Prolegomena

Gijsbert Van Den Brink*

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Chapter in Book / Report / Conference proceedingChapterAcademicpeer-review

    199 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    This chapter charts some of the ways in which the prolegomena have traditionally been drafted and discussed in Reformed theology. First, we will examine the two Reformers who arguably most deeply influenced most of the later trajectories of Reformed theology: Philip Melanchthon and John Calvin. Next, we will turn to the movement of post-Reformation Reformed Orthodoxy, mapping some of its complex and intricate intellectual trajectories. We will then turn to Schleiermacher as the great nineteenth-century Reformed theologian who reinvented the prolegomena after Kant had given short shrift to their classical form. Subsequently, we will show how the tradition of Reformed prolegomena from Calvin to Schleiermacher received a surprising update in philosophical quarters by the end of the twentieth century, in circles of what has come to be called ‘Reformed epistemology’. Finally, in a brief prospect we will suggest some of the tasks and functions which any future (Reformed) prolegomena may fulfil after the demise of classical foundationalism.

    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publicationThe Oxford Handbook of Reformed Theology
    EditorsMichael Allen, Scott R. Swain
    Place of PublicationOxford
    PublisherThe Oxford University Press
    Chapter23
    Pages373-388
    Number of pages16
    ISBN (Electronic)9780191791239, 9780191035838
    ISBN (Print)9780198723912
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Oct 2020

    Publication series

    NameOxford Handbooks

    Bibliographical note

    Publisher Copyright:
    © Oxford University Press 2020.

    Keywords

    • General revelation
    • Method
    • Natural theology
    • Prolegomena
    • Reason
    • Revealed theology
    • Special revelation

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Prolegomena'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this