Reviewed Book: Guthrie, Shirley C. (Shirley Caperton). Christian doctrine. Louisville, Ky: Westminster/John Knox Pr, 1994

Muller, Richard A.

English

Scholars Commons

Christian doctrine

Wilfrid Laurier University

ConsensusVolume 23Issue 1 Essays in the History of Interpretation Article 95-1-1997Christian doctrineRichard A. MullerFollow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensusThis Book Reviews is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by anauthorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.Recommended CitationMuller, Richard A. (1997) "Christian doctrine," Consensus: Vol. 23 : Iss. 1 , Article 9.Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol23/iss1/9BOOK REVIEWSChristian DoctrineShirley C. GuthrieRevised EditionLouisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994xiv-h 434 pp $17.99 USThe first edition of this one-volume doctrinal synopsis of “Reformed”theology was an ill-researched essay intended for adult Sunday-schoolclasses. Revision of the work has not altered its original character. Perhapsits most pronounced characteristic is its personal, chatty style. It addressesindividual people with personalized comments about the nature of theol-ogy and the identity of theologians: thus, “You are not only a Christian;you are either a male or a female whose life, in fact if not in theory, isas much determined by your sexual as by your religious needs and desires,thoughts, and instincts” (p. 3). The question, however, is whether one’stheology ought to be determined by one’s sexuality—and whether, indeed,personal experience of any sort ought to be a primary criterion for theolog-ical formulation. And this is not a question with which Guthrie chooses towrestle.Guthrie’s “doctrine of sin” appears in a chapter entitled “Why Don’tYou Just Be Yourself”. The chapter begins with anecdotes, describing orig-inal sin in terms of a mother at the breakfast table who doesn’t want tobe grumpy but is grumpy nonetheless (cf. p. 221ff.), and can never quitecome to overt terms with the fact that “being one’s self” may just be theentire problem. In the same chapter one finds a discussion of “Adam as ourRepresentative” that reduces the problem of federal headship to the neces-sity of looking at Adam to find out who we are—this approach, accordingto Guthrie, avoids a fatalistic determinism: “Adam has not poisoned thehuman race or passed down an inescapable disease or infection. No onehas to be Adam. ^You ain’t got to!’ ” (p. 223). Note well that Calvinstates, “Adam, by sinning, not only took upon himself misfortune and ruinbut also plunged our nature into like destruction” or, if that is not clearenough, “Adam so corrupted himself that infection spread from him to allhis descendants” (Institutes, II. i. 6). Calvin did not understand his view84 Consensusas a fatalistic determinism—but at the same time he did assume that theinfection was inescapable. Sorry, Professor Guthrie, “You do got to.”Yet another example of the utter absence from this volume of compe-tent research and, indeed, of appreciation of the richness of the Christiantradition, is its brief denunciation of Anselm and the “satisfaction theory”of atonement as “unbiblical” . This view must be unbiblical, Guthrie avers,because Scripture never uses the word “satisfaction” (p. 258). (Of course,this very same problem—the failure of Scripture to use a term—does notprevent Guthrie from advocating his own version of the doctrine of theTrinity.) After offering a caricature of Anselm’s teaching—as if it restedon the assumption that “Jesus came” to “change God’s mind”—a view ofGod’s nature entirely foreign to Anselm—Guthrie appeals to Calvin as theauthor of an alternative position. Once again, Calvin; “Christ allowed him-self to be condemned. . .to make satisfaction for our redemption” and again,“Christ was offered to the Father in death as an expiatory sacrifice thatwhen he discharged all satisfaction through his sacrifice, we might ceaseto be afraid of God’s wrath” (Institutes^II.xvi.5, 6). If Anselm’s theory isunbiblical because of its use of the term “satisfaction”, so too is Calvin’s.Guthrie ought not to appeal to Calvin for support. And if the concept iden-tified by both Anselm and Calvin by the term “satisfaction” is a biblicalconcept (an assumption held nearly universally by the Reformers, the Re-formed confessions, and the orthodox Protestant tradition), then Guthrieis neither biblical nor Reformed.The preceding paragraphs do not, perhaps, constitute a politically cor-rect review. But it is also the case that, with the publication of every reviewof a textbook, the intellectual, religious, and spiritual formation of youngminds is at stake. A polite or consciously innocuous review of a poorlydone book may contribute to the perpetuation of error, incompetence, orinanity. This reviewer will not accept that burden.Richard A. MullerCalvin Theological SeminaryGrand Rapids, MichiganSystematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, Evangelical.Volume IIJames Leo GarrettGrand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995X + 872 pp. $45.00In this second and final volume of his Systematic Theology^ ProfessorJames Leo Garrett of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary com-pletes his highly instructive journey through all of the traditional topics of

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1600&amp;context=consensus

Christian doctrine

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Scholars Commons

Wilfrid Laurier University