The Culverites

Chapter 23

2006-11-27T00:30:00.000Z

I'm not sure about this chapter. Culver knows well enough the background of the early church fathers. But he doesn't at all engage with the last two centuries of thinking on the question of God and suffering. (Perhaps he will cover more of this in his section on Christology?)

Why do we assume that the early fathers were correct on some things (e.g. impassibility), yet we wouldn't sign up to their ecclesiology or soteriology? Maybe they were wrong on this too...

Surely God can choose to suffer? Surely he felt the pain of Christ?

The last three paragraphs of the chapter are interesting - I think they reveal much about Cuvler's assumptions. I'm wary of the whole question of analogy. If the Son became human (a man), that strikes me as going beyond analogy.

I thought about this in church this morning, in relation to all the gender neutral language used these days to refer to God. The big problem is that Jesus, the man, is Lord and Saviour. Not easy to get round that - but, even for us conservative guys, we need to reckon more with what that means about the nature of God.

Trust you are all well, Shed

Infrequency of Miraculous Gifts and their Purpose

2006-11-08T21:37:00.000Z

Culver's comment that miracles occur very infrequently (as mentioned already by David) is important. God can always act supernaturally in answer to prayer, but He has only worked miracles through certain individuals at certain points in redemptive history.

God did miracles through Moses, who brought the Law. The next major activity of miracles was around Elijah and Elisha's ministry, who began the phase of prophecy that was to be inscripturated as the prophets. The next phase was through Christ and His Apostles, who brought us the New Testament. There is only evidence to suggest that the NT miracles were performed either by Christ and His Apostles, or those who God bestowed miracles upon through them. These were the signs of the Apostles (2 Cor. 12:12). As the Early Church leaders state in their writings, the miracles ceased after the Apostles left the earth.

The ability of certain men and women to perform miracles (rather than just God's answer to prayer) was intimately linked with the giving of the major portions of Scripture. This is one reason that we should not expect believers to be bestowed with such charismata.

The NT introduced two new gifts: speaking in other languages and the interpretation of them. Why was this? The Gospel was going out to all nations, so the Apostles were enabled to speak in other languages at Pentecost (Acts 2). To many this seemed like drunkenness, ('Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me.' 1 Cor. 14:11) but to those who spoke the relevant languages, it was evidently miraculous, just like all true miracles are clearly from God. Gobbledegook (a.k.a. modern pseudo-tongues) are not evidently miraculous.

Paul states the following in 1 Cor. 14:21,22:

In the law it is written: “With men of other tongues and other lips I will speak to this people; and yet, for all that, they will not hear Me,” says the Lord. Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe.

He quotes Isaiah 28:11, 12, where Israel would hear God's judgement through the lips of foreigners. Even so, tongues were primarily a sign for unbelieving Israel, even though they contained content that could edify all believers.

The Gospel going out to all nations was partly a judgement upon Israel (Rom. 11:11) and tongues were a sign of this. The purpose for this gift was unique and has passed away. If anything, the only gift of tongues that one might see is Gentiles speaking in Hebrew as a sign of Israel's return to God (Rom. 11:25-29).

More...

Angels, pp164-173

2006-11-03T15:17:00.000Z

Respect to Culver for including chapters 19 and 20. No matter what we make of his style or his theological sophistication, I think Culver makes a serious attempt to reflect the Scriptures in his writing. I am increasingly impressed by his background reading too.

I liked Culver's recognition that miracles appear to be scarce in the biblical history (top p173 - I think I criticised him for implying the opposite in an earlier post.) But I appreciated that he did this while pointing to the work of angels, manifest and 'out of sight'.

On pages 172 - 173, I was again conscious of a tension between accepting 'natural laws' and acknowledging supernatural causes in our world. Which of these takes precedence?

Note especially the sixth paragraph of p172, beginning, 'These remarks by no means exhaust...' Culver earlier mentions the lack of coverage that angels receive in evangelical writers such as McGrath and Reymond. I think that biblical/orthodox Christian theologians have yet to provide us with a coherent theology that combines modern knowledge of our world with basic biblical ideas of the world. (I'm aware that McGrath has contributed a substantial volume on science and theology, but I haven't read it.)

Do we need an 'evangelical orthodox Bultmann' for the 21stC? Or should we just start to reckon with angels and demons more often in our thinking?

