# Dichotomy of Biblical and systematic theology.



## raderag (Feb 7, 2006)

Is this a valid dichotomy? It seems to me that whenever someone makes this distinction, I am being set up to accept a twisted orthodoxy. I especially read this language in the FV proponent´s writings.

What say you?


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 7, 2006)

I believe it's a false dichotomy. Everyone has a systematic.

A systematic theology is a summary and organization of what we believe.

You may believe that your sock drawer has no system of organization but "˜no system´ is a form of organization. It may not be very efficient and it may take you longer to find what you´re looking for but that is your system. A systematic theology of what we believe is necessary because it forms the link between the numerous amount of topics and teachings of the Bible. I cannot say to you, "œOk, let´s learn what the Bible teaches about sin. Everyone turn in your Bibles to the Book of Sin. There is no such book. There is no book of God´s Mercy, there is not Book of Prayer, instead we find books titled with ancient people´s names and the names of ancient cities. Each book is organized according to the purpose of the writer but they are not systematized according to specific topics. We need an outline to help us organize the wonderful truths that we learn each day in our Bible reading. This outline is like a tree for the leaves of gold that we will find in scripture.

Some would have you believe that there exists some kind of amorphous theology without any type of structure called 'biblical theology'.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 7, 2006)

It's tricky seeing the difference between biblical theology and systematic theology. The latter uses the former (and arguably it should be stated rather clearly that the latter is the crown of the former). I'll give a clear example to see the difference, but I just want to state this (taken from my autodidact learning): theologians who tend to think of biblical theology as a new discipline (or new in the way they approach it) are the ones who tend to want to use biblical theology against orthodox theology in some way (not all, but they exist and they're the ones that make people wary of even the term 'biblical theology'). Look for the modern biblical theologians who can only mention the name Geerhardus Vos through clenched teeth if at all. That's a clue to seeing those culprits. (Vos is the father of modern biblical theology and is thoroughly Reformed/orthodox.)

Here's an example to see the difference between biblical and systematic theology: because the two disciplines overlap their dinstinctiveness tends to become invisible once doctrine has matured into systematic form. So take doctrine that has yet to mature completely such as eschatology. You can clearly see the difference in the two disciplines of biblical and systematic theology by seeing the work of Geerhardus Vos on the topic of eschatology and then seeing how systematic theologians incorporate his work. Robert L. Reymond's section of his _New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith_ uses the work of Vos (and Vos' predecessers) in a very up front way, so you can really see the difference sort of 'live'. 

Both disciplines are needed. Calvin engaged in biblical theology. But biblical theology serves systematic theology. It doesn't stand on its own.


----------



## Civbert (Feb 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> ... So take doctrine that has yet to mature completely such as eschatology. You can clearly see the difference in the two disciplines of biblical and systematic theology by seeing. ...



I don't really know off-hand what is meant by biblical theology vs. systematic theology - except by the answers given that biblical theology is purposely un-systematized. And I guess this means that the biblical theology doctrines are developed independent of other doctrines. Is that correct?

My question (really a side question) is wondering about how doctrines "mature". I've heard people talk about advances in doctrine, or developments - but given that the Word of God is fixed, can we be certain that any change regarding our understanding of the Word is an improvement or advance. Can we really understand God's revelation better today than they did in the early church? What do we know better? Have we advanced? The main benefit I get from reading modern theologians is in helping me understand ancient theologians.

Anyhow, that's my . Feel free to correct my understanding of the "biblical" theology issue. The responses have been interesting.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 7, 2006)

I am about to go class, but I don't see the dichotomy. I know that they are formulate differently, sure, but I don't see any "reformed doctrines" being threatened by someone saying "I like biblical theology better than systematic theology." I have more thoughts that I will post later.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 7, 2006)

The difference is that my wife organizes my sock drawer, but she may not have authority in the area of theology.

I look at it this way: a systematic theology has to be Biblical; and a Biblical theology can't help but be systematic. So you can't really have one without the other. They are not two, but one.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 7, 2006)

Actually, the idea of Scripture as a unified narrative implies that Scripture can also be systematized. Carl F. H. Henry writes, 
"œScripture is itself implicitly systematic. No one who contends that the Bible as a literary document is a canon of divinely inspired truths can hold otherwise without reflecting adversely on the mind of God"¦If God is himself the Truth and the origin and substance of all truth is to be found in him, if revelation is its source and truth is a unity as Christianity contends, then such axiomatization would be the model way to overcome the notion that Christianity is deduced from first principles held in common with other religions or world views (God Revelation Authority, I:239-240)."

And as a Van Tillian, if all facts are already God-interpreted and mutually interdependent, then it is valid to form a systematic theology after BT speaks.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 7, 2006)

> I don't really know off-hand what is meant by biblical theology vs. systematic theology - except by the answers given that biblical theology is purposely un-systematized. And I guess this means that the biblical theology doctrines are developed independent of other doctrines. Is that correct?



Yes, BT mines raw material (and like a miner BT mines at one location of the mine at any given time). ST takes the raw material and, seeing the parts in relation to the whole, formulates (manufactures) it into a system. 



> My question (really a side question) is wondering about how doctrines "mature". I've heard people talk about advances in doctrine, or developments - but given that the Word of God is fixed, can we be certain that any change regarding our understanding of the Word is an improvement or advance. Can we really understand God's revelation better today than they did in the early church? What do we know better? Have we advanced? The main benefit I get from reading modern theologians is in helping me understand ancient theologians.



Basic doctrine can be known, but some doctrine is taken for granted, justifiably, but then it gets challenged by heresy, so it has to be defended. Different eras of church history have had to deal with different challenges. In the course of defending the doctrine that is challenged it gets formulated clearly. Biblical theology plays a role in this process.

What I meant by doctrine 'maturing' would have to do with things like terminology being developed over time. Calvin, for instance, operated with an understanding of the Covenant of Works yet he didn't have that term and it would take another hundred years or so until that doctrine matured, in the way I'm using the word. 

Someone who teaches historical theology could give a zillion examples.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 7, 2006)

Scripture as unifed narrative vis-a-vis biblical theology: here is Vos on that:



> "Biblical theology exhibits to the student of the Word the organic structure of the truth therein contained, and its organic growth as the result of revelation. It shows to him that in the Bible there is an organization finer, more complicated, more exquisite than even the texture of muscles and nerves and brain in the human body; that its various parts are interwoven and correlated in the most subtle manner, each sensitive to the impressions received from all the others, perfect in itself, and yet dependent upon the rest, while in them and through them all throbs as a unifying principle the Spirit of God's living truth."


----------



## cultureshock (Feb 7, 2006)

It is legitimate to make a _distinction_ between biblical theology and systematic theology, as between two different disciplines. It is not legitimate to make a _dichotomy_ between the two, as if the two disciplines produce conflicting conclusions from Scripture. The study of biblical theology is diachronic (through history), while the study of systematic theology is synchronic (fixed in history).

"Biblical theology" used as a phrase does not simply mean theology that is biblical, or according to the Bible. Instead, it refers to a particular discipline--the study of salvation as it progresses, unfolds, and develops through history, in Scripture. This way of looking at Scripture seems particularly well-suited to the approach taken by covenant theology. God's covenants are not static; there is true development from Eden, to post-fall, to Noah to Abraham, to Sinai, to David, and to Christ. The religion of Isaiah was not identical to the religion of Moses--while the two shared the same religion _in essence_, there have been real differences and changes. Biblical theology, in part, is the attempt to recognize those differences. Some of the big names in this discipline whom I know of are Geerhardus Vos, Richard Gaffin, and Meredith G. Kline.

Systematic theology, on the other hand, is arranged topically. We try to interpret the teaching of Scripture on a particular topic, like "sin" for example. This takes more than simply going through a concordance and looking up "sin" and then comparing all the passages. Of course, that may be a good starting point, but it is important to realize that this is only part of the task of systematic theology. We recognize that Scripture makes theological statements about "sin" even when the specific words for "sin" are not found explicitly in the text.

While liberals at Princeton were trying to pit the conclusions of biblical theology and systematic theology against one another, Vos came on to the scene and showed 'em wrong. Anytime anyone tries to suggest that these two disciplines produce conflicting conclusions, be skeptical.

Brian


----------

