimly in an analogous sense that the OT saints did?<BR/><BR/>Anyway, that's going a bit far afield from R&R. Just some thoughts that came up on my part. I'll read up on your next posts.<BR/>Thanks for your thoughts,<BR/>David<BR/>(I'm Jonathan's brother and a WTS graduate. Read Vox Vendsel occasionally.)Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2812825755483061726.post-72312665381198723672007-03-22T09:07:00.000-07:002007-03-22T09:07:00.000-07:00Hi David, nice to meet you and thanks for leaving a comment. How did you happen by? <BR/><BR/>I am sorry to say I have not had opportunity to read much of Cardinal Newman, but the image you mention of an acorn and an oak tree also occurs in Vos (first chapter of his Biblical Theology), who is, as you know, probably the foremost influence on Gaffin (along with Ridderbos). I think Gaffin and Vos would both agree with the qualification you make, that what is explicit in the oak tree is implicit in the seed. I think they would say this is preeminently true of the unfolding of special revelation itself, so that Paul's theology unfolds what was dimly present even in the revelation to the patriarchs. But I think they would say the same with regard to the post-apostolic development of doctrine - that it is an effort to state explicitly what was implicit within Paul. <BR/><BR/>Further thoughts?Mike Vendselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12576003414897805207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2812825755483061726.post-72984667008492793492007-03-13T17:22:00.000-07:002007-03-13T17:22:00.000-07:00It's been probably 5 years since I've read R&R, but reading your summary is remarkable.<BR/><BR/>What is particularly striking is the consonance of Gaffin's words with Cardinal Newman's idea of the "development of doctrine" and the image of an oak growing from an acorn.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the difference would be that Gaffin would say that the iceberg is fully present with Paul, just not able to be explicitly seen.<BR/><BR/>Thoughts?Davidnoreply@blogger.com