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. :-)
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. :-)
posted by David Shedden | 2:32 PM
4 Comments:
Thanks for the post, David. I'm glad someone is posting something apart from me!
David,
Given that you appear to be a big Barth fan and seem to enjoy having Barth for breakfast, do you think that there are any significant errors in Barth's teachings, or are Berkhof, Boice, Culver, Grudem, Packer, Reymond, Van Til, Williamson, etc., etc., completely wrong in their judgment of Barth and have wholly misunderstood the poor chap? Do you think he is orthodox and not neo-orthodox?
Do you agree with Culver's assessment of Barth and other neo-orthodox theologians' views in this chapter (and elsewhere)?
I haven't read widely enough to say much about Barth or the other names that Culver mentions. Also, I'm not sure I'd call myself 'a big Barth fan'. I do, however, believe that Van Til and other fundamentalist peers failed to engage Barth in a meaningful way.
I plan to do a short paper on Barth's famous critique of Reformed views of covenant theology. He well understood the strengths and weaknesses of Reformed covenant theology. My reading of 19thC theology confirms much of what Barth wrote.
For now, all I can say is that Barth's doctrine of election is extremely clever (it is theological genius, in fact) but I don't think it is altogether biblical. And, I can't get away from the feeling that Barth tended towards some kind of universal salvation. I find this difficult to reconcile with the biblical witness or testimony.
As far as I understand it, Barth's Christology is perfectly acceptable. I'm told he has some strange views on baptism and the Lord's Supper.
Not sure about much else of what Barth wrote - it is fascinating, though, that Barth comes from a 19thC liberalism background, and finds it utterly useless in the face of the horrors of 20thC war, i.e. the liberal support and clamour for WW1.
19thC liberal theologians in Europe were politically conservative! They had a strict belief in the separation of worldy affairs and spiritual realities. That is, they were dedictated to supporting the status quo. They believed that their religious convictions could not interfere with their loyalty to the state.
This is a huge irony because most 21stC evangelicals are perceived to be political conservative - do we need an evangelical 'Barth-like' figure to critique our cultural short sightedness, and shock us out of our complacency?
According to the systematic theologies that I have consulted, Barth was wrong in a whole range of fundamental areas. I've just started a series of posts on this in my own blog.
Donald Mcleod's assertion that systematic theologians are generalists does not mean that their evidence comes from secondary sources (nor are they generalists in all areas).
Culver states: "It has been in the line of my duties over the years to read many of these books and articles [by neo-orthodox theologians, inc. Barth]."
Reymond wrote a book entitled 'Barth's Soteriology' for P&R, so presumably he also is well acquainted with the primary sources.
Post a Comment
<< Home