I've reached chapter 15...
I'm still having fun with Culver, although I haven't been consistent in reading over the last week or two. Today I read chapter 15 - I was impressed that Culver tried to engage with Arminian theologians in a fair way - this theme is something that I've noticed recently through my blog reading, especially Scot McKnight at JesusCreed.org.
And, I'm still interested in Culver's use of Shedd and Strong. It is obvious why Strong is so prominent. More intriguing why Shedd get so many references - perhaps I'm just attuned to him, so I take more notice?
Here's the point - I think point 3, on Culver page 123, is useful. Distinguishing between the essential nature of God and the divine decrees, which relate to 'things external'. In a Dogmatic Theology, vol 3 footnote, Shedd refers to Owen on this, from Owen's Saints' Perseverance, chap 3: 'God's purposes are not concerning anything that is in itself absolutely necessary. He does not purpose that he will be wise, holy, good, just.'
But, we are getting into deep theological water here - going back to our old friend Barth, there must be a tension between Reformed orthodoxy and neo-orthodoxy at this point - Barth's christology is based on the idea of Christ's election for us - as if the Son or Logos decreed to become God incarnate - it is part of the very nature of God that he is God for us in the incarnate Son.
If I understand Shedd, Culver, et al, properly (not to mention Barth!), this is a major difference. Barth's understanding of the decree of God does not agree with Owen's, because Barth wraps all things into the person of Jesus Christ - there is no pure doctrine of God that can be distinguished from 'external' christological 'things'.
I do want to keep our posts practical - given that Culver cautions against exposure to the doctrine of predestination, or the decrees of God: (Shedd writes that these doctrines are 'not to be preached to babes in Christ but to those who are of full age.')
How on earth do we follow this advice practically? Should we make a strict division in our preaching and teaching between evangelism and basic Christianity, and 'strong meat' for 'mature believers'? Is this at all possible? I tend to think this is a problem with our understanding of theology vis a vis the Christian life - and, it is difficult to imagine systematic expository preaching through the Bible that could avoid these issues.
And, I'm still interested in Culver's use of Shedd and Strong. It is obvious why Strong is so prominent. More intriguing why Shedd get so many references - perhaps I'm just attuned to him, so I take more notice?
Here's the point - I think point 3, on Culver page 123, is useful. Distinguishing between the essential nature of God and the divine decrees, which relate to 'things external'. In a Dogmatic Theology, vol 3 footnote, Shedd refers to Owen on this, from Owen's Saints' Perseverance, chap 3: 'God's purposes are not concerning anything that is in itself absolutely necessary. He does not purpose that he will be wise, holy, good, just.'
But, we are getting into deep theological water here - going back to our old friend Barth, there must be a tension between Reformed orthodoxy and neo-orthodoxy at this point - Barth's christology is based on the idea of Christ's election for us - as if the Son or Logos decreed to become God incarnate - it is part of the very nature of God that he is God for us in the incarnate Son.
If I understand Shedd, Culver, et al, properly (not to mention Barth!), this is a major difference. Barth's understanding of the decree of God does not agree with Owen's, because Barth wraps all things into the person of Jesus Christ - there is no pure doctrine of God that can be distinguished from 'external' christological 'things'.
I do want to keep our posts practical - given that Culver cautions against exposure to the doctrine of predestination, or the decrees of God: (Shedd writes that these doctrines are 'not to be preached to babes in Christ but to those who are of full age.')
How on earth do we follow this advice practically? Should we make a strict division in our preaching and teaching between evangelism and basic Christianity, and 'strong meat' for 'mature believers'? Is this at all possible? I tend to think this is a problem with our understanding of theology vis a vis the Christian life - and, it is difficult to imagine systematic expository preaching through the Bible that could avoid these issues.
posted by David Shedden | 4:05 PM
5 Comments:
Hi everyone. Sorry for the long silence - back from honeymoon, and getting caught up on things.
