The Dangers of Theological Systems

We love our systematic theology and our interpretational guidelines.

• Dispensational.
• Covenant.
• Calvinist (or non-Calvinist).
• Deeper life.
• Baptist Identity
• Gospel-centered or Christ-centered.

There is a lot to be gained from theological systems. They help us unify and organize our thoughts and see consistent themes in the study of Scripture. They help us link Genesis to Leviticus to Matthew to Romans to Revelation. It is great to have an organizing hermeneutical principle when we are studying scripture.

But these controlling hermeneutical principles have some inherent dangers. I would mention some of them here.

1) The Bible is NOT a systematic theology.

If God wanted us to approach theology with radically organized theological systems, then he ought to have given us a Bible that is more systematic. It just isn’t.

Wouldn’t it have been a lot easier if Paul had given us a detailed order of end-times events? I am convinced, after many hours of study, of the eschatological system I profess. But I am amused when anyone speaks of eschatology and says, “The Bible clearly says.” Sorting out the end times is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle when all the pieces do not seem to fit together. You do the best you can under the power of the Spirit to put all the pieces together and you humbly accept that others may put them together a little differently.    Continue at Dave Miller

The Counterintuitive Calvin

So what did I do last summer vacation? I continued to do something that I started January 1 of this year. Late last fall I came upon a plan for reading through all of John Calvin's Institutes---his four-volume, 1,500-or-so-page systematic exposition of the teachings of the Christian faith---in one year. Calvin and Martin Luther together were the two leading lights of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. Today, however, Calvin has a dismal reputation as a pinched, narrow-minded, cold, and cerebral dogmatician.

I knew much of this image was caricature, and, while over the years I had read a good deal of the Institutes, I treated the books like an encyclopedia or dictionary that one dipped into to learn about specific topics. I had never read it straight through, consecutively, until this year when I began the program, which allots an average of six pages a night, five nights a week, for an entire year. Almost immediately I was amazed by several things.

True Work of Literature 

First, it is not just a textbook, but also a true work of literature. It was written in Latin and French and is a landmark in the history of the French language. Calvin was a lawyer and seems at time to relish debate too much (a flaw he confesses in his letters). But despite such passages, even in English translation it is obvious that this is no mere textbook, but a masterpiece of literary art, sometimes astonishing in its power and eloquence.

Second, it is nothing if not biblical. Even if you don't agree with what Calvin is saying, you will always have to deal with one or two dozen texts of Scripture, carefully interpreted and organized as he presents his case to you. To describe these volumes as "theology" or "doctrine" is almost misleading---it is mainly a Bible Digest, a distilled readers' guide to the main teachings of the Scripture and how they fit together.   Continue at Tim Keller

The Biblical and Systematic Theology of Jonathan Edwards

Every week Jeff Waddington, Dave Filson and I come together to record an episode of “East of Eden,” in which we discuss the biblical and systematic theology of Jonathan Edwards. We come together to give consideration of one of Edwards’ sermons or discourses–specifically as it relates to the history, structure and theology of that particular work. We also invite to the program various theologians and scholars who have contributed to Edwards’ studies. You can find the first ten episodes below:

• God’s Grand Design - In this episode of East of Eden, Dr. Sean Michael Lucas discusses his helpful new volume on the theological vision of Jonathan Edwards. In God’s Grand Design: The Theological Vision … Read more→

• The Pure in Heart Blessed - In 1730 Jonathan Edward preached a sermon on Matthew 5:8 in which he gave consideration to the redemptive blessing which God bestows upon the pure in heart, namely, an all … Read more→

• The Character of Paul an Example to Christians - In February 1740, at the heat of the first Great Awakening, Jonathan Edwards preached The Character of Paul an Example to Christians. In this sermon on Philippians 3:11 Edwards unpacked Paul’s … Read more→     Continue at Nicholas T. Batzig

Well Done Phil Johnson!

This is a repost but something we should all be reminded of:

 

I loved reading Phil Johnson’s response to a comment at his Pyromaniacs blog site who wrote…

Your identity as a “Baptist”; your endless quotations from Charles Spurgeon; your faithful devotion to John MacArthur; and especially your willingness to call yourself a “Calvinist” are all huge red flags that tell me something is seriously wrong with your theology. Why do you teach a system of doctrine that is named after a mere man? Why are you following human teachers instead of going to the Bible alone? After all, 1 John 2:27 says, “The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you.” We ought to go to Scripture alone to establish our doctrine! The truth is in God’s Holy word, not in any theological system or theology textbook developed by mere men. Isn’t that principle what the Reformation was originally about? Sola Scriptura? Didn’t even Calvin himself go to Scripture for the truth instead of reading other men? I believe that if Calvin himself wrote for this blog, he would point people to the truth in God’s Holy word, not to a theology developed by some other man.

