tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post5789914940674028345..comments2024-03-22T07:16:35.188+00:00Comments on Against Heresies: The Divine Spiration of Scripture: Should the doctrine of Scripture be relocated?Martin Downeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08019053545918223050noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-32387423263192275172008-04-16T21:44:00.000+01:002008-04-16T21:44:00.000+01:00Any idea if Paul Helm has commented on McGowan's b...Any idea if Paul Helm has commented on McGowan's book? Since they are both associated with Highland, and since Helm has been a strong critic of Enns, I would expect something from him on this. I've not been able to find anything yet.Ben Dahlvanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11543140708691820072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-4043102038947479192008-03-31T18:01:00.000+01:002008-03-31T18:01:00.000+01:00Andrew McGowan's proposal, that the Doctrine of Sc...Andrew McGowan's proposal, that the Doctrine of Scripture should be placed under the Doctrine of the God (subtopic Doctrine of Holy Spirit, sub-subtopic The Work of the Spirit) is ironic. The only reasonable way for him to develop this thesis is from Scripture. So despite his arguments to the contrary, his thesis depends on the epistemic assumption that Scripture is (at least) a reliable foundation for all other Doctrine. <BR/><BR/>Theology should be logical. It is very desirable to start with your epistemic foundation - Scripture - and build on that. It does not make sense to hide your epistemic presuppositions within you doctrinal statements. Doctrinal statements are the things you believe are true. Why? Because Scripture tells us.<BR/><BR/>So why not start with God? ... Who? What God are you talking about? <BR/><BR/>Anthony ColettiCivberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05472053836577852035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-38695176886263739772008-03-27T19:09:00.000+00:002008-03-27T19:09:00.000+00:00Your observations are helpful. I haven't made a h...Your observations are helpful. I haven't made a hard distinction in my analysis between the Reformed confessions and systematic theology (although I agree with Godfrey's point), mainly because Andy McGowan doesn't distinguish between them in this section of his book.Martin Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08019053545918223050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-19474170269498415142008-03-27T18:52:00.000+00:002008-03-27T18:52:00.000+00:00Thanks Martin for your thoughts on McGowan's book....Thanks Martin for your thoughts on McGowan's book. I think Dr. McGowan may misunderstand the nature and character of confessional theology as opposed to systematic theology. Bob Godfrey makes some very good distinctions between the two that have been helpful to me. Dr. Godfrey states "confessions should not be seen simply as brief summaries of larger systematic theologies. They are the written expressions of the faith of the church, testifying to what unites and characterizes a given church. Systems of theology may seek to explore the implications of confessional traditions, and show significant differences between various elaborated traditions, but those differences cannot deny common confessional convictions or trivialize their importance." This is all to say that Confessional, or "confessed" theology is not the same as Systematic theology so to critique confessions for not being as systematic, ontically or noetically, is a category error. It may be that when Muller says that both have justifications for either being prior in the order, can be seen as justified according to the use they have in theology. If we are confessing the faith that everyday people live out in the church, then it's not too far-fetched to confess our doctrine of Scripture, first, in order to understand God. If we are systematizing the faith, trying to reflect a more biblical approach, it's not a problem to place the Doctrine of God, first, and place Scripture under the work of the Spirit. Dr. McGowan may not see this very important distinction and end up placing the confessions in a bad light, which I don't think is wise.<BR/><BR/>By the way, Richard Gaffin will be reviewing McGowan's book at Ref21 magazine. This will be interesting because Gaffin sees continuity between the Old Princeton- Hodge, Warfield- school on Innerrancy and Scripture with the Dutch Bavinck school. Where McGowan sees a discontinuity that places them at odds. Who is right? We'll see.<BR/><BR/>Frozen ChosonJames Limhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03394034691302374857noreply@blogger.com