Allah vs. the Sovereign and Gracious God

2006-11-01T00:10:00.000Z

“Any strongly held monotheism that has no Savior-God, no wise, loving, holy Father, quickly becomes a hard fatalism, as in the whole Muslim world.”
Culver, p. 132

Paul, in addressing the pagans at Lystra says, “We... preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who... did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.” (Acts 14:15-17) In preaching to a people who worshipped capricious, selfish and immoral 'gods', Paul, apart from emphasising the witness of general, or natural, revelation, also seems to have emphasised the goodness of the living and true God.

Culver brings out the difference between the true God and the false Allah of Islam, and so in the light of Paul's preaching, we also should mark out the contrast in our evangelism of Muslims (and indeed generic unbelievers who think that Christianity and Islam are basically the same thing).

Ron Rhodes in his excellent, but imperfect (esp. in the area of God's sovereignty), book, 'Reasoning from the Scriptures with Muslims', quotes a story about Islam's fatalism:

“[C]hildren in apartment buildings in Tehran... would fall over low balcony railings to their deaths, [but] because of the belief that this must have been the will of Allah, nothing was done to heighten the railings to prevent such tragedies in the future.”

What a contrast with the health and safety law provided by our loving God in Deut. 22:8: “When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it.”

People are very much like their gods. The people of Islam reflect the nature of their 'god'. I don't know about you, but my dealings with Muslims have been universally of people who are satisfied to perform the Five Pillars of Islam, but don't care about holiness, just as their 'god' doesn't care about holiness. One Muslim even said to me, “You Christians are always concerned about holiness. God isn't holy. He's above all that. This is an invention of your minds.”

How we need to show them the true God, who is sovereign and terrible in judgement, but who is also gracious, loving and does good. A God who is righteous and holy, and abhors even the taint of sin, who will not be appeased with Five Pillars of religious deeds, but who could only be appeased with the precious blood of His only Son, the Second Person of the Godhead, who alone could provide propitiation for the many who believe. The God who comports with reality and whose holiness, righteous and goodness is higher than our own.

Enjoying Culver More

2006-10-20T21:11:00.000+01:00

I'm glad that Culver has engaged his heart more in the subject and is quoting more Scripture, esp. in Chapter 15. These truths should engage our hearts and one wants a writer to manifest the same attitude in his writing.

Schedule (15th October - 18th November)

2006-10-18T20:59:00.000+01:00

The next assignments for discussion are as follows:

Chapter	Title	Commencement
15	Predestination I	15th October
16	Predestination II
17	Creation I	22nd October
18	Creation II
19	The World of Unseen Spirits	29th October
20	Satan and Demons
21	Preservation and Providence	5th November
22	Appendices to Chapter 21	12th November
23	God's Blessedness or Impassibility

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.

I've reached chapter 15...

2006-10-16T16:05:00.000+01:00

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.

Does God Have an Over-Arching Attribute?

2006-10-09T23:20:00.000+01:00

In chapter 8 (p. 63) Culver discusses briefly how the divine attributes work together. He asks the question "Is one attribute more important to sound theology, that is, to a correct undertanding of God and His ways, then another?"

He then left that until later which he picks up in chapter 12 (p. 94) where he discusses the attributes of goodness. He seems to (although not dogmatically answering his question from chapter 8) argue that holiness is God's over-arching attribute. All other attributes seem to be filtered through His holiness (correct me if I am reading Culver wrong here).

I agree with this statement, but I wonder what everyone else thinks. First, does God have an over-arching attribute? If so, what is it and does it even matter?

Random thoughts on chapter 6

2006-09-27T14:32:00.000+01:00

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

2006-09-24T15:56:00.000+01:00

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

2006-09-24T15:55:00.000+01:00

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

2006-09-19T17:51:00.000+01:00

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

2006-09-11T06:57:00.000+01:00

“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

2006-09-10T22:04:00.000+01:00

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

Chapter one

2006-09-03T22:12:00.000+01:00

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!

First Schedule for Reading and Discussing Culver

2006-08-27T18:36:00.000+01:00

Discussion of the following chapters will begin on the dates shown, based on an overall speed of 3.167 pages per day to cover the book in a year:

Chapter	Title	Commencement
1	An Intro. to Christian Theology	1st September
2	Preliminary to Talk about God
3	Special Terms of Talk about God
4	Why People do Believe in God	17th September
5	Reasons for Believing in God

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.
As 1st September is in the middle of the week, the second session begins on the Lord's Day to start synchronising the start of each session with the beginning of the week.
The next session will thus begin on Sabbath, 24th September.

We'll see how this goes.

Culver to be in Anchorage

2006-08-12T01:00:00.000+01:00

Robert Culver will be in Anchorage, Alaska from September 18-25, preaching and teaching at our church. If we do not interact with him via blog, I can bring to him some of the questions which will surely be (and have been) generated. I have been in contact with him recently and he is at a family reunion in Washington (Yakima, I think).

