The Legitimacy of Systematic Theology

The following post is taken from a lively discussion that we had recently on an online forum within Campus for Christ that I think might be helpful for a wider audience who might be struggling through the same set of issues.  To give some context, the discussion began with a question about Bill Bright's doctrine of the Holy Spirit and moved into a discussion about the legitimacy of Systematic Theology. 

K.:

On a more oblique note: I am increasingly of the view that classifying theological theories and putting names to them actually diverts Christians from evaluating positions in light of the primary documents (i.e., the Bible). For example consider the following:

Does C4C Spirit filled life = Keswick Theology? If 'Yes', then does Keswick Theology = biblical Theology? (If 'Yes' then the phrase 'Keswick Theology' is redundant and should be replaced with 'biblical theology'. If 'no' then where does Keswick Theology err relative to bibical theology and where does C4C teaching fit?) But if C4C Spirit filled life ≠ Keswick Theology, then is C4C spirit filled life = biblical theology?
The above would be clearer if designed as a flow chart, but I think you can see that the phrase 'Keswick theology' is at the very least an uncessessary intermediate step or it is redundant. It can therefore be factored out of the discussion and the important question becomes 'Does C4C spirit filled life = biblical theology?' or perhaps more helpful, 'Are all aspects of C4C spirit filled life teachings consistent with the Bible?'
I give the above only as an example. More generally speaking, I might say:

1. It is seldom the case that any theological position is either completely wrong about everything, or completely right about everything.

2. I have yet to encounter a theological position with a name (e.g. calvinism, arminianism, dispensationalism, preterism) that does not tend to put more weight on certain scriptures and gloss over other scriptures (or employ a different 'creative' hermeneutic) that are inconsistent with the particular position being promoted .... a symptom that the position is likely to be partly right and partly wrong, a malady that I suspect of all human constructed systematic theologies.

Now permit me to state something (my own view, for whatever it is worth) that might be particularly controversial: The more well-defined, rigorous and systematic the theological position, the more it begins to resemble a paint-by-number theology. To clarify, a paint-by-number piece of work has the boundary of each color precisely defined. The end result is that it looks like a fake painting. A real painting usually has a much more complex distribution and blending of colors.

The ongoing concern I have arises out of the observation that many young men in their 20's are reading books espousing some particular type of systematic theology before they have several decades worth of knowledge of the Bible to adequately evaluate what they are reading in their books, and then they will spend the rest of their lives trying to make the Bible fit into the particular theology they have committed to. I walked that road for several years in my 20's until I grew tired of glossing over particular passages, or creatively interpreting other passages. I decided to toss the systematic theology books and take everything I believe and put it on the table everytime I study the Bible. What is emerging is a much more complex theology that is gradually becoming more consistent with a greater percentage of scripture. It is a theology that will never have all the t's crossed and the i's dotted in this lifetime, but at the same time I think it is a theology that is quite the opposite of post modern vagueness and confusion. Rather, it is a theology that provides greater clarity than any human-designed systematic theology I have encountered but one that has layer upon layer of inter-related complexity that has left me with the feeling that I am an utter moron but at the same time God knows that, it is all He expects of me, it is good for me to admit it, and He is pleased that I am plodding through His Word doing the best I can with this organic blob of tissue in my skull we call a brain. I also think I can answer a lot more questions than the average Christian, but am at the same time woefully aware that my answers fall short. To clarify, when someone asks me a theological question I experience a mental explosion involving a multi-dimensional latticework of related biblical truths that all bear on the question, but that would take weeks or months to work through by way of background information to form the context for a good answer to the question and I would have long since gotten lost in the maze of my own explanation. Since I want to answer the question in one or two minutes, I am forced to ignore most of the multi-dimensional latticework of truth all of which colors the true answer to the question, and give a one-dimensional answer that seems so pathetic relative to what is actually incuded in the answer. I now suspect that to fully answer a simple theological question, it would take a lifetime of lectures, each of which would last 8 hours, seven days a week, because to completely answer one theological question ultimately requires the answering of all other theological questions, because all theological truth is an inter-related latticework of individual truths each of which colors the rest. I say all this to argue that I am not a moron relative to the average human being. Rather, I am a moron relative to God, and I suspect even the classification of 'moron' is outrageously charitable.

