What do you think?
Rate this book
Grace, Faith & Holiness: A Wesleyan Systematic Theology
A treatise on traditional Wesleyan theology in the light of the current theological milieu. He examines the doctrines of God, humankind, salvation, and sanctification. He also examines the sources of theology as well as the nature and scope of the theological task. Cloth.
672 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1988
7 people are currently reading
56 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
May 26, 2020
I read this carefully for a half hour a day for several months. But I have to admit that I skimmed the last 100 pages.
Part One defines theology and, in particular, Wesleyan theology. It was a definite slog (even though I've been to seminary and know many of the terms used.)
I appreciated Parts Two through Five and their discussion of the doctrines of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The terminology was much more approachable and the insights were mind-strengthening and heart-building.
Part One defines theology and, in particular, Wesleyan theology. It was a definite slog (even though I've been to seminary and know many of the terms used.)
I appreciated Parts Two through Five and their discussion of the doctrines of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The terminology was much more approachable and the insights were mind-strengthening and heart-building.
July 3, 2021
I just finished "Grace, Faith & Holiness: A Wesleyan Systematic Theology," by Ray Dunning.
This is my first book of the year and it's a nice thick one to begin with. Grace, Faith & Holiness weighs in at 628 pp of text. I have been wanting to read GFH since I heard it regularly quoted from in class. So if I spend time likewise quoting more than commenting, enjoy.
"The faith of the church must be known and continously articulated in contemporary contexts," p 6. "Or die" was all he left off.
"As soon as one moves beyond reciting the words of scripture, he is involved in doing theology," p 9.
In the prolegomena Dunning makes a very good claim that I dont think many can appreciate unless that have been dashed against the rocks of either side. He is going to take the middle way, a way between Bultmann where everything is myth and your faith embodied in ones interpretation is what matters, and the fundamentalist way is to believe that the historicity is directly revelant to the theological.
"Faith is primary. Theology is the necessary next step," p 32; quoting Jack Rodgers: Confessions, p 60.
"[O]nes preunderstanding influences to some extent his existential encounter with the Divine," p 32. The more I contemplate this nature/nurture aspect of theology the more humble it makes me.
To summarize what Dunning said a systematic theologian is: one who enjoys living in the tension while deploring contradiction.
[Just as an aside here: Dunning is a fantastic writer. He is clear though profound, deep though not obscure in a Tillichian way. Really, thank you.]
He does a good job covering scriptural authority and inspiration. I am glad he shoots down the mechanical dictation theory. Faith grounded only on dictation can not stand the test of analysis. Paul wrote like a lawyer; Luke like a doctor. God inspired both to get a message across but didnt tie their hands nor censor them. Thus in all events the writers translated the message of God in a dialectical fashion, this is the same dialectic we read this same scripture with.
"If what is said about [God] is to involve any meaningful content, we must be able to relate it to some facet of our finite experience. If there is no correlation between Gods love and human love, we do not have any comprehension of what it may mean," p 92.
Dunning states that traditionally revelation has been spoken to under the prolegomena but rightly belongs under the doctrine of God. This is astute because revelation is primarily what man cant do and what God can. If He can and does it states something about the character of Him and thus illuminates the attribute "personal" or "relational."
"[The biblical writers] tend to talk about God as the Holy Other rather than the Wholly Other," p 101 [Barthian Jab; I agree].
"Jesus is 'God incognito,'" p 105.
This is interesting: Dunning says that how one conceives revelation is directly related to it one leans more on God being immanent or transcendent. That makes sense.
Dunning begins his Doctrine of God--nature and attributes--with a wonderful statement.
"[I]n the Hebrew view, eternity is not timeless, but unending time," p 186.
I greatly appreciate how Dunning, when asking about the character of God, says that one must look at Jesus to get the best picture of God.
