# A new systematic theology volume



## Me Died Blue (Jan 12, 2006)

In November 2005, a book by Robert Duncan Culver was released, entitled _Systematic Theology: Biblical & Historical_. From the title, I wonder if he might have attempted to deal with all three categories in a harmonious way. It's 1258 pages, published by Christian Focus Publications, and Packer called Dr. Culver "a veteran teacher in the classic evangelical and Reformed stream of Christian understanding." Mohler commended the work as well. It can be found at Monergism Books here.

Has anyone heard anything else about the book, read all or part of it, or even ordered it?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 12, 2006)

I gota wonder how many systematic theology books we need? No offense to you Chris or the authors but it seems like almost everybody has done one. 

blade


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 12, 2006)

In one sense I think I can understand where you're coming from for two reasons: One is that it seems like a lot to read, and I say this myself as a very slow reader. Secondly, and perhaps even more so, is the (healthy) fear of becoming too innovative and fad-driven, always waiting for "what the next systematic will say." That broad evangelical tendency to always look for and toward the fresh and new is indeed one of which to be wary. Granting that, however, we must never abandon the _rightful_ (non-abused) place fresh statements of old doctrine have in continually shaping each successive generation of believers to think biblically, for the simple reason that new texts can more pointedly address the issues of the day (e.g. Calvin's treatment on the sixth commandment would not have dealt with the issue of legal abortion).

But even that necessity is only the secondary reason that I am in favor of new systematic texts, such as the one mentioned here. The *chief reason* is that an opposite and perhaps even equal error to always looking for many new authors is to trust in too few. As Al Martin has noted well in his series on the calling to the ordained ministry, while the systematic theologies, treatises and commentaries of the past should be given much weight in every theologian and preacher's mind, the very role of a _teaching_ elder is to be able to interpret and apply the Scriptures equally himself. While his _mindset_ will (and indeed should) always be affected and filtered by the past theologians he has read, he should _not_ find himself _needing_ to _directly_ go to them to make any point from the Word.

You may now be wondering, "What relevance does this have to new systematic theology volumes?" The point is that the distinction between episcopal structure and presbyterian structure is an entire mindset, and goes beyond ecclesiology. That is, to be content to _always_ stick with a select handful of systematic theology texts (e.g. Calvin, Berkhof, Hodge, Dabney, Turretin, Bavinck, Reymond, a Brakel, Ames, Grudem) and, due to them, to then discourage the continual writing of ones by new authors is to view the treasure chest of Church history with a sort of episcopal mindset, having a handful of men no larger than 1-3 local church sessions form the basis for your systematics. If one looks at Church history, that is a tendency almost universally found among _cults_. That is one reason I am very glad there are several historically-paralleling Reformed movements that emerged seperately, yet intimately agree, such as the Scottish Presbyterian tradition and the Dutch Reformed tradition. Furthermore, if it is biblical and wise to have representative _groups_ rather than _individuals_ in the government of the Church, it would be wise to follow that precedent regarding the theological and academic education of believers through the written treatment of doctrinal issues. Thus, there should continually be _multiple_ authors of systematic theology texts that take an approach similar to Calvin's, and multiple that take a more structured approach, such as Berkhof's; several that take an especially experimental approach, perhaps along the lines of a Brakel's. I'm not talking about a Christian-bookstore goal of simply coming up with new lines for their own sake, or about Frame's multi-perspectivalist take on close to everything; I'm talking about people who do things like Vos did with "biblical theology." Just like we need a presbyterial mindset in _ecclesiology_ rather than an episcopal one, we likewise need the same corresponding mindset in the writings and legacies of Church history and the Christian community as a whole.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 12, 2006)

I agree  I didnt mean to say I was against it obviouselly there are topics that come up in society that the church needs to address ie abortion etc... 

I just dont like the idea of it becoming faddish thats all. NOt thaty this volume is. Just saying. 

I would get it but he doesnt have max lucado drawing the cover for it!! jk -bad joke- 

Blade


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 13, 2006)

Wish I had the money for it. I would buy and indulge myself.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 13, 2006)

Does anyone know who Robert Duncan Culver is? Where does he teach, who is he affiliated with?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Does anyone know who Robert Duncan Culver is? Where does he teach, who is he affiliated with?



Here is a little info that I found:



> Robert Duncan Culver is an eleventh generation descendant of a Puritan family who arrived in the New World in 1635 with John Winthrop. Concerns about Christian life in the "œpublic square" have long been central to the Culver family.
> 
> Dr. Culver is a graduate of Heidelberg College in Ohio (A.B.) and Grace Theological Seminary (B.D. Summa Cum Laude, Th.M., Th.D.). In addition, he has undertaken post-doctoral studies at the Chicago Lutheran Theo-logical Seminary and the University of Minnesota.
> 
> ...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 13, 2006)

Thanks for that.

Is he Lutheran? Presbyterian? Baptist?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Thanks for that.
> 
> Is he Lutheran? Presbyterian? Baptist?



I believe he is associated with the Evangelical Free Church of America.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 23, 2006)

I'm surprised some of the regulars here (especially the credentialed ones) don't know of Culver. It would seem to me that a person who writes an ST that gets Packer and Mohler to write positive blurbs about it would have to be somewhat well-known if just for the fact that they would have to have been around awhile with well-known contributions. I guess not. 

I do know he seems to be associated with Norman Geisler alot. I think I read a statement of faith of a seminary he worked at that was for universal atonement and was premillennial, but I don't know if he as 'adjunct professor' had to hold to that or not. '

If you google "Robert D. Culver" you come up with different things than if you google "robert duncan culver".

(I'm writing this post ten days after the last post above, so I realize people may have found out alot of info on him by now...)


----------



## Irishcat922 (Jan 23, 2006)

Maybe its just me but it seems that Packer endorses everybody who writes a book. Personally I take Packer's endorsements with a grain of salt.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 23, 2006)

It's my understanding that J. I. Packer is also very limited in his sight, so I wonder how he's even able to read all the books he endorses. I think perhaps he has alot of students and friends from his long life that write books. 

I, though, value a Packer endorsement. He's the all-time, hands-down champion of Introduction writing also. (I'm thinking of his classic intro to Witsius' Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, and Owen's Death of Death, for instance.)


----------