New Boy

2006-08-11T23:20:00.000+01:00

As this is my first posting let me introduce myself. Generally I go by JimmyD or JD. I am a friend of C.G. (Well I hope I am). I lecture part-time at the Irish Baptist College and at Belfast Bible College on Church History. My particular interest is in 17C puritanism with special interest in Jeremiah Burroughes.
My home church is Gt. Victoria St. Baptist. My age group well lets say the government has kindly given me some money since the beginning of this year.

I look forward with confidence to what we are about to commence later this month.

HOW WE WILL READ CULVER

2006-08-11T20:42:00.000+01:00

Ok, folks. This is probably the best way for us to move towards a beginning - by setting out clearly the best way for the growing number of us to read together, and then to discuss.

First of all, Timothy Davis has agreed to co-moderate discussions. You'll have noticed from his posts that he's a firm precisian - and a Presbyterian to boot.

As we all have ability to post a main entry, as well as to make comments on main entries, the blog could rapidly spiral out of control.

Therefore, we suggest that the moderator should state when a chapter or part-chapter is to be discussed and that members should then be encouraged to try to keep their comment-posts relevant to that chapter.

We should also thank Timothy for the fresh new look to the site!

Let's keep reading - I for one am getting much less done than I had hoped - and discussions will commence sometime in August.

ChangeDetection.com can be used to detect any posts to the blog, but all comments to this blog are autoforwarded to all members.

Introductory posts are okay now including bios, general remarks on theology and systematic theology, and topics not covered in Culver, e.g. the doctrine of Scripture.

Supralapsarianism and Hyper-Calvinism

2006-08-07T22:20:00.000+01:00

Prof. Culver mistakenly identifies supralapsarianism and hyper-Calvinism on p. 388 and p. 397. Supralapsarianism is the doctrine that God's decree to save some and damn others logically precedes his decree to permit the Fall, whereas hyper-Calvinism is the view that reprobates are not under a duty to repent and believe.

For what it's worth I'm also not convinced that the Westminster standards embody 'near implicit Traducianism' (p. 398), which is, in any case, compatible with the theory of federal or representative headship.

Biblical Infallibility and Belief in Scripture for Salvation

2006-08-06T16:58:00.000+01:00

As Culver doesn't cover the doctrine of Scripture in his ST, you may be interested in this post on my blog.

Plymouth Brethren

2006-08-02T16:34:00.000+01:00

Perhaps Crawford can field this one. On p. 8 of ST by Dr Culver he makes the following statement: "Even some Plymouth Brethren have conceded that not every new 'assembly' comes to birth with all the spiritual gifts and those gifted to be 'pastors and teachers'. Very late they have 'discovered' that their founding Fathers were all thoroughly educated and theologically trained Anglican clergymen."

Is this an accurate statement with regard to some PB not being aware of the their found Fathers education and abilities?

Who were the early PB founders and how devoted to Christ and his word were they?

Is there such a thing as a PB systematic theology?

What do you believe to be the most lasting impact (good and bad) of the PB in Ireland and the rest of the world as far as you know?

Welcome to Dr Culver!

2006-07-28T11:57:00.000+01:00

Robert Culver, author of the book we're studying, will be joining us on the blog. Please give him a welcome when his first post arrives.

Mark's biography

2006-07-17T16:57:00.000+01:00

Sorry for the delay in getting this posted - I've been having technical problems.
I'm a PhD. student at Trinity College, Dublin. Originally from te heart of West Cork, I've been living in Dublin for the past 6 years, and will complete my cultural immersion in September, when, God willing, I'm marrying a Dublin girl. I was brought up among those Christians "sometimes identified as the (Plymouth)Brethren". I've been in assembly fellowship since the age of 15, and remain happily so, gathering with believers in Rathmines Gospel Hall, in Dublin, where I do a fair bit of preaching and some teaching. Big academic interests are Reformation literature (my PhD's on Donne), dispensational millennialism (though not the Left Behind sort), and missionary writing (especially that of the aforementioned, ill-described "Brethren"! I'm also a keen advocate of Creationism, something that I rabbit on about given the slightest opportunity.

This will be my first in-depth engagement with any ST, and I'm interested to see how it goes.

2006-07-17T11:12:00.000+01:00

Has anyone read anything else by Culver?

