Random thoughts on chapter 6

From Dave Shedden:

I'm really enjoying the discipline of working through Culver. I reckon I've got more time than any other Culverite to read, study and think through the material. So, sorry if this post overloads your inbox!

The following points hardly amount to analysis of Culver's thought - I'm just delighting in some of his illustrations and remarks - it appears to me that he has read fairly widely, even if I wonder about how much he really understands other areas of thought. Still, as Donald Macleod once wrote, systematic theologians are generalists - they must run the risk of relying on secondary works.

Overall, I'd give this chapter 7 /8 out of 10.

1. The first page or two is a useful summary statement of modern theological ideas on revelation - lots of nooks and crannies could be explored, but I appreciated what Culver wrote. Just don't make sweeping remarks based on this section - people who know about 'neo-orthodoxy' will eat you up - but use it to know the big picture as you engage with them. (As if you are likely to... :-) I've yet to knowingly meet a 'neo-orthodox' Christian.

2. Was interested to read about 'the latent doctrine of universal salvation' of Vatican II and Karl Barth. Again, this is useful to be aware of, but I'd be wary of accusing Roman Catholics and Barthians of being univeralists - many certainly hope to that end.

3. In the next 10 minutes I will follow up Culver's reference to Shedd on foot p49. I'm reading and studying Shedd over the next 10 months. Shedd in at least one place thinks that this 'primal revelation' can and is used by the Holy Spirit in the salvation of those 'elect' individuals who have not heard of Jesus Christ. Based on top paragraph of p52, I think Culver might have some difficulty with this idea. However, I am conscious that Culver writes carefully - he never limits God's freedom and sovereignty (sorry, folks, that sounds really neo-orthodox!!)

4. 'There is no evidence that God communicates with people today in any reportable manner.' (p50) Not really sure what this means, so not sure if I agree with it or not. If someone came to me and said that God spoke to them last night about this, that or the next thing, I wouldn't assume they were barking mad... although I'd listen carefully, and look for signs of psychiatric distress.

5. The last sentence of the chapter is intriguing. I want to disagree with it, but I kind of know what Culver is getting at, without being able to articulate it.

Hope you are all well. :-)

Latest Schedule

The next assignments for discussion are as follows:

Chapter	Title	Commencement
7	The Names of God	24th September
8	The Attributes of God
9	The Spirituality of the Godhead	1st October
10	The Unity of the Godhead
11	The Greatness of the Godhead
12	The Goodness of the Godhead	8th October
13	The Triunity of the Godhead I
14	The Triunity of the Godhead II

Please note the following:

• Members are free to post on any of the relevant chapters that commence on that date, or those that have gone before.
• Remember that all members can post, not just the moderators!
• Also non-members can comment.
  

Click here for schedule.

Culver's Fundamental Opposition to Karl Barth and the Neo-orthodox

Culver is vigorously opposed to the pseudo-theology of Karl Barth and the rest of the Neo-orthodox school of 'Christian' Existentialists (Emil Brunner, Friedrich Gogarten, Reinhold Niebuhr, H. Richard Niebuhr, Paul Tillich and Rudolph Bultmann, etc.).

It must be noted that some of the other Neo-orthodox took this theological system further away from orthodoxy than Barth did; indeed, so much so that their joint efforts in writing the journal Zwischen den Zeiten (Between the Times) broke down 11 years after it began. (Their differing responses to the Nazi movement also led to this division.) Nevertheless, there is little for which he criticises the whole movement for which he does not also criticise Barth.

This criticism and rejection begins in Chapter 2 (pp. 22, 23 - hence the timing of this post) and extends throughout the whole systematic theology (see 'Barth' and 'Neo-orthodoxy' in the index). The neo-orthodox system corrupts fundamental doctrines such as the absolute truth of Scripture, the nature of revelation, the being of God, the person and work of Christ, the Incarnation, the Atonement, the nature of faith, the nature of sin and the rational nature of the Christian Faith, and probably more!

Culver describes the neo-orthodox pseudo-theologians on p. 570 as those "who adopt some of the language of atonement by vicarious satisfaction while really promoting another gospel." On p. 471, he describes this movement as trying "to be both believing and unbelieving, rejecting the supernatural but trying to love Jesus."

It is clear from his writings that he has extensive, first-hand knowledge of their teachings and is somewhat exasperated by their unbelief. On p. 606, after a brief mention of Barth and others doctrine of the Resurrection, he says the following:

"It has been in the line of my duties over the years to read many of these books and articles and to conduct courses that examined their ideas in some detail. But that has very little bearing on orthodox, evangelical Christian theology. I have no inclination whatsoever to spread their assertions or arguments further on these pages. 'The barkings of the ungodly ought, I repeat it, to be disregarded; for we see that the apostles were also assailed by these barkings' (Calvin on 1 John 4:2)."

Read the rest...