Phil’s reply: You have seriously misunderstood sola Scriptura if you really imagine that it rules out human teachers or eliminates systematic theology. The Reformers (including Calvin) often cited the works of Augustine, Tertullian, Jerome, Cyprian, Ambrose, and others-ranging from the early church fathers through Aquinas. They didn’t follow any of them slavishly, of course, but they certainly took them seriously. Not one of the major Reformers would have tolerated the claim that because the Church Fathers were mere men they were therefore irrelevant or incapable of shedding any helpful light on tough theological questions.   Continue at John Samson

Do You Know Charles Finney?

Perhaps you’ve heard Charles Finney’s name in your local church as “a great revivalist”; perhaps as a pastor you have quoted him as “a great man of God” whose example is to be followed by your church; perhaps as a parent you have named your son after this “great evangelist of God”; Whichever be the case, it is of utmost importance for you to know what Finney really believed or rather what he did not believe.

Here is a list of doctrines which Finney denied vehemently.  Unless otherwise specified, all quotes are from Charles G. Finney, Finney’s Systematic Theology (Bethany, 1976)

1. Original Sin : The doctrine of the Fall which teaches that after Adam and Eve sinned against God, their natures were so corrupted that they were unable to save themselves and became needful of salvation by grace alone.

However Finney says in his systematic theology that this doctrine is “anti-scriptural and nonsensical dogma” (p. 179). Finney was thus theologically, a Pelegian (a follower of Pelagius, the 5th-century heretic, who was condemned by more church councils than any other person in church history, for denying this doctrine), denying even the necessity of grace in salvation.

2. Substitutionary Atonement : The doctrine which teaches that Jesus Christ, our Lord died on the cross for our sins as a substitute. This vicarious suffering of the Saviour paves way for God to appease the wrath He has against man and save him.

However Finney rejected this view entirely and espoused a view which is called “Moral Example Theory”, which says “The atonement would present to creatures the highest possible motives to virtue. Example is the highest moral influence that can be exerted…If the benevolence manifested in the atonement does not subdue the selfishness of sinners, their case is hopeless”. (p. 209). 

For Finney, if Adam leads us into sin, not by our inheriting his guilt and corruption, but by following his poor example, this leads logically to the view of Christ, the Second Adam, as saving by example[1]. Thus according to Finney, we are not helpless sinners who need to be redeemed, but wayward sinners who need a demonstration of selflessness so moving that we will be excited to leave off selfishness[1].

3. Regeneration : The teaching of the Bible that new birth in Christ is a supernatural work wrought by the Holy Spirit, in the heart of the sinner, through the preaching of the gospel.   Continue at Jay Dharan

IMAGE

Your Theological System Should Tell You How to Exegete

Systematic theology looks at the whole Bible and tries to understand all that God says on a given subject (e.g., sin, heaven, angels, justification).

Exegesis is what you do when you look at a single text of Scripture and try to understand what the author–speaking in a specific culture, addressing to a specific audience, writing for a specific purpose–intended to communicate.

Good systematic theology will be anchored in good exegesis. The sum of the whole is only as true as the individual parts. No Christian should be interested in constructing a big theological system that grows out of a shallow and misinformed understanding of the smaller individual passages. I don’t know of any evangelical pastor or scholar who disagrees with these sentiments.

But what about the reverse? We all know exegesis should inform systematic theology, but should our theological systems also inform our exegesis? Some Christians, especially biblical scholars, have argued that the best exegesis is completely theologically unprejudiced. We can’t bring our theological concerns to the Bible, lest we gerrymander the Scriptures and impose anachronistic categories on the text. The unspoken (or spoken) assumption is that the traffic between exegesis and theology is one way. Biblical scholars do their work, and as long as theologians pay attention to professional exegesis they can go on and do their own work. But the task of exegesis, it is often implied and sometimes explicitly said, has little to gain from listening to the theologians.  Continue at Kevin DeYoung

Five Evangelical Myths or Half Truths

It can happen even in careful systematic theology. How much more so in popular parlance? We take what the Bible actually teaches, rephrase it so we can understand it, and end up believing our own phrasing, rather than the actual biblical truth. It’s not malicious, but it is dangerous. What follows are five common thoughts, common expressions, within the evangelical church that just aren’t so.

1. “All sins are equal in the sight of God.”