So, when all is said and done, I think it is much more helpful to factor out intermediate redundancies and diversions and ask, 'Is the way we explain the Spirit filled life consistent with Scripture? I suspect that it will be a life-long processes where the way we explain the Spirit-filled life may undergoe subtle changes and nuances as our own knowledge and experience grows over the decades. In other words, I think we are right on the major points or skeletal structure, but an increasingly accurate fleshing out should be expected as each of us accumulates decades worth of biblical knowledge and experience.

This does NOT mean that we should not discuss such things. On the contrary, I believe that proper, bibically centered discussion of any theological idea actually accelerates the acquisition of truth and the elimination of shakey nuances. God wants us to discuss these things but with a proper (humble and questing) attitude. So ..... discuss away!

Disclaimer: What I've written above is merely my own opinion at this point in my life and highly unlikely to be correct in every aspect or wrong in its entirety.

John Bellingham:


Thanks K. for posting this perspective.   I understand this concern about systematic theology, but I'm not sure I'm in full agreement - although I also one of those young men in their 20s. (But then again so was Timothy - 1 Tim 4:12).  I'm not certain that 30, 40, 50 or 60 years of Bible study by any single person trumps hundreds of years of church history and interpretation.  I'm very wary of what could be called "nuda Scriptura" instead of "sola Scriptura".  Advocates of "nuda Scritpura" claim that all we need is me, my Bible and the Holy Spirit.  It is the view that Scripture is the only authority for the believer.  Nuda Scriptura is deeply rooted in the modern framework of individualism - "God said it, I believe it, that settles it".  Nuda Scriptura has unfortunately resulted in numerous Christian cults and "isms" such as Charles Taze Russell and the Jehovah's Witnesses, who have constructed their own autonomous "bibilcal" theology while effectively ignoring the historic testimony of the universal church.  Sola Scriptura on the other hand teaches that Scripture is the "final" or "ultimate" authority and that we ought to take very seriously the history of interpretation which, for us today living on the other side of the Enlightenment, includes various systems of theology.  Sola Scriptura, rather than nuda Scriptura was the view of Calvin, Luther and the Reformers and is part of our heritage as Orthodox Protestants.  To simply "toss" systematic theology (which is really part of the history of interpretation) is to disregard and trample upon the testimony of the universal church.  No group of people that I can think of were more diligent students of Scripture than the Puritans - and perhaps no group of people were more committed to teaching systematic theology to their people!

If we believe in a God who does not lie and who is unable to contradict Himself, it makes total sense to seek a consistent system of theology that seeks to sort out the Biblical data.  One foundational tenent of Conservative Bible interpretation is the analogy of faith, viz. Scripture interprets Scripture and verbally inspired Scripture does not and cannot contradict itself!  Personally, I grow tired of hearing preachers untrained in systematic theology or unsympathetic to systematic theology who do not have any consistent hermeneutic for interpreting the Scripture and simply make up their own hermeneutic.  I don't think this kind of approach brings clarity at all- in fact I would argue that it adds to confusion.  There is nothing more confusing than a preacher or teacher who affirms two different contradictory statements and then simply writes it off as an ineffible mystery or an "antimony", when in fact it is no mystery, paradox or antimony at all!
Although we certainly should never expect to fully comprehend God with our reason which is tainted by sin, we are commanded to worship Him with our minds.  Systematic theology, understood this way can be viewed as an act of worship, however imperfect it might be.  I grew up in a big "F" Fundamentalist church which trained me in Classic Dispensationalism.  Although I no longer agree with this hermeneutic, I deeply respect J.N. Darby, C.I. Schofield and others who at least attempted to construct a consistent Biblical theology.  Although I don't agree with the Arminian interpretation of Scripture, I deeply respect John Wesley for interpreting Scripture in a consistent way.  Although I don't agree with full-blown Covenant Theology and its implications for infant baptism, I appreciate the attempt on the part of Reformed Christians to be theologically consistent!  The neglect of systematic theology and the corresponding neglect of consistency over the past 150 yrs, has left many mainstream Evangelicals with an inconsistent piece-meal theology that affirms 'eternal security' while denying 'final perseverence' and the need for sanctification as a corollory to faith.  This is one reason why I'm thankful for the resurgence of interest in both Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology in this generation.  There are certain questions which pure Biblical theology is unable to answer (ie. Is it permissible to pray to the Holy Spirit?).  If we embrace Biblical Theology alone, we ought to stop addressing your prayers to the Holy Spirit.  Systematic Theology, however, helps us to see that the God of Scripture is Triune and gives us a legitimate theological reason for addressing our prayers to any person of the Trinity .  For some thought provoking articles on the intersection between Biblical and Systematic Theology (and the necessity of both) I would recommend the New Dictionary of Biblical Theology published by IVP.

