A monograph researching the material consequences of methodological choices for the doctrine of God among Reformed orthodox theologians (roughly 1565–1790) would be a challenge in its own right. A monograph on the intersection of methodology and the doctrine of God in the theology of Karl Barth would also be a monumental undertaking. And, again, a monograph investigating the impact of methodology on theology proper among a group of diverse Dutch systematic theologians, the so-called ‘Utrecht School’, would be a formidable task. But this is exactly what Dolf te Velde has set out to accomplish, not separately, but in one lengthy volume. The question under consideration is relatively simple: does the way in which and means by which the doctrine of God is formulated substantially inform the material content of the Reformed doctrine of God? Te Velde attempts to answer this question by combining historical and systematic research. He is aware that differing cultural and intellectual contexts will certainly impact methodological choices (for example, the dominant form of liberal Protestantism, as well as influence of Neo-Kantianism, in the case of Karl Barth; or Ramism and Aristotelianism in the case of Reformed Orthodoxy), but also aware that the systematic potential of each strand of thought needs to be evaluated in order to conclude whether their methodological choices are fatal to a thoroughly Christian concept of God within a Reformed context. Therefore, the overall argument pertains not simply to historical contexts, but also systematic conclusions that could or should be considered permanent milestones in a Reformed doctrine of God.

When seen as a whole, te Velde's thesis demonstrates that the correlation and interaction between method and content occurs mainly on the level of questions asked, concepts employed and manner of argumentation employed. In short, ‘method (understood as the whole of argumentative strategies) serves in theology as a vehicle to transmit the message of scripture in response to historical and cultural circumstances’ (p. 724). In the context of Reformed Orthodoxy, te Velde argues, contrary to many contemporary detractors, that the ‘doctrine of God … was not limited to the logical and metaphysical boundaries of Aristotelian system’ (pp. 253–4), even if the ‘philosophical framework imposed some limitations … by the kinds of questions it urged to pose and the concepts it offered to answer these questions’ (p. 254). By way of example, te Velde mentions that the Reformed orthodox felt obliged to discuss God's essence (a necessary discussion within their historical context), ‘although [they] had to acknowledge that no proper definition could be given’ (p. 254). In the theology of Karl Barth, te Velde demonstrates that, although Barth consistently assumes and employs a ‘dialectical unity-in-differentiation’ in God (p. 722), as well as insists on the multiplicity of divine perfections, he ‘expresses basically the same view as large parts of traditional theology with the help of a different conceptuality’ (p. 463). Here, the content of Barth's doctrine of God is self-consciously guided by a Christological concentration, Trinitarian framework and emphasis on divine freedom. This conclusion is hardly novel, although te Velde persuasively shows how Barth's differing conceptuality, which is often marked by a reaction to and embrace of modern (German) theological and philosophical presuppositions (p. 471), is not as radical a departure from the Reformed tradition as some think that it is. Moving from Barth to the Utrecht School, te Velde's examination reveals that the traditional (Reformed) views on the doctrine of God ‘are modified and further developed in the light of modern philosophical and theological insights and with the help of a sophisticated set of instruments for conceptual and logical analysis’ (p. 654). The difficulty, as te Velde would admit, is painting one consistent picture of the doctrine of God among the members of the Utrecht School. Although Utrecht contributions to the doctrine of God ‘clearly follow the methodological approach described in Vincent Brümmer's Philosophical inquiry’ (p. 655) for intelligibility, coherence and consistency, individual thinkers opt for different philosophical tools to promote rational clarity. For instance, Brümmer draws heavily on a Wittgensteinian approach to religion, therein making ‘the basic choice for a relational, personal understanding of God that leads to considerable revisions of traditional notions in the doctrine of God’ (p. 658), in particular the language of ‘three hypostaseis or persons in one ousia or substance’; in contrast, Antonie Vos opts not to make the entire doctrine of God relational, while still attempting to ground the ontological distinction between necessity and contingency in God's own being (p. 692).

When the thesis is examined narrowly though, it proves too ambiguous. Given the broadness of his question regarding the nexus of method and content, as well as the sheer complexity of the three ‘schools’ of thought under investigation, te Velde's argument lacks cogency. For instance, according to te Velde, ‘one of the great surprises of [his] research is the large amount of doctrinal continuity throughout the changes in context and method’ (p. 736). Within this continuity, te Velde isolates three permanent milestones in a Reformed doctrine of God: (1) the ontological differentiation between God and the world/humankind; (2) the doctrine of divine simplicity; and (3) a reflection on the relation between God and created reality. Yet the similarities drawn are so bare bones that the material differences are obscured. When considering the doctrine of divine simplicity in particular, te Velde insists, despite ‘considerable modification and re-evaluation with Karl Barth and the Utrecht school (especially F. G. Immink)’, that the theological kernel of the doctrine of divine simplicity is still subscribed to by all these theologians. This theological kernel, so-mentioned, is the ‘insistence … on the full, personal and essential, identity of God in all of his perfections, relations and actions’ (p. 739). While it is hard to refute te Velde's lengthy demonstration that some form of divine simplicity remains a bulwark of a Reformed doctrine of God, from the Reformed orthodox to Karl Barth to the Utrecht School, the conclusion is a bit flattening. The doctrine of divine simplicity has never been univocal, even among the Reformed orthodox, and one would only expect the most ardent tri-theist to deny it outright. In the context of te Velde's thesis, then, it seems that if one's methodological choices do substantially modify the conceptual framework one is allowed to employ when articulating the doctrine of divine simplicity, then an avenue is also provided to substantially modify the doctrine of God itself. Such a modification seems to occur in both Barth and the Utrecht School, even if they adhere to, for example, a loose version of the doctrine of divine simplicity. Even so, te Velde has produced an important study on the doctrine of God in the Reformed context, and for anyone interested in studying multiple aspects of the doctrine of God in Reformed orthodoxy, Karl Barth, and the Utrecht School this monograph is essential. Although it is difficult to see how the overall conclusions fit together at times, the individual sections are illuminating and instructive, deserving to be read slowly and carefully.