This is good: "[C.H. Dodd] has noted in his commentary on Roman's that Paul never uses the verb 'to be angry' with God as subject. Other attitudes are so used, for example, 'God loves us' and 'God is faithful'; but God is never made the subject of 'to be angry.' He concludes from this evidence that 'wrath is not to be understood as a feeling or attitude of God toward us (as love and mercy should properly be) but rather as some process or effect of human sin; mercy is not the effect of human goodness but is inherent in the character of God,'" p 192.
At this point Dunning says that the essential nature of God, or framework from which His other attributes are suspended, or precede, is holy love. Holy love is the control for the other attributes. As such Dunning correctly states that we must not leash God to impassibility; to love is to suffer, or being open to suffering.
In speaking about the attribute of Gods eternity Dunning well states "[T]he biblical picture of God seems rather clearly to suggest that time is indeed real to God," p 201. For 1988 this seems ahead of it's time in the same vein as Fretheim.
Dunnings coverage of the trinity is very good. He covers the early development of the doctrine without being boring or overly technical. So far he has also pulled regularly from Gustav Aulen's "Faith of the Christian Church." Yeah, I just bought it.
Dunning points out in the chapter on creation that Jesus walking on the sea and calming the storms may point back to God as victorious over Chaos, or the sea (Yam) in creation. I've been thinking that for a while now, though in my thought there is actually a personal Yam behind the chaos. I dont have a problem with a creational dualism. Yahweh is still supreme.
The opening of Dunning's harmatology states that sin is not something external of humanity as though it has some kind of ontological status. Picking a fight with a giant can be a humbling experience, regardless I would ask about Paul's use of sin especially in Romans which seems to treat sin as though it (along with death) are structures independent from humanity. (275 pp and that's the only critique I have, not bad.) It just hit me that what may have been meant by the above was that sin is not physical in the Augustinian way where original sin is passed Father to child. With that I agree.
I dealing with Christology, and more specifically the titles of Jesus I found Dunnings coverage of "Messiah" very good. When dealing with the "Son of Man" he states that Jesus opted for this title most often "because it was least compromised with Jewish nationalism and warlike hopes," p 317. Would that we choose how we identify ourselves reflect Jesus.
I appreciate Dunnings work on KYRIOS, noting that Lord, in this context, means master or owner. While a Hellenistic Jew would have immediately caught KYRIOS as the same as Yahweh due to the LXX rendering. KYRIOS meant deity and was the point of contention between early Christians and Rome because the early movement was revolted as the statement "Caesar is KYRIOS" because for them there is one KYRIOS and He is Jesus. But with Constantine taking the drivers seat he made bedding church and state ok.
His Coversge of Christology was good in dealing with the titles of Jesus and how that positions Him for us. Also well done was the lead-up to Chalcedon along with the heresies, and what made them heresies. This was done is a way that honored the then-avaliable philosophical categories while not getting mired in them--it was clear. I think Dunning came up short (and he basically admits as much) because he didnt deal specifically with Logos, Kenotic, Spirit, adoptionist, ect. Christologies. This section, like Chalcedon, expressed the parameters without shoving people in a mold. I appreciate that but would have loved to have heard Dunning speak to the above Christologies. Good section.
Under models of the atonement Dunning list the three main ones as Ransom, Substitution and Moral influence. In passing he does mention Moral Governmental. I will have to see how the rest of this section pans out before I comment [cough] since he has thus far drawn heavily from Aulen's systematic work [cough].
I really love how he says that reconciliation is an appropriate metaphor in which to see atonement. And that this reconciliation impacts us via God to man, man to man, and cosmically. I believe this is the fullest way to see the atonement. Rather than pick a model like substitution and say that is the sum total of the atonement, see the atonement as a three strand rope which fixes what is wrong: our relationship with God, man, and our wanting a King who isnt the King.
Really good observation here. When going over the age old expiation/propionation issue Dunning states that we have to keep in mind the nature of a covenant which differs from that of a contract. A contract is "thing-oriented" whereas a covenant is "person-oriented," and "must be interpreted not legalistically but personally," p 358.