Finally, I think its impossible to fully escape presuppositions and hermeneutics and be totally "objective" in our approach to the interpretation of Scripture.  As Evangelicals we approach Scripture presupposing the consistency of the canon, presupposing verbal plenary inspiration and (hopefully!) inerrancy and presupposing the correspondence theory of truth.  We also presuppose (contra the medieval church) that the Scripture should not normally be interpreted allegorically.  To suppose that we can totally escape hermeneutical rules and systems of theology in order to construct a pure "Biblical Theology" seems a bit unrealistic.  If we're going to understand and teach the Bible, we cannot sit on the fence and suspend our judgment for 30 years - we must make certain decisions about the way we interpret Scripture.  We must decide what we believe about typology in the OT.  We must decide what we believe about the relationship between divine sovereignty and free will.  We must decide what we believe about the relationship between Israel and the Church and the relationship between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.  Of course, we always allow Scripture to challenge and correct our view - this is why I abandoned Classic Dispensationalism and embraced a different (but still consistent) hermeneutic.

So there's my defense of systematic theology - here I stand, I can do no other :)


K.:

The unfolding of this discussion is a demonstration of how a single question touches on an exponentially increasing number of related and relevant theological areas. So much could be said, so little time to say it.

1. I would not say that what happens as ‘each of us accumulates decades worth of biblical knowledge and experience’ is that we are ‘developing a personal systematic theology’. I would say that systematic theology is simplistic in the same way that a systematic intellectual knowledge of my wife would be simplistic. When I first met the young woman who would one day become my wife, and knew very little about her, I may have been able to describe her in a systematic, intellectual way. But as my experience of her grew over the decades, systematic knowledge became simplistic, even demeaning. It was replaced by ‘knowing’.

2.  With regard to the ‘nuda Scriptura’ problem raised by John. In the second last paragraph of my opening post, I mentioned the important role of discussion. There are two advantages: the acceleration of the acquisition of truth as we pool our insights and knowledge and a form of accountability which can eliminate shaky understandings. This is where the thinking and writing of others can be helpful, with the proviso that follows in the next point.

3. The Bible study of each individual must trump centuries of interpretation if it is wrong. I see no reason why I should give any more a priori credence to the teachings of Calvin, Luther or Spurgeon than any other believer. As we survey the landscape of church history and doctrines, it is patently obvious that there is a vast spectrum of interpretation on virtually every subject touched upon in the Scriptures. Like it or not, each individual is therefore forced to judge centuries of interpretation. It is noteworthy that when the believers of Berea listened to the teachings of the Apostle Paul, they were considered by the Holy Spirit (I take Scripture to be the revelation of the Holy Spirit through the writers) to be more noble minded than believers elsewhere, because they searched the scriptures to see if what Paul said was right. So what I am suggesting here is that each believer must act on the basis of his or her understanding of scripture, even if his or her understanding of scripture is incomplete. For me, centuries of interpretation counts for nothing until I have evaluated it in light of Scripture and found it to be at least consistent with it.

4. To make another controversial statement, I would argue that not only have I found systematic theologies to be simplistic, I have found them to be detrimental to spiritual growth if one commits to them. There is a fine line between theology as teaching (which ought to take place in the church) and a commitment to systematic theology. One crosses the line when one commits to a particular systematic theology. At that point, I believe it becomes harmful in the long term. I find devotion to human-constructed systematic theologies to be detrimental and stultifying to ones spiritual growth, for the following reasons:

• There is a persuasive aspect to books on systematic theology that has the effect of leading a person to commitment to that particular system rather than the Scripture. At that point, one begins to interpret scripture through the glasses of that particular systematic theology, even to the point of making the Bible ‘fit’ the systematic theology they have committed to.
• Once one has committed to a systematic theology to the extent that one begins to wrongly interpret certain verses and passages in the Word of Truth so that one can make them fit ones theology (i.e., get a consistent theology), one then starts down the road of spiritual blindness. To clarify, one can no longer ‘see’ certain things in the Bible that they would otherwise have seen and accepted if they had not committed to their particular systematic theology.

5. The lack of spiritual depth of the church today is of great concern to me. One of the major problems I have seen and mentioned many times is that Christians today so often try to find a shortcut to spiritual knowledge by buying a book at the Christian bookstore. Time and time again, they lack the biblical knowledge to adequately judge what they are reading. This goes also for books espousing some man-made systematic theology to shape their own beliefs when they did not have the biblical knowledge to properly judge those teachings for themselves.