Dave's bio

2006-06-30T11:51:00.000+01:00

My name is David Shedden, but for the purposes of this blog you can call me Dave or Shed. (The other David got in first!) I am 30 years old. I am neither a professional theologian nor a professional anything else. I worked in an office shuffling paper for a few years in my 20s. I am now, however, preparing for Christian ministry in the Church of Scotland. Next academic year I will be doing a ThM at Princeton Theological Seminary. I will also be on placement at this church in Princeton. If you need to know anything else about me just ask.

I have been intrigued by the discussions so far. Alas, I will not begin reading our set text until September. However, I do like being provocative, and I tend to ask questions rather than answer them. As I see it two themes have stood out so far in the posts - the purpose or definition of systematic theology, and the role of Scripture or a doctrine of Scripture in systematic theology.

Here's my provocative opening blast: systematic theology is dead, and has been dead for at least 50 years, probably more like 150 years. This is not to say that reading or writing books with the title Systematic Theology is wrong or silly. It just means we need to be aware that there is no entity or body of knowledge or discipline rightly called systematic theology. Christian theology is Christian theology - whether it is biblical or systematic seems fairly meaningless to me - and the current patterns in evangelical scholarship seem to support this. For example, the current discussions about how to interpret Paul's teaching on justification demonstrate the massive shift towards biblical theology as the dominant form of Christian expressions of doctrinal belief.

Every Christian has their own working theology. As such, I hope that reading through Culvert will help me to refine and correct my understanding of God in Christ. Theology is about knowing God, and knowing God, as far as I understand the New Testament, is about knowing Christ. If I was going to write a theology it would be Christological from start to finish. I think recent conservative ST's have been far too concerned with method and epistemology. As a result they have been weak on developing Christian theological ideas that can speak into the 21stC world. What does the incarnation mean for the genetic revolution that we are living through? More to the point, what does the genetic revolution mean for our doctrine of Jesus Christ, the God Man? These are just two of a number of questions that I rarely find addressed in my reading of theology, especially evangelical theology.

A Systematic Theology of Scripture Lacking in Culver

2006-06-29T22:28:00.000+01:00

Mary and I are reading Culver and Grudem in parallel each night. I've read Culver's introduction and now Mary is reading it while I read Grudem's introduction, then we'll swap again, etc.

One thing has really struck me about Culver's ST: there is no separate section dealing with God's Word. The Doctrine of Scripture is fundamental truth that really should be dealt with in an ST. We shouldn't just say, "Well, I believe in Scripture; now, let's see what it has to say about everything else." Scripture has so much to say about itself that is fundamental to Christian belief.

We are to begin officially in the Autumn/Fall, but I think it is fair to say this in the preparatory phase.

Is Theology a Science?

2006-06-28T10:53:00.000+01:00

I think this is a good topic to discuss. Perhaps we need to provide definitions of 'science'? What benefits are there to refering to theology as a science? What drawbacks are there?

I will include a quote from John Frame (RP members do not go mad):

The best way to define theology, in my view, is as the application of the whole Bible to the whole of human life. Theology is not an attempt to articulate our feelings about God (Schleiermacher), but neither is it merely an attempt to state the objective truth, or to put the truth in “proper order” (Hodge), for Scripture already does those things perfectly well.

Frame's complete article can be found here.

Daniel's bio

2006-06-27T16:32:00.000+01:00

Hello. My name is 'Daniel' and I am a Culverite. I have a day job, and am another person that isn't a professional theologian. I live about 30 minutes' drive (or a 30-minute drive) from Crawford.

I have four main interests: theology, philosophy, pedantry, and trivia. By an amazing coincidence, I have a blog for each of these. I also contribute to a blog on casuistry.

Crawford described me in an e-mail to the Culverites as 'generously Anglican'. I'm more pleased at being associated with the word 'generously' than with the word 'Anglican' (though I realize that it doesn't follow from the fact that I am generously Anglican that I am generous and Anglican). But I am a member of a local church that is a member of the Church of England. You shouldn't assume that I agree with everything that the Church of England does or believes. I do, however, agree with the beliefs, aims, and desires of my local fellowship.

I'm looking forward to learning from Prof. Culver and the Culverites.

Why Study a Systematic Theology?

2006-06-26T19:49:00.000+01:00

With so much else that we could spend our time doing, why study a (another?) systematic theology? This is a fundamental question that we need to ask, given all our commitments and the brevity of our lives.

Any answers?

"...redeeming the time, because the days are evil" (Eph. 5:16; Col. 4:5)

Qualities of good systematic theology

2006-06-26T17:29:00.000+01:00

Which qualities do you look for in a good systematic theology?