I also greatly appreciate how he incorporates sanctification into the work of Christ by stating that Christ didnt just save us from sin but He refuses to leave us there (my paraphrase).
Dunning provides a scathing critique of penal substitution during which he calls on Aulen again via Christus Victor when leveling charges against the "Latin view," and also Wiley with some five specific issues. The logical conclusion here is that of one sticks to PS then universalism or limited atonement has to be the conclusion. This was well done so as not to vilify Calvin but to argue the theory based on it's own value.
Interesting: Dunning is going to develope a Wesleyan atonement rather than back a "preexisting" one. But I like his approach. Ever since reading Heim's "Saved from Sacrifice" I saw/had pointed out how the three fold office of Christ can be seen as directly impacting his soteriological work. It is this framework--prophet, priest and King--which Dunning says Wesley worked from without formalizing it and which Dunning wants to develope. Again, this should, in its completion, rectify the broken God to man relationship, the broken man to man relationship, and the broken man to King relationship (though I believe Dunning's explanation of the three fold offices relation to salvation leaves off some of what I wrote above).
He begins with a huge stress on identification and representation. This is similar to how when one lays hands on the sin offering they identify with it (rather than transference of guilt) and as the sacrifice dies the one offering the sacrifice spiritually dies.
Dunning is following a stream of thought similar to what I was thinking. When speaking about Christs Kingly role he immediately appeals to Aulen's Christus Victor as the triumphant motif where Christ is victorious over Satan, sin and death. As we find our representation in Him as victorious we, in Christ, are likewise victorious.
Check out this line: "[Christus Victor] is not objective in the sense of a transactional between Christ and God, which is completely unacceptable in New Testament thought, but objective in the sense that something transpires externally, not dependent upon human response although only actualized upon such a response," p 388.
He ends the Christological/atonement section on the dark side of the atonement, or, what about people who do not respond to the grace of God? Dunning basically says that these are separated from the saved and often uses scripturally revelant words like destruction without getting on a speculation spree. I appreciate that.
Pneumatology:
"This [OT temporary anointing of the Holy] Spirit possession was often, if not universally, precipitated by music and dancing," p 401.
Under the well written Pneumatological section on entire sanctification Dunning writes "Indolent, lackadaisical, smug, self-satisfied believers can only stagnate into static patterns of living," p 473.
The sanctification section ended with a brief but necessary section on ethics. This was well done.
In Ecclesiology Dunning says that the holiness--for lack of a better word--insistence of the Anabaptists found it's way into Wesley's thought and Ecclesiological structure along with Luther's "where the word is preached and the sacraments are rightly administered." Chalk one up to Menno and the boys. Also Dunning is specifying Ecclesiology along the objective/subjective lines which I find helpful.
I talking of the sacraments Dunning begins by using the word "sign." Just when I wished he would use "symbol" as per Tillich he said that would be the better direction to go. After learning about "symbol" in this manner one can never again see the sacraments as a mere "sign." The Tillichian language is just too powerful.
I like that he says that the Lords supper is a converting and confirming ordinance. I wish more were open to this as an evangelistic opportunity.
The book proper finished well. Dunning considers a fleshed out eschatology to be speculative in nature so he left it and hermeneutics for the appendices.
I really appreciate how he states that when one speaks to prophecy being fulfilled we should think of it as "filling full" rather than in a way that gives the prophet a mental picture of the future event; new wineskins awaiting wine to be poured into them. And, yes, I agree, many of the NT prophecies do not represent the mental image of "this is that." And the ones that do (Gn 3, Ps 22, Is 53) have a "this is that" because of apostolic authority and after the fact matching of scripture to events.
This was really a great book. Dunning is a very good writer who gets what are sometimes complex concepts across quite well. My only wish is that he had dove into the Remonstrance a bit more. Arminianism and its variants had five mentions and Grotius a single mention (and rightly so since it was in atonement).
This is my first book of the year and it's a nice thick one to begin with. Grace, Faith & Holiness weighs in at 628 pp of text. I have been wanting to read GFH since I heard it regularly quoted from in class. So if I spend time likewise quoting more than commenting, enjoy.