6. It is painfully obvious to me that there is so much in the Scriptures, one could study it for a lifetime and barely scratch the surface. Consequently, I now know that my knowledge of Spiritual things is shockingly miniscule in comparison to what the Bible contains. With this in mind, I am dismayed at the amount of time Christians spend reading and studying Christian books at the expense of reading and studying the Bible. You will get far, far more out of the Scriptures than you could ever hope to get in a lifetime of reading various books on systematic theology. I have now come to the opinion that a commitment to a man-made systematic theology fosters the illusion of spiritual knowledge and impairs ones own knowledge of God. We should teach the Bible, and not try to classify it in terms of dispensationalism, calvinism, reform theology, arminianism, etc.
7. With regard to the Holy Spirit booklet, I think we can all agree that confession of sin is good, that daily surrender to Christ is good, and that there is no harm in asking God to fill us with His Spirit in an ongoing way, whatever you take that to mean. I think we could also agree that the Lordship of Christ is a good thing. At the same time I think we could agree that Lordship is a concept that may not be understood in its full entirety at conversion in the same way it is understood after 50 years of walking with the Lord and being sifted like wheat. Some of the comments I’ve read lead me to believe that some of us may be reading into the SFL booklet a lot more than what it says. If there is sufficient confusion on the role of the Holy Spirit, the difference between living by the Spirit and walking by the Spirit, and what being filled with the Holy Spirit means, then it might be good to start a new thread that ditches any mention of Keswick Theology and starts unpacking what the Bible says about all this. We should not have to quote some famous theologian to shore up our point either. If we cannot make our case from the Scriptures, but need to quote somebody or refer to some famous systematic theology, then we cannot biblically defend our point. I do not feel the least bit of concern if some theological proposition X is inconsistent with some systematic theology Y, but I care a whole lot if theological proposition X is inconsistent with the Bible. I say all this with large piles of love, respect and a massive group hug.

John Bellingham:


"To make another controversial statement, I would argue that not only have I found systematic theologies to be simplistic, I have found them to be detrimental to spiritual growth if one commits to them. There is a fine line between theology as teaching (which ought to take place in the church) and a commitment to systematic theology. One crosses the line when one commits to a particular systematic theology. At that point, I believe it becomes harmful in the long term"


However much I appreciate the group hug, everyone following this thread still needs to at least understand and appreciate that this is a very extreme position to take.  If you are right here K. (and also Erwin McManus in his comments from staff conference) about the dangers of Systematic Theology as a discipline, then someone really needs to contact the administrators of  practically every Evangelical insitution in the world and let them know that they should pack their bags and reconsider their calling because they are actually hindering, rather than fostering, spiritual formation by encouraging students to think in terms of systems and established theological positions.  Although it is conceivable that K.'s statement in point 4. is correct, I find it extremely doutbtful since it contradicts the convictions of an overwhelming majority of Spirit-indwelt believers who also have the 'mind of Christ' according to Scripture.  Whenever we challenge the overwhelming consensus of Spirit-Filled believers and make a statement which implies that Evangelical Systematic Theologians of all varieties all around the world are deceived and are hindering the spiritual growth of all Christians by producing pastors and teachers who are blind to Scripture and enslaved to certain systems, we ought to do so with extreme caution and extreme humility, understanding that such a position might in fact be intrinsically uncharitable to thousands of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

"The Bible study of each individual must trump centuries of interpretation if it is wrong. I see no reason why I should give any more a priori credence to the teachings of Calvin, Luther or Spurgeon than any other believer. As we survey the landscape of church history and doctrines, it is patently obvious that there is a vast spectrum of interpretation on virtually every subject touched upon in the Scriptures. Like it or not, each individual is therefore forced to judge centuries of interpretation. It is noteworthy that when the believers of Berea listened to the teachings of the Apostle Paul, they were considered by the Holy Spirit (I take Scripture to be the revelation of the Holy Spirit through the writers) to be more noble minded than believers elsewhere, because they searched the scriptures to see if what Paul said was right."