Well, no. It is true enough that every sin is worthy of God’s eternal wrath. It is true enough that if we have broken part of the law we have broken the law (James actually says this.) It is true enough that unjust anger is a violation of the commandment against murder (Jesus actually says this.) None of this, however, means all sins are equal in the sight of God. To say that because all sins deserve eternal wrath means they are all equal is like saying that all numbers over 100 are equal. The truth is that Jesus said of the Pharisees that while they rightly tithed their mint and their cumin, they neglected the weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23). No sin is weightless, but some weigh more than others. Continue at R. C. Sproul Jr.

Who Was B.B. Warfield? An Interview with Fred G. Zaspel

Fred Zaspel is the author of The Theology of B. B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary (Crossway, 2010). Recently, I had a chance to ask Fred a variety of questions: such as the process that led to the writing of a book on Warfield, the impact of Warfield’s theology on his day, and its continuing impact. And, how Warfield might address some of the theological issues the church faces in the 21st century.

Who was B.B. Warfield, and why is he important?

B.B. Warfield (1851-1921) was professor of theology at old Princeton Seminary (1887-1921). He was internationally recognized as the most broadly equipped and most deeply informed theologian of his day. His career took place in an era of enormous theological change in professing Christendom and in his own Presbyterian church. Essential teachings of the Christian faith held by the church since its beginning were being denied, and he above all others stood against the “liberal” tide at virtually every point of its attempted advance. He more than anyone in the history of the church gave exhaustive definition and defense of the inspiration of Scriptures, and in the century since relatively little of substance has been added to his hundreds of published pages on this basic tenet of the faith. He also provided massive exegetical defense of the person and work of Christ against the various “kenotic” theologians of the day whose de-supernaturalized views of Christ relegated him to mere “godling” status (to borrow Warfield’s description!). Broadly equipped in the original languages and all the tools of the modern criticism and widely read in all the disciplines related to biblical and theological study, both the breadth and the depth of his grasp were unsurpassed. With good reason he has been called the spoiler of liberalism and the man who propelled orthodoxy into the twentieth century. Keep Reading >>>

Calvinism, Systematic Theology and Scripture

At some level, every Calvinist who is not hyper embraces a paradox (you can call it tension, antinomy, aporia, really deep mystery, or whatever you like, but I prefer "paradox"). This is properly true of every Christian, but it is especially true of Biblical Calvinists. Our theology generates paradox, whether it's the apparent duality of divine wills, multiple senses of God's love and hatred for fallen humanity, or the compatibility of deterministic divine sovereignty and real human choice/freedom/responsibility. Calvinism without the essential balance of Biblically-derived paradox is in danger of going the way of Herman Hoeksema and the PRC. Characteristically, hyper-Calvinists eschew paradoxes in every possible way. Arminians, for their part, also seem reluctant to embrace paradoxes. Some take great delight in calling Calvinistic paradoxes "contradictions," ignoring the fact that these are unavoidable if we take divine revelation and historic/orthodox Christianity at face value.
 
THEOparadox is essentially a call for Calvinists (and others) to do two things:
 
1. Go whole hog and embrace every Biblically justified paradox, refusing to exegetically "adjust" any verse or passage of Scripture that might create a seeming contradiction in Systematic Theology.

 2. Be rigorous in trying to understand, explain and evaluate possible resolutions to these paradoxes, but accept the fact that we can ultimately have no greater certainty than the very words of Scripture afford us.    Keep Reading...

The Problem with and the Future of Theological Education and Scholarship

Insightful analysis and a possible solution offered here by John Frame:

I cannot help but mention my conviction that this problem is partly the result of our present system for training theologians. To qualify for college or seminary positions, a theologian must earn a PhD, ideally from a prestigious liberal university. But at such schools, there is no training in the kind of systematic theology I describe here. Liberal university theologians do not view Scripture as God’s Word, and so they cannot encourage theology as I have defined it, as the application of God’s infallible word. Students are welcome to study historical and contemporary theology, and to relate these to auxiliary disciplines such as philosophy and literary criticism. But they are not taught to seek ways of applying Scripture for the edification of God’s people. Rather, professors encourage the student to be “up-to-date” with current academic discussion and to make “original contributions” to the discussion, out of his autonomous reasoning. So when the theologian finishes his graduate work and moves to a teaching position, even if he is personally evangelical in his convictions, he often writes and teaches as he was encouraged to do in graduate school: academic comparisons and contrasts, minimal interaction with Scripture.

In my judgment, this is entirely inadequate for the needs of the church. It is one source of the doctrinal declension of evangelical churches, colleges, and seminaries in our day. Evangelical denominations and schools need to seek new methods of training people to teach theology, educational models that will force theologian candidates to mine Scripture for edifying content. To do this, they may need to cut themselves off, in some degree, from the present-day academic establishment. And to do that, they may have to cut themselves off from the present-day accreditation system.

—John Frame, The Doctrine of the Word of God, p. 278 n. 6.