New Resource on Hermeneutics: Seeing Christ in All of Scripture

9780998005102Book Detail:

87 Pages
Publisher: Westminster Seminary Press
Publication Date: 2016
ISBN 13: 9780998005102

This introduction calls attention to the consistency of biblical interpretation that exists today at Westminster Theological Seminary. The harmony among the theological disciplines at Westminster is due to a shared method of interpreting Scripture, a shared hermeneutic, that is drawn from Westminster’s confessional standards. Although expressed in distinctive ways, Westminster’s hermeneutic remains cohesive and compatible throughout the theological curriculum. It is my privilege, then, to introduce this collection of brief essays written by four of Westminster’s leading scholars. Herein, you will find a witness to the hermeneutical unity at Westminster through the perspectives of Dr. Vern Poythress, Dr. Iain Duguid, Dr. Greg Beale, and Dr. Richard Gaffin. Their reflections span the whole of Scripture and express the deep continuity that courses through the diverse fields of biblical interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary.

Perhaps this little work is not for all readers.  It’s really a intramural work.  However, an outsider may benefit from it.  May be purchased here.

This entry was posted in Christ in Scripture, Hermeneutics, Miscellanies and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to New Resource on Hermeneutics: Seeing Christ in All of Scripture

  1. Jon Hughes says:


    We’re all on a spiritual journey. I used to love reading these guys – believe me – and their work is rich. But it’s restricted precisely because of those confessional standards. There’s no freedom of enquiry. What they’re doing is adhering to a tradition (17th Century). The approach of Peter Enns, who ‘got resigned’ from that venerable institution rings more true for me these days.

  2. TC Robinson says:

    I feel you. I’m reading Enns’ latest, The Sin of Uncertainty, where he recalls his “got resigned” days with some frustration. Subscription, in whatever form, to the Westminster Standards are always going to engender some intramural debate. But it depends on the Reformed denomination you’re in, however.

    Personally, I don’t mind some boundaries. 😉

  3. Jon Hughes says:

    We all need boundaries, but it sounds like these guys are doing a Trump. I’ll go with Enns outside the camp. We might just find we’re in good company (cf. Hebrews 13:13). One thing for sure, theological gate-keepers and boundary-protectors always think they’re right. But history shows that they often get it wrong.

    • TC Robinson says:

      We need a few boundary markers, but at different levels: (1) to define orthodoxy, and (2) to define denominational tradition. Enns had enough of (2). But what about a Tim Keller, who reaches millions outside of his own tradition?

      • Jon Hughes says:

        Hi TC,

        Tim Keller is regarded as ‘suspect’ by many within his own tradition and highly conservative by many outside of it. And yes, he’s very popular. My own view is that he is cleverly re-packaging old doctrines, and so doesn’t go far enough. Enns represents the best approach for the future. One of the major stumbling blocks to progress is the stubborn adherence to tortuous definitions of inerrancy, framed by a thousand qualifications. One can sense that pastors and seminary professors want to break out of it, but can’t for fear of the elders. The landscape will be very different in a generation or two.

  4. TC Robinson says:

    Your observation about Keller is correct. But here is the thing: institutions and their profs have all agreed about these traditional boundaries. They’ve signed on the dotted lines. Now, if they’re on a spiritual like Enns, then they should find a tradition that fits their new theological trajectory.

    Semper reformanda, according to the Word, yes, but “Enns represents the best approach for the future,” I don’t know about that. Some are content with their traditions, despites knowing imperfections.

    • Jon Hughes says:


      Familiarity with the Gospels shows that being content with your traditions is not necessarily a good place to be.

      • TC Robinson says:

        I reject the implications of what you’re saying here: (1) Are you suggesting that we all should be anti-traditions? (2) Are you suggesting that those who hold to their traditions are not familiar with the Gospels? And (3) does familiarity with the Gospels lead to anti-traditionalism?

        Familiarity with the Gospels is REALLY about the person, message, and work of Christ, not our various traditions.

      • Jon Hughes says:

        Hi TC,

        I take your point, and am definitely not saying (2). That said, you don’t need a lot of imagination to recognise from the Gospels that significant numbers of those who were conservative Bible-believers 2,000 years ago rejected Jesus as Messiah precisely because of their adherence to the scriptures. Fast forward 2,000 years and who are their heirs? These contemporary gatekeepers are more than capable of rejecting what God is affirming for the same reasons. The Bible comments upon itself with the stark truth that “the letter kills” – something that never gets enough attention within conservative circles.

        If anything, I’m closest to saying (3). Application of the Gospels must involve an element of taking on cherished traditions within the Church. Considering the fact that we all have our traditions, it’s an ongoing process. And considering the subversiveness of the Gospels, commitment to them requires it.

  5. TC Robinson says:

    I’m with you on (3), given that fact that each new generation must rethink what they believe. But even as we rethink what we believe, there are certain boundary marks that cannot be move, or we talking identity crisis here.

    Again, traditions must be cherished, or we’re talking denominations upon denominations, along with their sub-denominations.

    • Jon Hughes says:


      The problem is that every denomination and sub-denomination cherishes their own specific tradition precisely because it is based on the ‘obvious’ teaching of Scripture. 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s