To be clear, I'm not arguing for any a priori acceptance of any single theologian.  I am simply arguing for the validity of Systematic theology in general.  I personally do not follow the nuances of any single individual or theologian to the "t" nor do I place Martin Luther or John Calvin on par with Scripture (which should be obvious to anyone by virtue of the fact that I'm a credo-Baptist), however much I respect and appreciate both of these men for their significant contribution to my understanding and appreciation of inspired Scripture.  I don't think any Protestant of any theological stripe wants another 'pope' to infallibly interpret Scripture for us. What believers need to understand, however, is that God gifts certain individuals with a capacity to teach and expound Scripture more powerfully, clearly and accurately than others - in other words not all beleivers have an equal capacity to understand and interpret all parts of Scripture, although all literate people certainly have the capacity to understand what is necessary for salvation and basic spiritual growth (called the doctrine of Perspecuity).  This is one reason why God has gifted and equipped certain individuals as pastors and teachers, given them as gifts to the church (Eph 4:11) and commanded us to give them a certain degree of healthy respect (Heb 13:17). The fact is that many noble minded people have searched the Scriptures diligently and found them to be substantially in line with a certain system of theology, whether that be Calvinism, Arminianism, Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology etc.  I would suspect that every honest Evangelical Christian approaches James 2:24 with certain a priori presuppositions regarding the doctrine of justification so that we interpret this "difficult" passage in a certain way.  A Roman Catholic might complain that we're "glossing" over a "difficult" passage that doesn't fit into our system, but in actually fact we're allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture according to the Analogy of Faith.  I don't see how an attempt to construct a consistent system of theology for the entire canon is any less legitimate than our efforts to explain James in the light of Pauline theology.

"Like it or not, each individual is therefore forced to judge centuries of interpretation."

  I agree with this statement in general, but would add that every English translation of the Bible that we have is a theological interpretation of the original text which necessarily contains certain theological presuppositions and biases depending on the theology of the translator or translation committee.  There is therefore a certain degree of circularity in K.'s argument.  If we are going to make dogmatic statements about dogmatics, and stand in judgment of centuries of interpretation and the testimony of extremely competent and gifted theologians and exegetes who have helped shape the entire Evangelical Protestant tradition, we would first need to invest the necessary time to learn Greek and Hebrew like Calvin and Luther did (and for that matter Erasmus or Arminius) in order to overcome the initial theological bias in our English translations.   But  even if we do learn Greek and Hebrew, the lexicons that scholars use to translate the original text were still written by men who had certain theological presuppositions.  And so it is impossible for any of us to fully escape theological bias when we open our Bibles or to be completely "objective" students of Scripture.   Furthermore, I'd like to know what verse in the Bible tells us exactly what books we should accept as inspired and inerrent?  In other words- how do we determine the precise limits of the canon of Scripture?  The answer to this question is twofold: 1) We must take very seriously the testimony and overwhelming consensus of Spirit-Filled beleivers in the early church who accepted the judgment of Athanasius in the 4th c.  2) We recognize that inspired Scripture has a certain self-authenticating quality when the Holy Spirit convinces us that it is indeed the Word of God.  My point is simply this - we are all more dependent on tradition and the theological interpretations and presuppositions of others who have come before us than we are willing to admit.  When we take it upon ourselves to judge centuries of interpretation, we need to do so with great humility, recognizing that our English Bibles are not theologically neutral and that we are deeply indebted to the testimony of the universal church throughout history and the providence of God working through imperfect individuals and institutions in order to deliniate and preserve the 'canon' which we now use as an authoritative 'measuring stick' by which to judge interpretation and tradition.

I recognize that we are now far afield of a discussion on Keswick theology, but I don't think that we should simply gloss over this discussion.  To trivialize the entire discipline of Systematic Theology as I believe K. has done in this post and as Erwin McManus did this past summer when he described the discipline of Systematic Theology as intrinsically "arrogant", is a fairly serious matter.

K.:

This discussion reminds me of the truth that as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens the other. All participants are raising important points. I am especially impressed with J.S’s observational skills when reading what I wrote. It is not often, in my line of work, that someone so accurately summarizes what I am saying. Your notice of the distinction I made between studying systematic theology as teaching, and ‘crossing the line’ by committing to a particular systematic theology (my point 4) is exactly my point. Let me make a few more points by way of clarification:

1. First, let me repeat something I stated in my earlier post at point (4) ...” There is a fine line between theology as teaching (which ought to take place in the church) and a commitment to systematic theology. One crosses the line when one commits to a particular systematic theology.” At that point, I believe one begins to commit the same error as the Corinthian believers. In Chapter One of Corinthians, the Holy Spirit says,