I'm interested in clear writing, without which little will be understood; a demonstration of exegesis, to be sure of the Biblical case for the relevant concept; an interaction with relevant material, especially, but not exclusively, within the evangelical camp; and a sense of the importance of the ideas under discussion.

What would you add to the list?

Theological priorities?

2006-06-26T11:05:00.000+01:00

While we're waiting for others to post brief bios, let's think about theological priorities. Am I the only reader of systematic theologies to turn to eschatology first?

David's Bio

2006-06-26T09:35:00.000+01:00

Greetings Culverites. My name is David Terwilliger and I got turned on to your endeavors yesterday by Jim Basinger.I am glad there is a little lag time to getting the discussion fully up and running. It will allow me the time to get caught up with the "Culverites". Nevertheless, I am anxious to get into it and have the opportunity to stretch my brain.

Philip's Bio

2006-06-26T09:34:00.000+01:00

Just so that Timothy doesn't feel lonely as the only 'non-professional' theologian I am also taking part in the Culverites blog.My name is Philip S. Taylor. I have been a Christian for about 17 years being graciously saved under the preaching of Sam Workman at the age of 15. I am husband to Jayne and father to Hannah. I love both of them like crazy. I am a member of a large evangelical church in the greater Belfast area.I am a Research Fellow in the School of Computer Science at Queen's University Belfast and previoulsy worked for nearly six years as a senior software engineer in Nortel Networks.I enjoy listening to alternative country, blues, and 70's rock. I just cannot appreciate classical music ... yet.Currently, my favourite systematic theologies are Wayne Grudem's Systemtatic Theology and Wilhelmus a Brackel's The Christian's Reasonable Service. I also love reading puritan books aloud.I also love the Journal of Biblical Counseling and most of the books pumped out by CCEF.I am currently reading James in my personal/family devotions and have got stuck on verse 2. As a periodic sufferer of depression I often experience a distinct lack of joy.I don't pray often enough nor with enough trust and can be incredibly selfish and lazy at times.Bio ended.

Allen's Bio

2006-06-25T01:11:00.000+01:00

Greetings Fellow Culverites...

My name is Allen Mickle. I am the Interim Pastor of Grace Baptist Church, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada. I have the B.R.E. from Heritage College, Cambridge, Ontario, Canada and the M.Div. and Th.M. (New Testament) from Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, Allen Park, Michigan, USA. I am planning on beginning my Ph.D. in Historical Theology from the University of Wales Lampeter in conjunction with Toronto Baptist Seminary under Dr. Michael Haykin.

I look forward to studying Culver. He studied under Dr. Alva McClain of Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, Indiana, USA just like my Systematic Theology professor, Dr. Rolland McCune, did. I am a dispensational, calvinistic, independent, separtistic, Baptist.

Looking forward to interacting with you all. God bless.

Your Fellow Servant in Christ Jesus,

Allen Mickle

Jim's Bio

2006-06-24T20:30:00.000+01:00

I'm rector of All Saints' (Episcopal) Church, Anchorage, Alaska. Married with 3 children (28, 25, 16). I am an Anglican evangelical, American style. I have been deeply influenced over the years by Dick Lucas/Proc Trust. There is no better Bible expositor than Dick. The first time I heard him exposit the Bible, I realized how much work I had before me if I were to do what Dick did. If you haven't heard one of Dick's sermons, or one of the many talks/sermons by David Jackman, you need to. You'll find loads of good stuff there.

I heard of Culver's systematics last year. I bought it, and it seems to me what Dick Lucas is to exposition, Robert Culver is to systematics. I have also enjoyed reading several of Culver's other books, each of which is wonderful. I'm not sure, however, if he can convince me to become premil. (I'm amil).

I've been involved in promoting the evangelical cause in the Episcopal church for many years, although at this present moment, you wouldn't know it - given the leftwards direction of PECUSA.

CG's bio

2006-06-24T20:21:00.000+01:00

Greetings, everyone. You can read my bio on my blog. Basically, I'm a writer and university teacher in the UK. I'm also younger than Timothy, have the same number of wives but fewer children, and many fewer books.

I'm looking forward to the conversation!

(And, not being as photogenic as TD, you'll forgive me if I don't post a picture!)

Welcome to the Culverites

2006-06-24T07:25:00.000+01:00

'The Culverites' are an on-line reading group working through Dr Robert Culver's Systematic Theology (2005). We'll be posting regularly from autumn 2006 onwards (dv). The time delay gives us a chance to get a head-start in reading, but is also designed to allow Dr Culver himself to participate in the group. This is an opportunity to study a major systematic text in conversation with its author. Please join in the conversation!