Comments on: Vanhoozer Responds to My Review

By: Baba Bulus

Baba Bulus — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:58:58 +0000

thank you for sharing your rich knowledge with us on the net for free. I am begining to have understanding of the issues. pls need more of this. most of your books are hard to find in Nigeria (africa). Pls help us grow in articulating theology.

By: Andy Stager

Andy Stager — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:57:51 +0000

I’m also very thankful for this dialog. I’m probably going to be a pastor, but I’d like to do an ST PhD. I’ve considered TEDS, and also the HTC. And I noticed that Paul Helm is now supervising doctoral students at HTC. Being such a “Vanhoozer fan” myself, I’m almost thinking it would be interesting to work with Helm in an attempt to figure out why he perceives the rift between traditional Reformed ST and the Vanhoozer proposal to be so wide.

Anyways, thanks for the stimulating discussion.

By: Jason K. Lee

Jason K. Lee — Tue, 29 May 2007 20:48:45 +0000

Andreas,

Thank you for interaction with Vanhoozer’s work. I wonder if his essay in Reading Scripture with the Church (along with his response to Fowl) provides some more insight into “plural unity” or pluralistic approach. I am grateful to Vanhoozer for his response.

Blessings.

By: Ched

Ched — Wed, 09 May 2007 02:45:58 +0000

This discussion is exceedingly helpful.

By: Hans

Hans — Wed, 09 May 2007 00:18:24 +0000

Drs. Köstenberger and Vanhoozer,

Thanks for this lively and edifying correspondence. I think your exchange helps clarify some of the most interesting features of The Drama of Doctrine. I also appreciate the implicit integration, here and there, that was happening between biblical studies and systematic theology. My sense is that similar moves need to happen on a much broader scale if we want to recover the drama of doctrine in our churches. This brief point-counterpoint is only a start in that direction, but a start is better than nothing!

Gratefully,
Hans