Skip to main content

First Principles in Doing Theology

I'm currently going through First Theology by Kevin Vanhoozer with a friend of mine, so you'll see a few sporadic posts on the book over the next several months. This first post is drawn from the first chapter, which is programmatic for the rest of the book.

When doing theology where do you start as a matter of first principles, do you start with God or with Scripture? Throughout the history of the church we've seen people come down on both sides of this question. Some have said that we must be able to prove God first apart from Scripture, and following that proof we can utilize Scripture, because Scripture's authority is derived from God's authority. Others have argued the other way around, saying that one cannot know God apart from an authoritative Scriptural text and then we develop a picture of God on that basis. We've also seen some who have answered that we need to consider both God and Scripture together, noticing that it's impossible to consider one apart from the other.

While Vanhoozer lies in continuity with this last group he goes beyond them. One key observation that he makes is that one's view of God and Scripture are correlated. How you see one usually impacts how you see the other. This is evidenced in people as opposite as B.B. Warfield and Rudolf Bultmann. Warfield takes the Bible as doctrine and sees God as the revealer of truth. Bultmann sees Scripture as myth and expressing the self-understanding of faith. His understanding of God is not of one who acts in history but as the power behind a new human possibility. The approach Vanhoozer suggests is to see God as a communicative agent and to see Scripture as God's mighty speech acts.

While within the vicinity of Warfield, Vanhoozer's approach has a major advantage. Namely, by seeing Scripture as God's speech act, you avoid the tendency, common in theology, of flattening out Scripture, either by favoring particular portions of the Bible (e.g., Paul's letters or narratives) or turning the entire Bible into one mode of communication (e.g., all propositions or assertions). Vanhoozer claims that we need to understand Scripture as God has spoken it. Each genre needs to be allowed to speak for itself and every voice needs to be heard. This leads to the observation that in fact our duo of Scripture and God needs to become a trio. We must take God, Scripture, and hermeneutics as one problem, and then, at the level of first principles, our starting point should be theological hermeneutics, a hermeneutical method appropriate to the subject studied.


Popular posts from this blog

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Commentary Review: Daniel

In my opinion, Daniel is not the best covered Old Testament book as far as commentaries go. This isn't an uncommon phenomenon among Old Testament books. Though I've looked at them, I'm not going to review some of the older Evangelical Daniel commentaries (like e.g., Baldwin). They don't provide much that you can't get in either Longman or Lucas. If you're unfamiliar with the series that one or more of these commentaries are in check out my commentary series overview.

It was a very close call but my favorite commentary on Daniel is Goldingay's. While there were a few places where I disagreed with his interpretation, I found the commentary to be exemplary. If you're going to teach Daniel, especially the apocalyptic portions, you need a commentary that provides you with a lot of background material. Goldingay, while not as broad as Collins, certainly provides you with quite a bit. His exploration of the background to the apocalyptic symbolism is very helpfu…