I haven't got as far as Ch. 15 yet, but David's point is an interesting one, and made me wonder whether Scripture provided any basis at all for the idea of a 'two-stage' model of preaching.
Clearly passages like Hebrews 5 indicate what we know any way - that different believers have dfifferent levels of maturity and can 'cope' with different degrees of truth.
On the other hand, the idea of holding some truth back to be taught only to initiates seems to me problematic. Paul's remarks in Acts 20 spring to mind, although the fact that he's speaking to elders there makes it argubly moot in the present context. In our Bible Reading last night we were discussing 2Cor 4, and the emphasis that Paul lays there on open manifestaion of the truth of God - specifically the ministry outlined in ch. 3 seems to accord ill with the idea of keeping anything back.
I'm less than certain about Calvin's understanding of election, (and not entirely happy with Barth's either, BTW). Thus, I'm not convinced that expounding Scriptures about election when the unsaved are present, is necessarily a problem - certainly not insofar as it pertains to God's choice of the Church for a unique service.
Of course, Chapter 15 might put me right on this!!
Given Paul's emphasis on the doctrines of God's sovereignty throughout his letters, I'd question whether Paul classified these as "strong meat".
I think that in modern society some counsel against bringing such matters up early, due to the universal dogma of man's freedom.
In my experience of evangelism in Ireland, these questions are brought up by unbelievers without you even hinting at such things. Quite frankly it's unavoidable! Also believers need to have the assurance of such truths early on in their Christian lives (even though Arminians often believe in such truths in practice, while they deny them in theory, e.g. they will often pray for the salvation of individuals, even though they believe that God can't make them believe).
As for Barth, see the quotes in this article for some of his erroneous views on the incarnation and its relation to salvation. Atonement and reconcilation between God and man (in a universalistic sense, by the way) occurs in the very act of incarnation! The problem is (apart from going directly against Scripture and fantasising) that the manhood of Christ wasn't sinful man. Sinful man and God weren't united in the person of Christ. Christ's manhood was sinless.
Davey,
The following is about as clear as Barth himself. Could it be translated for mortals of the Reformed camp? ;)
"But, we are getting into deep theological water here - going back to our old friend Barth, there must be a tension between Reformed orthodoxy and neo-orthodoxy at this point - Barth's christology is based on the idea of Christ's election for us - as if the Son or Logos decreed to become God incarnate - it is part of the very nature of God that he is God for us in the incarnate Son."
I'm suggesting that modern theology would not distinguish between the nature of God and the divine decree. But, if Culver, Shedd, and Owen are typical, Reformed orthodoxy clearly does. Modern 'neo-orthodoxy' might suggest something like God Himself deciding to act in a certain way. He determines his nature, so that all his acts in Christ are true acts of God in history - not representations of some ideal or divine reality outside of history. God's life can never be abstracted from history, he has choosen to get involved, so that his decrees don't just relate to 'external' things. The incarnation of the Son of God is a good example to think about in this regard.
David,
I think your criticism of Reformed and historical theology is unfounded. The decrees are distinguishable decisions of God, but they spring forth from His nature and display the glory of His attributes. One emphasis is that they display the glory of His grace (as per Ephesians).
Reformed theology does emphasise God's constant involvement in history, including the importance of the incarnation. I think any other portrayal is a gross misrepresentation by moderns who like to glory in discovering something novel that lesser mortals have neglected.
It is neo-orthodoxy that exaggerates the transcendence of God with its "wholly other" God who cannot be known (which Barth explicitly emphasises and yet contradicts elsewhere).
Reformed theology does make the Biblical distinction between the decrees made in eternity before creation, and the outworking of God's plan in the history of the created universe.
On another note (to clarify), although one can't avoid predestination in evangelism, I wouldn't bring it in unless it were relevant. I would focus upon the individual's relationship to God at that moment in time, at death, at the Last Day and in eternity future.
Post a Comment
<< Home