"The faith of the church must be known and continously articulated in contemporary contexts," p 6. "Or die" was all he left off.
"As soon as one moves beyond reciting the words of scripture, he is involved in doing theology," p 9.
In the prolegomena Dunning makes a very good claim that I dont think many can appreciate unless that have been dashed against the rocks of either side. He is going to take the middle way, a way between Bultmann where everything is myth and your faith embodied in ones interpretation is what matters, and the fundamentalist way is to believe that the historicity is directly revelant to the theological.
"Faith is primary. Theology is the necessary next step," p 32; quoting Jack Rodgers: Confessions, p 60.
"[O]nes preunderstanding influences to some extent his existential encounter with the Divine," p 32. The more I contemplate this nature/nurture aspect of theology the more humble it makes me.
To summarize what Dunning said a systematic theologian is: one who enjoys living in the tension while deploring contradiction.
[Just as an aside here: Dunning is a fantastic writer. He is clear though profound, deep though not obscure in a Tillichian way. Really, thank you.]
He does a good job covering scriptural authority and inspiration. I am glad he shoots down the mechanical dictation theory. Faith grounded only on dictation can not stand the test of analysis. Paul wrote like a lawyer; Luke like a doctor. God inspired both to get a message across but didnt tie their hands nor censor them. Thus in all events the writers translated the message of God in a dialectical fashion, this is the same dialectic we read this same scripture with.
"If what is said about [God] is to involve any meaningful content, we must be able to relate it to some facet of our finite experience. If there is no correlation between Gods love and human love, we do not have any comprehension of what it may mean," p 92.
Dunning states that traditionally revelation has been spoken to under the prolegomena but rightly belongs under the doctrine of God. This is astute because revelation is primarily what man cant do and what God can. If He can and does it states something about the character of Him and thus illuminates the attribute "personal" or "relational."
"[The biblical writers] tend to talk about God as the Holy Other rather than the Wholly Other," p 101 [Barthian Jab; I agree].
"Jesus is 'God incognito,'" p 105.
This is interesting: Dunning says that how one conceives revelation is directly related to it one leans more on God being immanent or transcendent. That makes sense.
Dunning begins his Doctrine of God--nature and attributes--with a wonderful statement.
"[I]n the Hebrew view, eternity is not timeless, but unending time," p 186.
I greatly appreciate how Dunning, when asking about the character of God, says that one must look at Jesus to get the best picture of God.
This is good: "[C.H. Dodd] has noted in his commentary on Roman's that Paul never uses the verb 'to be angry' with God as subject. Other attitudes are so used, for example, 'God loves us' and 'God is faithful'; but God is never made the subject of 'to be angry.' He concludes from this evidence that 'wrath is not to be understood as a feeling or attitude of God toward us (as love and mercy should properly be) but rather as some process or effect of human sin; mercy is not the effect of human goodness but is inherent in the character of God,'" p 192.
At this point Dunning says that the essential nature of God, or framework from which His other attributes are suspended, or precede, is holy love. Holy love is the control for the other attributes. As such Dunning correctly states that we must not leash God to impassibility; to love is to suffer, or being open to suffering.
In speaking about the attribute of Gods eternity Dunning well states "[T]he biblical picture of God seems rather clearly to suggest that time is indeed real to God," p 201. For 1988 this seems ahead of it's time in the same vein as Fretheim.
Dunnings coverage of the trinity is very good. He covers the early development of the doctrine without being boring or overly technical. So far he has also pulled regularly from Gustav Aulen's "Faith of the Christian Church." Yeah, I just bought it.
Dunning points out in the chapter on creation that Jesus walking on the sea and calming the storms may point back to God as victorious over Chaos, or the sea (Yam) in creation. I've been thinking that for a while now, though in my thought there is actually a personal Yam behind the chaos. I dont have a problem with a creational dualism. Yahweh is still supreme.