“ ... each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

Here we have a problem that, though in its infancy, would someday bloom into “I am a Calvinist” and “I am an Arminian” or “I am a dispensationalist” or “I am a Reform Theologian”. Clearly, people studied what Paul wrote, and the more noble minded of them searched the Scriptures to see if what Paul was saying was so. But at the end of the day, the Holy Spirit is directing each believer away from calling oneself this or that. Teaching must take place within the Church; it is a spiritual gift, and a role within the Church, but I believe a Christian ‘crosses the line’ when he or she commits to the teaching of any person to the point where they begin to say, “I am of Paul” or “I am a Calvinist”, especially since any position has disputes within it on the meaning of words, etc. At the end of the day, all believers, and I emphasize the word ‘all’, must evaluate all teaching in light of the Word of God on an ongoing basis. This will continue to be required by all believers so long as false teachers arise in the Church. So what is the point in calling oneself a Calvinist, or an Arminian if even those two venerable belief systems stand in mutual contradiction to each other on certain points? Study them, sure, but do not cross the line. I sense that John Bellingham might lean toward a reform theory of theology, but even then, he stated in an earlier post that he doesn’t grant everything about it (infant baptism, if I recall), so we may have a certain level of agreement here.

2. It is the case that most varieties of systematic theology attempt to build an internally consistent belief structure. That, however, by itself, is insufficient. It must also correspond to all Scripture on all points. On a more general note, I reject the Coherence Theory of Truth in virtue of the fact that one can build an internally consistent and coherent latticework of knowledge that is independent of reality. The correspondence theory of truth, on the other hand, attempts to build a latticework of knowledge that corresponds to reality. Since the law of non-contradiction is an axiom of reality, the correspondence theory of knowledge also satisfies the requirement to be internally consistent. When it comes to spiritual knowledge, the same thing applies. One can build an internally consistent systematic theology that fails to correspond to spiritual reality (the Word) on some points. If, however, one permits the Word to build one’s grasp of spiritual knowledge, then it will always be going in the direction of being internally consistent. I say ‘always going in the direction’ because the Bible may appear to say things that are inconsistent, but it will be due to an incomplete knowledge of the Scriptures, rather than due to an actual contradiction.

3. An unhelpful tendency of systematic theologies is that the important words become theory laden (to use an epistemological term associated with language). To clarify, the word itself takes on a highly technical body of meaning after centuries of discussion such that entire books and scholarly papers are written laying out a very carefully worded, precise and highly technical meaning for it, but the word now carries with it a load of baggage that it did not have in the first century when it was in common use by the everyday person. As if this were not bad enough, the Calvinist and the Arminian may have laden the word with two different sets of baggage the two of which are inconsistent. Even worse, the theory that saddles the word may be inconsistent with certain Scriptures, which has got to be the case in certain disputes given their contradictory nature. Since there are so many theory laden words in the more highly developed systematic theologies, each of which requires significant education to attain a full grasp of, only the highly educated systematic theologian can understand what the Scriptures ‘really mean’. Is this what God intended? ..... that the Scriptures could only be accurately understood once one had read enough books on the theory attached to each word? The solution, hard as it may be for the systematic theologian,  is to strip the words of their systematic theological baggage, permitting their meanings to expand or shrink to their original semantic boundaries. What I find then happens is that they can bridge the gap between other scriptures and further clarity can be achieved that is true to the original meaning of the word prior to centuries of being piled high with additional theological interpretative baggage that was not part of the word in the first century.

4. Point (3) is not to be confused with the accurate translation from one language to another. John Bellingham has rightly pointed out that we cannot simply read any given English text and assume the translation is flawless. Furthermore, as John also pointed out, even the lexicons may not be perfectly congruent on all words. One of my lexicons points out in the preface that the student should not let the lexicon do ones work for oneself. Just a couple points here by way of response.

a) I recommend that one examine every occurrence of a particular Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew word in the Scriptures, deleting the word and replacing it with ‘X’ and attempting, from the context, to construct a meaning for ‘X’ at each occurrence which, which summed up, will give one a good understanding how ‘X’ is being used. This can then be compared with the lexicons, as well as other extra-biblical usages summarized in lexicons such as BAGD (my favourite for the NT, though not the only one I regularly use).

b) It has been my experience, after doing due diligence on the translation of a word, that in general, the translators have done a pretty good job such that the average person who does not have access to, or training in, the original languages can still get a pretty good idea of what God is trying to say to us. There are the occasional glaring exceptions, of course, and one may notice this between English translations.

c) I recommend Don Carson’s book on Exegetical Fallacies to assist one in avoiding word study fallacies, as well as grammatical fallacies and logical fallacies.

All this being said, there is a difference between the translation of a word from one language to another, and problem of words that are theory laden. Translational challenges are unavoidable; theory laden words are avoidable.

5. All this could be brushed aside if there was a high degree of confidence that all systematic theologies were essentially true in all important aspects, but of course we all agree that this is not the case. There are differences and not just on minor points. Although I would be prepared to grant, for the sake of argument, that Dispensationalism, Arminianism and Calvinism (to name just a few) are all internally consistent (please note that I’m just granting this for the sake of argument), I have found all three to fail badly on certain points when it comes to corresponding to all the scriptures and not merel on minor issues. Even worse, I once taught those very points in my 20’s, creatively interpreting certain ‘difficult’ passages as (i.e., to maintain a consistent systematic theology that was inconsistent with the Bible) and glossing over others as modelled by the authorities within that systematic theology. I grew increasingly uncomfortable with how I was treating Scripture and finally, somewhere in my early 30’s I ceased to identify myself as a Calvinist, Dispensationalist, etc., even though I think there is much that is true in Calvinism and in Covenant Theology. I began to journal all the verses that appeared to be mutually inconsistent, giving them equal weight and assuming that there are no actual contradictions in the Scriptures. About five years ago I made a major, personal breakthrough in the area of a whole collection of them. The resolution of those verses was patently obvious for years, but I did not ‘see’ it because I had been trained to see things through the glasses of the systematic theology I was once firmly committed to. I now suspect that, in some cases, Calvinism is not even asking the right question when it comes to ‘eternal security’. In fact, ‘eternal security’ is a immensely theory laden phrase that has made it almost unusable in anything but the most superficial way. The more precise question is how many different ways can a covenant (general) be broken and can the New Covenant be broken any one of those ways. I do not want to discuss that here, but at some retreat sometime, when we are sitting around over coffee, ask me about it (but to prepare, carefully study the book in the New Testament that is devoted to explaining the New Covenant and comparing it with the old (i.e., Hebrews). Note especially any assurances and any warnings in that book and throughout the New Testament didactic passages and try to categorize them. You may start with any assumption you wish regarding the concept of ‘eternal security’). So to sum up, I don’t see a commitment to a systematic theology as a harmless thing (note I said commitment). 

6. The safeguard in all of this, and what breaks us out of the circularity concern raised by John Bellingham, is to have a linear belief system (rather than a coherence belief system, which can be circular if it does not correspond to reality) that begins with the axiom that the Bible is the Word of God and is the final authority on all of which it speaks. Upon that foundation we build our beliefs for the rest of our lives, judging all points of systematic theology in light of the Scriptures, and never crossing the line by saying we are of Paul, or we are of the reform systematic theological persuasion, or we are Arminian, etc., thereby committing ourselves to that systematic theology. Teaching is a central requirement, gift, and role within the Church, but as long as the prospect of false teaching is there, we must always judge all teaching in light of the Scriptures, rather than on the basis what some systematic theologian says about the Scriptures, depending upon his interpretation and theory laden concepts.

7. John Bellingham, as do I, loves precision. The danger is that our precision becomes simplistic, but the benefit is that a love of precision is also an excellent tool with which to judge systematic theological propositions in light of Scripture. So even though I think that John might lean just a tad too far in favour of committing to a systematic theology (my own fallible view of John which, as in anything else, could be wrong), John’s love of truth and rigorous handling of Scripture is an asset to the mutual discussion of the Scriptures. As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.

8. Clarity: I reject post modern approaches to truth outright. Reason: it goes in the direction of confusion and vagueness and God is not the author of confusion. My point regarding human made systematic theologies is that they may help clarify some things up to a point, but they may also contain false beliefs (that contradict at least one piece of Scripture). As a result, in the believer’s quest for clarity/truth a man-made systematic theology, will stalemate that quest for truth in the areas where that systematic theology is simplistic or wrong. Thus, one should never commit to a systematic theology. Rather, one should commit to the idea that our own personal knowledge of God and His Word will always by incomplete in this life, but at the same time always increasing in the direction of truth and clarity as one commits to the lifetime study of God’s Word. Couple this with mutual discussion, one will break out of the stultifying effects that come with a commitment to any systematic theology and continue to grow and ‘see’ things they would never have ‘seen’ otherwise. I am very uncomfortable with some things that Erwin has said, but at the same time, I do not know enough about what he would say by way of clarification to know if what I took him to mean is what he really meant. My more fundamental concern is his lack of clarity. Malachi 2 underscores the importance of clarity in all teaching. I do not want to judge him, but I also would distance myself from some things he has said pending some clarification which he seems so resistant to providing.

9. Persuasiveness: I mentioned earlier that there is a persuasive effect that accompanies a book on some particular brand of systematic theology. That is fine if the systematic theology is completely correct; it is dangerous if it is wrong on certain points. Studying a particular systematic theology can accelerate ones understanding of biblical truth, which is good, but it can and will accelerate error on those matters on which it is either inconsistent with all Scripture, or simplistic in its treatment of certain points, which is not so good. The Bible has its own persuasive power. So if one is going to spend 1,000 hours reading a series of books on some particular systematic theology, or spending 1,000 hours reading and meditating on the Bible, ones thinking will be shaped in either case, but it will be more safely shaped in the right direction by the Scriptures. This leads to a tension between acquainting oneself with various teachings and the ability to judge those teachings on the basis of Scripture. There is the oft cited advice to do your Bible study first, then check the commentaries to see what they have to say, but one might not want to wait until one is 80 years old to check the systematic theologies. The solution, I would suggest, is to study and discuss, but never commit to a systematic theology, and to see spiritual truth as a body of knowledge that you are attempting to understand, while recognizing you may misunderstand certain parts and have incomplete information on other parts, thereby remaining humble about what you think you know and always remaining teachable. At the same time, a person must remain true to their conscience, meaning if one thinks the Bible says such-and-such and one hears a teacher say something that appears to contradict that, then unless the teacher can provide additional insight from the Scriptures to clear up the contradiction, the believer must go with what he/she thinks the Bible is saying on that point. The bottom line is that our first allegiance is to the Word of God and we must, and I repeat must, judge all teachings and systematic theologies in its light.

Closing remarks: As I said at the outset, spiritual issues raised here are part of a multi-dimensional body of truth, each component of which touches and colors all others. To even say what I have said has required a massive simplification and summarization and paring down of what could be said, all of which has consumed more time that I can afford, given all my other responsibilities. In the multitude of words, transgression is unavoidable, so I ask God’s forgiveness for how pathetically simplistic my own contribution to this discussion has been, given the mind-staggering complexity of absolute truth. Having said this, I think I’ve stirred the pot enough at this point. It is my hope that all involved will at least contemplate, over the next decade or so, what I have said with regard to ‘crossing the line’ and the responsibility of all mature believers to judge all teachings in light of the Scriptures, which will require the ongoing honing of our ability to rightly handle the Word of Truth. So with that, I will bow out of this discussion, not because I don’t have a pile to say, but because I can only afford a certain amount of time to devote to each project. At the end of it all, never trust a word K.  says, but evaluate everything he says in light of the Scriptures.

John Bellingham:

K., with the nuancing you've provided in your latest post, I think we're probably a lot closer together on this subject that I first thought.  Thank you for your thoughtful interaction on this!

G., I also appreciate your thoughts on the importance of Biblical Theology.  Biblical Theology is notoriously tricky to define because the term itself has been claimed by several different groups and movements over the years and is used by different people to mean a number of different things.  Biblical theology (as defined by Dr. Carson and many other contemporary Evangelical scholars) is critical because it helps us to locate any given text within the flow of redemptive history, and therefore fills in/ corrects some of the blind spots and distortions that we might not otherwise see in an atemporal theological system like Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology.  As I mentioned in a previous post, I would highly recommend the introductory articles in the New Dictionary of Biblical Theology edited by Graeme Goldsworthy and published by IVP.  Dr. Carson has written an excellent article in this volume entitled "Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology". (Anyone passing through Montreal is free to borrow my copy if interested).

Another excellent article which demonstrates how Biblical Theology can correct and enhance Systematic Theology is written by Steven Wellum and published in a book called Believer's Baptism: Sign of The New Covenant in Christ (NAC Studies in Bible and Theology).  If anyone does get a copy of this article, pay special attention to how Dr. Wellum places the Covenants within the flow of Redemptive History in order to correct and nuance certain aspects of pure Covenant Theology.  These insights and corrections stemming from Biblical Theology have resulted in a relatively new system of theology (a mediating position between Dispensationalism and Covenant theology) called "New Covenant Theology" which is particularly appealing to Reformed Baptists like myself who could not sign off on certain parts of the Westminster or Heidelberg Confessions.  If anyone would like to know more about this, please contact me and I'll gladly refer you to some additional resources.