Misrepresentation of Presuppositional Apologetics

Culver makes a surprising misrepresentation of presuppositional apologetics (henceforth PA) in the following quote near the top of p. 34:

“What shall we do when we meet the wholly secular mind? We, of course, shall declare the gospel. If I understand what the ‘presuppositional’ disciples of Cornelius Van Til aright [sic], they hold this to be the only ‘apologetic’, i.e. proof of the truth of ‘the Faith’ available to us. There is, they say, no common ground of agreement we can find to mount a programme of evangelistic or pre-evangelistic encounter with unbelievers. The effect of the fall has rendered their minds incapable of considering the saving truth of the gospel. Arguments are unavailing. We must simply proclaim the truth and leave the rest to the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit.”

This is very surprising despite how hard Van Til can be to understand. It seems like Culver hasn’t come across Greg Bahnsen’s debates with atheists, or Doug Wilson’s book Persuasions. If they aren’t arguing with unbelievers than I don’t know who is. This is hardly a bare proclamation of the Gospel.

Many represent PA as fideistic, but it isn’t. Not only does PA use versions of the classical theistic proofs and other ‘evidences’ (see Greg Bahnsen’s Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis), but it goes beyond them to look at total worldviews and the underlying presuppositions.

In a nutshell, PA says that Christianity as a system is true, because of the “impossibility of the contrary”. Any other worldview does not “comport with reality”. Every aspect of reality shouts forth that the God of the Bible exists and is the only, living and true God. PA puts a lot of emphasis on logic and reason; indeed, without the true and living God, PA would argue that you have no basis for either. There is thus a big focus on the self-contradictions of the opposing systems.

Read the rest...

Theological Training

“And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Tim. 2:2)

How Should Theological Training be Done?
Culver argues from this verse for the theological training of certain men for the teaching ministry. Most theological training is performed by staff devoted to full-time theological training. Some seminaries are non-denominational, whereas others are controlled by a church or association of churches.
Our own Synod runs the Reformed Theological College for our preachers and evangelists (which is also open to any one who wants to learn). The philosophy behind this is that the lecturers should all be pastors, so that all aspects of the theological training are grounded in pastoral experience and the needs of the congregation.

Another model is where the trainee pastors are trained on a one-to-one basis by a working pastor/ group of pastors in a local congregation.

Here are some questions to ponder:

• Does the Bible prescribe a particular form of theological training or is there one that is subjectively better than others?
• Should theological lecturers be full-time theologians or pastors doing it on a part-time basis?
• Where should seminaries get their authority from? Should they be controlled by the Church, or do they get their authority merely from the ordination of the individual lecturers as teachers of God’s Word and so can be independent (as a body) from church-control?

Seminaries Linked to Secular Universities
Some seminaries are linked to secular universities. I have heard those who have attended seminaries in N.I. bemoan the dreadful classes that they’re forced to attend because of this linkage. Are these seminaries unequally yoked?

The Need for Theological Training for All Elders
Why is it that preachers usually get several years of training, but ruling elders get none, or virtually none? Is the pastoral/ teaching role of ruling elders emphasised enough? Is it valued enough? Wouldn’t ruling elders be more effective in their ministry, if they were trained?

Do Elders Have a Responsibility to Try to Find Faithful Men to Whom to Commit These Things?
So many pulpits are vacant in the Christian Church: why is this? Could it be that the elders should be actively seeking out men to commit these things to, and are not? Could it also be that because theology isn’t taught systematically to the people there is less opportunity for these men to appear?

Theology for the People!
Culver rightly looks at the necessity of theological training of men for the preaching ministry, but what about the people? One of the great needs in our day is for a systematic, theological training for all God’s people. The teaching of God’s people usually consists of either an assortment of texts, or a series on a book of the Bible or a character, or on a particular subject, which are all helpful in there own way; but what about giving the people a general grounding in all the basics of the Christian faith?

I believe passionately in the need for God’s people to get a good grounding in all the major doctrines of God’s Word (or systematic theology), in ethics, in practical Christian living (work, marriage, child-rearing, financial stewardship, etc.), in evangelism, in apologetics, in Church history, etc., etc.

Why is it that in all other departments of life teaching involves systematically training people in the whole spectrum of basic concepts, but it is so lacking in teaching Christianity? The Church would be so much stronger if this was done. In Presbyterian churches, there used to be a practice of ‘catechising’ in the afternoon (when services were in the afternoon, as opposed to the evening). This formed a method of systematic training (based on the Westminster Catechisms), even if it didn’t cover all the necessary departments.

Read the rest...

Chapter two

OK, folks. Now it's time for chapter two. Post your thoughts in the 'comments' section. Thanks!

Chapter one

OK - Let's begin easily. What did you think of chapter one? Where did you find Culver's strengths and weaknesses? How have you begun to apply or develop these lessons?

Please post your answers in the 'comments' section below. Thanks!