The opening of Dunning's harmatology states that sin is not something external of humanity as though it has some kind of ontological status. Picking a fight with a giant can be a humbling experience, regardless I would ask about Paul's use of sin especially in Romans which seems to treat sin as though it (along with death) are structures independent from humanity. (275 pp and that's the only critique I have, not bad.) It just hit me that what may have been meant by the above was that sin is not physical in the Augustinian way where original sin is passed Father to child. With that I agree.
I dealing with Christology, and more specifically the titles of Jesus I found Dunnings coverage of "Messiah" very good. When dealing with the "Son of Man" he states that Jesus opted for this title most often "because it was least compromised with Jewish nationalism and warlike hopes," p 317. Would that we choose how we identify ourselves reflect Jesus.
I appreciate Dunnings work on KYRIOS, noting that Lord, in this context, means master or owner. While a Hellenistic Jew would have immediately caught KYRIOS as the same as Yahweh due to the LXX rendering. KYRIOS meant deity and was the point of contention between early Christians and Rome because the early movement was revolted as the statement "Caesar is KYRIOS" because for them there is one KYRIOS and He is Jesus. But with Constantine taking the drivers seat he made bedding church and state ok.
His Coversge of Christology was good in dealing with the titles of Jesus and how that positions Him for us. Also well done was the lead-up to Chalcedon along with the heresies, and what made them heresies. This was done is a way that honored the then-avaliable philosophical categories while not getting mired in them--it was clear. I think Dunning came up short (and he basically admits as much) because he didnt deal specifically with Logos, Kenotic, Spirit, adoptionist, ect. Christologies. This section, like Chalcedon, expressed the parameters without shoving people in a mold. I appreciate that but would have loved to have heard Dunning speak to the above Christologies. Good section.
Under models of the atonement Dunning list the three main ones as Ransom, Substitution and Moral influence. In passing he does mention Moral Governmental. I will have to see how the rest of this section pans out before I comment [cough] since he has thus far drawn heavily from Aulen's systematic work [cough].
I really love how he says that reconciliation is an appropriate metaphor in which to see atonement. And that this reconciliation impacts us via God to man, man to man, and cosmically. I believe this is the fullest way to see the atonement. Rather than pick a model like substitution and say that is the sum total of the atonement, see the atonement as a three strand rope which fixes what is wrong: our relationship with God, man, and our wanting a King who isnt the King.
Really good observation here. When going over the age old expiation/propionation issue Dunning states that we have to keep in mind the nature of a covenant which differs from that of a contract. A contract is "thing-oriented" whereas a covenant is "person-oriented," and "must be interpreted not legalistically but personally," p 358.
I also greatly appreciate how he incorporates sanctification into the work of Christ by stating that Christ didnt just save us from sin but He refuses to leave us there (my paraphrase).
Dunning provides a scathing critique of penal substitution during which he calls on Aulen again via Christus Victor when leveling charges against the "Latin view," and also Wiley with some five specific issues. The logical conclusion here is that of one sticks to PS then universalism or limited atonement has to be the conclusion. This was well done so as not to vilify Calvin but to argue the theory based on it's own value.
Interesting: Dunning is going to develope a Wesleyan atonement rather than back a "preexisting" one. But I like his approach. Ever since reading Heim's "Saved from Sacrifice" I saw/had pointed out how the three fold office of Christ can be seen as directly impacting his soteriological work. It is this framework--prophet, priest and King--which Dunning says Wesley worked from without formalizing it and which Dunning wants to develope. Again, this should, in its completion, rectify the broken God to man relationship, the broken man to man relationship, and the broken man to King relationship (though I believe Dunning's explanation of the three fold offices relation to salvation leaves off some of what I wrote above).
He begins with a huge stress on identification and representation. This is similar to how when one lays hands on the sin offering they identify with it (rather than transference of guilt) and as the sacrifice dies the one offering the sacrifice spiritually dies.
