Theology

Ten Principles for the Use of Scripture in Theology

Kirk E. Miller 2 Comments

Using Scripture

The following is minor paper completed in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course ST 7505 Use of Scripture and Theology taught by Dr. Kevin Vanhoozer at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, IL in December, 2015. Please note that the focus of this paper (and the class) is not hermeneutics, but the use of scripture in making dogmatic and moral theological proposals.

  1. One’s use of scripture for dogmatic and moral theology must be in keeping with the nature (ontology) and purpose (teleology) of scripture itself.[1]
  1. One’s use of scripture for dogmatic and ethical theology must share the very aims of scripture itself (and, by extension, theology), lest it distort and subvert the very nature of theology. This means that a proper use of scripture—in line with the very equipping-aims of scripture itself—must be, for example:
    • Theological (directed towards knowledge of and relationship with God), answering, “How does this text enhance knowledge of God and foster appropriate relationship with God?”
    • Doxological (directed towards the worship of God), answering, “How does this text fuel the worship of God?”
    • Mathetesical (directed towards Christian living), answering, “How does this text form disciples (mathetes)?”
    • Ecclesiological (directed towards the life of the church), answering, “How does this text shape God’s people to realize its calling?”
    • Missiological (directed towards equipping for mission), answering, “How does this text equip God’s people for mission?”
  1. If one’s use of scripture to authorize theological proposals is actually going to authorize those proposals with the authority of scripture itself (a derivative authority), one’s use must be born out of the very claims—which, one must remember, are communicated in a variety of ways through a variety of discourse forms[2]—of scripture itself (the locus of authority). Consequently, one’s appropriation of scripture for dogmatic and moral theological proposals must be based on the purpose, intent, or underlying reasoning of Biblical content, not its accidental, attendant, or purely descriptive features.[3]

Continue reading →

Preaching Christ in the Old Testament: A Look Forward to the Upcoming Table Talk with Dr. Scharf and Dr. Luy

Kirk E. Miller

This post was originally published at Rolfing Unshelved.

On Wednesday, November 11 from 12-1:15 pm at the front of the library, Dr. Scharf and Dr. Luy will be facilitating a discussion on preaching Christ in the Old Testament. We will be examining some of the different perspectives and issues involved in that endeavor. Because of the complexity of this topic and the many subjects it raises to our attention, Dr. Scharf and Dr. Luy will begin the Table Talk by making some brief introductory comments. These initial remarks will serve to focus subsequent discussion. And after discussing these matters in groups, we look forward to a time of interaction with Dr. Luy and Dr. Scharf on further questions and group observations.

I hope that you will bring your lunch and join us!

This blog post seeks to introduce you to the subject at hand–preaching Christ in the Old Testament–and to expose you to some of the issues involved in that conversation.

As Dr. Scharf recently wrote me in an email,

The practice of preaching Christ in the Old Testament raises a host of questions and subjects the preacher to significant perils as well as offering great promise. Navigating these waters requires that the preacher have a defensible theology, a valid hermeneutic, and exegetical expertise (enriched ideally by a grasp of the history of interpretation of the preaching text) as well as a love for his or her listeners, the required spiritual gifting, and prayerful reliance upon the Holy Spirit.

You’ll immediately notice from his statement that the issues involved here are multi-faceted.

Continue reading →

A Review of Gustaf Aulén’s Christus Victor

Kirk E. Miller

The following is the manuscript-outline notes of a presentation I delivered on September 8th for Dr. David Luy’s ST 8000 The Atonement at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

The full title of this presentation was Synthetic Re-Description of and Critical Engagement with Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement by Gustaf Aulén.

I share this in case anyone might find this edifying or for the chance someone studying Aulén’s work might stumble upon this and find it helpful.

And I dedicate this to my grandfather, who, while I was in the process of writing this, told me to “add some jokes.” I hope I have accomplished that, although I admit the jokes may only be humorous to a very narrow audience.

I. Building Consensus

Gustaf AulenGustaf Aulén (1879–1997) was the Bishop of Strängnäs in the Church of Sweden (a Lutheran denomination), was a leading figure in the Lundensian Theology movement, and is probably best known for this work, Christus Victor.

Origin of Christus Victor – The book Christus Victor originated from a series of lectures delivered at the University of Uppsala in Sweden in 1930 (xxi).

Goal – Aulén claims that the aim of this book is to produce an objective historical account without any clandestine apologetic aims (158; cf. xxi). Having read the book, I imagine many of us can’t help but chuckle at such a claim. I myself wonder if he is somewhat disingenuous.[1] But I suppose we’ll have to take Aulén at his word. With that said, if I were to imagine myself in a world where such objective accounts could actually exist, I would argue that Aulén has failed to produce one. His bias is oozing through the text.

Thesis – The thesis that Aulén seeks to prove through this historical account is that the “classic view” of the atonement, in contrast to what he refers to as the “Latin” and “Humanist” views, is the view of the atonement which is “most genuinely Christian” (xxi, 158), evangelical, and catholic (xxvi). It is the truly Christian view because, as his historical count seeks to demonstrate, it is the view found in the New Testament, articulated by the early church fathers, and recovered by the thoroughly evangelical Luther.

Three views [Aulen’s depiction, not mine]: Continue reading →

Goodreads Review of Four Views on Moving beyond the Bible to Theology by Stanley N. Gundry

Kirk E. Miller

Four Views on Moving beyond the Bible to TheologyFour Views on Moving beyond the Bible to Theology by Stanley N. Gundry

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

As always, these multiple views books can be a bit disjointed, especially when the editors fail to ensure that all the contributors are the same page (which they often do; come on, editors!). This book is probably a little guilty of some of that, because, as Al Wolters demonstrates on his essay, the contributors seem to mean different things by “moving beyond the Bible.” Thus, at times, the work is less of a presentation on competing views–although there is certainly some of that–and more of a collection of generally complementary essays addressing a range of related issues.

Overall, though, I felt like this book was one of the better multiple views books I’ve read. The essays were overall well written, provocative, and stimulating.

View all my reviews

Goodreads Review of Proving Doctrine: The Uses of Scripture in Modern Theology by David Kelsey

Kirk E. Miller

Proving Doctrine: The Uses of Scripture in Modern TheologyProving Doctrine: The Uses of Scripture in Modern Theology by David H. Kelsey

My rating: 2 of 5 stars

I get the impression I am less enamored with this book than others I know.

First — No doubt, Kelsey excellently and insightfully frames the discussion of what it means to “be Biblical,” and “use scripture to authorize theological proposals,” etc. His posing questions and identification of the issues involved in this task of moving from scripture to theology are fantastic. However, I am less impressed and satisfied with his assessment of how one might go about answering those questions or navigating those issues. I would recommend John Frame’s critical review (http://www.frame-poythress.org/review…). Frame summarizes my thoughts well: “Kelsey has written something which deserves to be criticized at this length. He has elevated discussion of these matters to a new height of sophistication. His insights are indispensable, his mistakes eminently worth thinking about.”

Second — For a book that seeks to bring clarity to the discussion–and it certainly does much of that!–I think the book ironically suffers from being somewhat unclear and vague at points.

In short, I have rather mixed feelings about this book. That is why I gave it 2 stars–“it was ok.” I certainly benefitted from reading it. And it has definitely launched me on a new adventure of thinking through these issues.

View all my reviews