# Difference between Dogmatics and Systematic Theology?



## RamistThomist (Jan 1, 2016)

What is the difference and why do we see so many conservative systematic theologies yet very few modern multiple dogmatics works?


----------



## timfost (Jan 1, 2016)

Because we speak English. I believe the English speaking tend to prefer "systematic" while the continentals generally prefer "dogmatic." The difference is in name, not content. I believe Berkhof goes over this in his prolegomena, though I might be mistaken.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 1, 2016)

I suspect the term "systematic" became the term of art only after the era of "scientific revolution" drew theologians into a comparable approach to their enterprise.

The language of "dogma" does not conjure up (maybe more for English?) the same approach to the _subject matter_ as "system," at least to me. Christian dogma once focused on distinct loci. That is not to say that these loci were unrelated, or that one area of theology was viewed in old times as essentially a thing unto itself. I do not think, however, that prior to the "scientific" era theologians were quite viewing their labor as a a unified description in the same way as later on the work comes to be evaluated.

When we employ the term "system," we are self-consciously describing not only an abstraction (like "nature") within which operate various independent-but-interacting elements, all which call the environment "home." But we are asserting intentional order upon the whole. Not simply an order of convenience and a rational beginning, with progression; but we approach the descriptive effort from the first as a teleological enterprise upon a teleological whole.

In the end, the final products (a full or complete elaboration of the critically appreciated content of special revelation) whether of "dogmatic" or "systematic" theology are not that different. But the words we use to describe our particular activity also supply an element to our motives; and the weight of that perception--however subliminally--has an impact on the conduct of the labor and its outcome.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jan 1, 2016)

timfost said:


> I believe Berkhof goes over this in his prolegomena, though I might be mistaken.



If Berkhof has book or chapter called, Prolegomena, I couldn’t find it. Bavinck has a volume called: Prolegomena.

Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 1: Prolegomena, by Herman Bavinck

Berkhof does say, in his:_ *Introductory Volume to Systematic Theology*_, that he thinks the term Dogmatic Theology is better than Systematic Theology, immediately after stating that the two terms are a primarily a matter of “popular appeal;” yet he called his work, _Systematic Theology. _

Reformed scholars in Germany and in the Netherlands show a decided preference for the title _Dogmatics_, with or without a modifier. In our own country, however, the term _*Systematic Theology seems to have a more popular appeal*_. _*From an ideal point of view the former certainly deserves preference*_, (1) because it is the more specific of the two, and designates the real object of study with greater precision; and (2) because the modifier ‘systematic’ in ‘Systematic Theology’ is apt to create the impression that the study under consideration is the only theological study which treats its subject-matter in a logical order, or that among the theological _discipline_ there is no other that is systematic in structure; and this is not true. For practical reasons, however, it seems more desirable, especially in our country and in our day, to use the title _Systematic Theology_. This does not require the sacrifice of any principle. Dr. Warfield even considers this title better than the other, and therefore comes to its defense. *

*_Presbyterian and Reformed Review_, April 1896, p. 243.
Berkhof, L. (1932). _Introductory Volume to Systematic Theology_ (p. 17). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Jan 1, 2016)

Herman Bavinck has this talk where he discusses the definition of dogmatics. You can find it here. 

According to HB, "Dogmatics is always ecclesiastical." In other words, it has to do with theology as confessed by the church.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 1, 2016)

I think Eerdmans, Berkhof's publisher, insisted that he use "Systematic Theology" rather than "Dogmatic Theology" as his title because it was the more familiar term to his American readers.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 1, 2016)

Ed Walsh said:


> Berkhof does say, in his: Introductory Volume to Systematic Theology



That is his treatment of prolegomena. It's just a way of referring to matters impacting how you treat the subject matter of dogmatics.


----------



## reaganmarsh (Jan 1, 2016)

bookslover said:


> I think Eerdmans, Berkhof's publisher, insisted that he use "Systematic Theology" rather than "Dogmatic Theology" as his title because it was the more familiar term to his American readers.



I've also read this elsewhere.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 1, 2016)

I wonder if the reticence to use Dogmatic Theology is related to the sudden decline (after Kuyper) of using the term "Encyclopedia" of Sacred Principles, or something.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Jan 2, 2016)

Guido's Brother said:


> Herman Bavinck has this talk where he discusses the definition of dogmatics. You can find it here.
> 
> According to HB, "Dogmatics is always ecclesiastical." In other words, it has to do with theology as confessed by the church.



Exactly. I've always taken the term "systematic", in this context, to be co-referential with "topical" and "sequential". But "dogma" properly defined is ecclesiastical. Take eschatology for example. A "systematics" text might deal with all the various positions while advocating the author's personal stance. To the best of my knowledge, in terms of "eschatological dogma", in _*most *_Reformed circles, the only out of bounds view is dispensational premill-- you may not confess that position. I'll not dip my toe (too deeply) into the creation days issue. Personally, I'm a 6/24 hour man, but I know many fine men who are not. In the PCA there are limits as to what one may dogmatically confess, as an officer, on that issue.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Jan 2, 2016)

ReformedReidian said:


> I wonder if the reticence to use Dogmatic Theology is related to the sudden decline (after Kuyper) of using the term "Encyclopedia" of Sacred Principles, or something.



A more fruitful line of inquiry would probably be to investigate whether views of confessional subscription factor into this difference. The term "systematic theology" seems to arise in the American context where confessional subscription was often more loosely defined, and therefore theology was not as ecclesiastical. "Dogmatics" emerges from a continental (esp. Dutch) context where confessional subscription has often been more fulsome, and therefore theology was more directly tied to what the church confesses, rather than what an individual theologian believes.


----------