Dunning is following a stream of thought similar to what I was thinking. When speaking about Christs Kingly role he immediately appeals to Aulen's Christus Victor as the triumphant motif where Christ is victorious over Satan, sin and death. As we find our representation in Him as victorious we, in Christ, are likewise victorious.
Check out this line: "[Christus Victor] is not objective in the sense of a transactional between Christ and God, which is completely unacceptable in New Testament thought, but objective in the sense that something transpires externally, not dependent upon human response although only actualized upon such a response," p 388.
He ends the Christological/atonement section on the dark side of the atonement, or, what about people who do not respond to the grace of God? Dunning basically says that these are separated from the saved and often uses scripturally revelant words like destruction without getting on a speculation spree. I appreciate that.
Pneumatology:
"This [OT temporary anointing of the Holy] Spirit possession was often, if not universally, precipitated by music and dancing," p 401.
Under the well written Pneumatological section on entire sanctification Dunning writes "Indolent, lackadaisical, smug, self-satisfied believers can only stagnate into static patterns of living," p 473.
The sanctification section ended with a brief but necessary section on ethics. This was well done.
In Ecclesiology Dunning says that the holiness--for lack of a better word--insistence of the Anabaptists found it's way into Wesley's thought and Ecclesiological structure along with Luther's "where the word is preached and the sacraments are rightly administered." Chalk one up to Menno and the boys. Also Dunning is specifying Ecclesiology along the objective/subjective lines which I find helpful.
I talking of the sacraments Dunning begins by using the word "sign." Just when I wished he would use "symbol" as per Tillich he said that would be the better direction to go. After learning about "symbol" in this manner one can never again see the sacraments as a mere "sign." The Tillichian language is just too powerful.
I like that he says that the Lords supper is a converting and confirming ordinance. I wish more were open to this as an evangelistic opportunity.
The book proper finished well. Dunning considers a fleshed out eschatology to be speculative in nature so he left it and hermeneutics for the appendices.
I really appreciate how he states that when one speaks to prophecy being fulfilled we should think of it as "filling full" rather than in a way that gives the prophet a mental picture of the future event; new wineskins awaiting wine to be poured into them. And, yes, I agree, many of the NT prophecies do not represent the mental image of "this is that." And the ones that do (Gn 3, Ps 22, Is 53) have a "this is that" because of apostolic authority and after the fact matching of scripture to events.
This was really a great book. Dunning is a very good writer who gets what are sometimes complex concepts across quite well. My only wish is that he had dove into the Remonstrance a bit more. Arminianism and its variants had five mentions and Grotius a single mention (and rightly so since it was in atonement).
January 12, 2023
As systematic theories go it was good. I read it because I had never read a systematic theology and many of my friends and classmates had to read this. However, it is definitely dated especially in terms of the gendered language. The Nazarene church is in need of a new systematic theology or at least a new edition and updated edition.
I would recommend this for professors and students to use since I am not aware of anything better or “official” from the Nazarene church. There may be better systematic theologies however from an Arminian perspective, something like Oden’s work. But I haven’t read that so can’t speak to it.
I would recommend this for professors and students to use since I am not aware of anything better or “official” from the Nazarene church. There may be better systematic theologies however from an Arminian perspective, something like Oden’s work. But I haven’t read that so can’t speak to it.
April 2, 2020
I read this book for my Systematic Theology I & II courses under Dr. Jacob Lett. This systematic theology book was a great resource written to be the systematic theology of the Church of the Nazarene. Dunning, while at a few points a bit dry (isn't any work like this sometimes, however?), gives a thorough treatment of the various issues from a strongly Wesleyan viewpoint. He gives intermittent comments on what he sees as the shortcomings of Reformed thinking throughout. Overall, his treatment seemed responsible and is helpful in constructing a sound Wesleyan theological perspective.
June 9, 2015
This book makes you really think and you need to fully absorb it. it makes you aware of the fullness that you can have with the trinity, God's redeeming power of the atonement of Christ into the complete holiness and entire sanctification we can have in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews