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!
Please post your answers in the 'comments' section below. Thanks!
posted by C G | 10:12 PM
7 Comments:
Well, I guess I will get the ball rolling. I am going to include one comment from previous to chapter 1 just as a note. I am not sure I agree with Culver's seeming assertion that no formal section on bibliology is needed (pp. xvi-xvii). In the continuing day and age where the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures is questioned and debated and debunked, and people in our own pews think that the Bible is not historically accurate when it comes to things of science, do we desperately need our theologians to explore this matter. To merely assume it at the outset ("I endorse plary, verbal inspiration.... without error in original documents," p. xvi-xvii) is not sufficient to deal with the issue. Since Culver rightly declares that "the Bible is the only source of theology" (p. xvi) we must have an in-depth re-affirmation of the truth of his assumptions.
With that off my chest, I found chapter 1 helpful but a little anemic. It is helpful in it stresses the importance of systematic theology in light of the overwhelming rejection of it in theological education for a total embracing of biblical theology. I also appreciated his desire to communicate the importance of teaching theology. As David Wells has echoed in No Place for Truth: Or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology that truth in Evangelicalism is dying and that the only way to bring Christianity out of modernism and post-modernism is for a reformation which includes the teaching of theology.
On a whole, I thought the chapter was a helpful introduction. My biggest complaint is that it is not thorough enough. An increasingly growing aspect of theological study is theological method. It would have been helpful to have interacted more on the issue of theological methodology especially with regard to some of the work of Michael Horton and Kevin Vanhoozer.
Regardless, overall, I found it a stimulating chapter.
Allen Mickle
Allen,
I agree with your comment on the doctrine of Scripture. Read Grudem! ;)
What does Horton and Vanhoozer think? Any links?
I think I remember a discussion about where theology should begin - whether in the doctrine of God, or the doctrine of Scripture - which I think is in Torrance's critique of Scottish covenant theology. If I remember correctly, he said that it was rationalist to begin with a doctrine of Scripture, and that beginning with the doctrine of God roots all theology in the ultimate, to which Scripture bears witness, but from which Scripture must be distinguished.
I don't think Professor Culver buys into this neo-orthodoxy, but it is a reminder that to begin with the doctrine of Scripture is actually to begin with a set of presuppositions that govern how Scripture is approached - which should be distinguished from the doing of theology itself.
I found the discussion of theological schools to be particularly helpful in ch 1. I'm interested in the way that creedal forms seem to develop in the New Testament (p. 8). Were they part of public worship? They certainly have never been part of the public worship of the churches I've attended. That by the way, this discussion of theological schools is a great foundation for the project of systematic theology. I also like the idea that the perfect school is more about listening to sermons and lectures than doing research and writing papers (p. 10) - maybe just because I'm lazy!
It's also interesting that theology is to be taught to 'faithful' - not simply 'believing' - men (p 10). I hope that we will all be 'found faithful'.
Timothy,
Good to see you back. I do not have any direct quotes in front of me (the books are packed to head home to Ontario) but they are both focussing on aspects on theological methodology.
See Kevin Vanhoozer, The Drama Of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach To Christian Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2005).
See Michael Horton, Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002).
and
Michael Horton, Lord And Servant: A Covenant Christology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2005).
I am not sure if you have access to these, and obviously the discussion on methodology covers more than just Horton and Vanhoozer but they are "evangelical" voices in the discussion. I think the whole concept of methodology just requires more focus in systematic theologies.
Allen Mickle
Crawford,
I agree, I do not believe Culver is imbibing any neo-orthodox ideas or anything, and I understand what Torrence is saying, but whether you begin with God or with Scripture, Scripture needs to be dealt with.
Regarding using creeds in worship, I think obviously there was some use in the early church (not sure about NT) but it seems the Apostle's Creed was used in worship. I attended a Presbyterian church once that used the Creed in their worship service. Maybe I'll have to figure out how to use the 1689 2nd LCF in worship services!
Allen Mickle
I thought chapter one was okay. It is refreshing for me to read a theologian who reads the Bible in such a transparent way.
I noted only one thing, and I think it is a discussion we've covered already on this blog. On p5, I'm not sure about the first four paragraphs of 'What ST is'. Culver writes 'ST is more than a logical arrangement of biblical doctrine'...? How so? Culver answers a few lines later down - something not in the Bible must be brought to us, a system. Hmm, and I thought all we need was good old common sense realism! (see preface, XVI - I wonder if our resident philosopher can help us here - is Culver really a common sense realist?) I know that 19thC Reformed theologians in American liked a systemic approach to doctrine - but, I'm not sure Culver is really doing the same thing as, in one particular case, Warfield.
But, apart from this, I'd give chapter 1 either B+ or A-.
Post a Comment
<< Home