# Is Biblical Theology Contra-Confessional?



## py3ak (Oct 25, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> Modern Biblical Theology is the major culprit in this case, being largely the by-product (albeit covered within conservative garb) of German Rationalism.



Adam, I've seen you make similar remarks a few times, and I would like some clarification and substantiation on this point.

What do you mean by Biblical theology?
Do you mean to assert that however masked it is still rationalistic?
Do you maintain (as would seem implied by a previous post) that the practice of Biblical theology is unconfessional?

Once you've seen this, I'll be happy to move that discussion over to a new thread.


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 25, 2009)

Ruben,

Thank you for your questions.



py3ak said:


> What do you mean by Biblical theology?



What I am referring to is the practice of looking at Scripture as a fragmented document, rather than a unified one. Rather than seeing all of Scripture as one unified, Christian document, there are several competing documents. For example, there is the gospel of Peter, or the eschatology of Paul, or the gospel of John, or the non-gospel of Moses. This is not a reference to the particular books, but to the "theologies." To quote Philip Schaff (one of the many influences that has had a hand in popularizing Biblical Theology among the Reformed), there are "theological differences while religious unity."

Allied to this is a doctrine of inspiration that emphasizes the human element, and depricates immediate inspiration as "mechanical" or "magical" (terms used by Philip Schaff in Vol. 1 of his _History_). Schaff contrasts this faith of the Fathers and the Reformers with the theory of inspiration in his day (and under his influence) of the Bible as the word of man and the Word of God (this is exactly how Schaff discussed it; capitals and lower case his).

Most troublesome are the offshoots of such thinking which make Old Testament ethics or examples questionable or off limits because of the "point in redemptive history". A thought that did not carry as much or any weight prior to the Enlightenment and the rise of German Rationalism. Prior to such movements, such methods of argumentation were repelled as fancies of the anabaptists (see, for example, Gillespie's dismissal of "Bloudy Tenent's" argument in Wholesome Severity). Since the rise of Biblical Theology, anabaptist arguments are taken, in many circles, as current fare. Argument such as the Mosaic civil institutions being typical rather than binding all nations.

Also, I'm referring to Biblical Theology at the expense of Systematic Theology. Confessional teachings being set aside or modified to fit a system of Biblical Theology. For example, modifying one's doctrine of the Sabbath because of "point of redemptive history" argumentation. Or, setting aside or modifying confessional doctrines of the covenant or Trinity because of "Biblical-Theological" arguments. This is what I mean by Biblical Theology. I do not object to the practice as such (tracing out the development of a doctrine over time). What I object to is the method employed and the assumptions made in such pursuits after the rise of German Rationalism, in particular. I find it to have become almost an evolutionary framework applied to the development of Scripture. God, in the Old Testament, being a harsh tribal deity, while developing into a "God of Grace" in the New. Therefore, severity being looked upon as an Old Testament quality.



py3ak said:


> Do you mean to assert that however masked it is still rationalistic?



Given the guidelines above, yes. Although, I don't think it a rational method, as I consider Systematic Theology to be the rational approach, while the general modern practice of Biblical Theology to be fragmented. While German Rationalism claimed to be "rational," it was anything but rational, and effected a fragmentation of the unity of Scripture.



py3ak said:


> Do you maintain (as would seem implied by a previous post) that the practice of Biblical theology is unconfessional?



As generally practiced today, yes. Mainly, because it causes men to consider the Confession's teaching (and perhaps more imporantly) method to be old hat and unsuitable. An example might be the method by which the Standards "proof texted" certain doctrines. Modern practice of Biblical Theology (as it has been utilized and defended in my limited experience and study), has found the Westminster Assembly's methodology, and, at times, conclusions reprehensible. 

A particular instance of this would be God's Word to Israel in Leviticus 26, where He threatens curses and plagues, as well as blessings to the nation of Israel for disobedience or obedience. The Confession cites this as proving the blessings God offers and curses God threatens in this life for our sin, even for justified believers. Biblical Theologians would generally label that as a certain point in redemptive history that would be questionable (to say the least) to apply to modern individuals or nations. Or, the citation of God's threatened curse to David's son in Psalm 89:30 - 34 in the same context. Or the WLC's broad application of the judicials to the Christian's life. 




py3ak said:


> Once you've seen this, I'll be happy to move that discussion over to a new thread.



I suppose that if there is significant interest in this topic. I am content to leave it be.

Cheers,


----------



## MW (Oct 25, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> Argument such as the Mosaic civil institutions being typical rather than binding all nations.



This should probably be separated into a new thread.

I hope you can see that your adverse stance against biblical theology is being driven by your own theological framework. This is apparent in the portion I have quoted above. Two points you may want to bear in mind:

1. Referring Old Testament revelation to the area of the "typical" predates the emegence of biblical theology. If anything, biblical theology (properly so called) helps to define with more accuracy the nature of type and the way it functions within the history of revelation.

2. There is anti-sytematic and pro-systematic approaches to biblical theology. The former is what your comments are really directed against. Reformed biblical theology as pioneered by men like Patrick Fairbairn and Geerhardus Vos aims to reveal the exegetical basis for the dogmatic formulations which are part and parcel of the reformed tradition.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 26, 2009)

[Moderator]Moved to new thread[/Moderator]

Adam, it seems like you are using "Biblical Theology" as shorthand for a variety of concepts you dislike. I understand why you would lump them together, but it also seems like it might engender some confusion. For instance, when I say "Biblical Theology" I doubt that most Reformed people think "opposition of Pauline and Petrine tendencies in the NT".


----------



## timmopussycat (Oct 26, 2009)

py3ak said:


> [Moderator]Moved to new thread[/Moderator]
> 
> Adam, it seems like you are using "Biblical Theology" as shorthand for a variety of concepts you dislike. I understand why you would lump them together, but it also seems like it might engender some confusion. For instance, when I say "Biblical Theology" I doubt that most Reformed people think "opposition of Pauline and Petrine tendencies in the NT".



I agree: I ran into the concepts Adam is challenging under the labels "liberalism" and "higher criticism".


----------



## Augusta (Oct 26, 2009)

The professor that I have learned some BT under, rails against "liberalism" and "higher criticism." He is also not in the least anti-systematic, but labored to edit the recent _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_ by Turretin in 3 volumes.


----------



## ewenlin (Oct 26, 2009)

I don't know if anyone is familiar with the "recent but not so recent" work of Roger Stronstad and Robert Menzies' on pneumatology, deriving a Luken in and against a Pauline Pneumatology whereby the Pentecostal doctrine of the Spirit;- especially the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, is formed and that they (both Luke and Paul's writings) should be read separately and understood in their own context. In such manner, one could "harmonize" Spirit baptism at conversion (seen in the Pauline letters to Corinth) with apparent Spirit baptisms happening in sub sequence (after; "second blessing") to conversion (seen in Acts). 

If what I'm reading by Adam is correct, this sort of "fragmented" approach to theology is pernicious. Not so much in its tendency to go against confessional teachings; I run in different circles (Pentecostals have no confessions), but it sure is troublesome, as timmopussycat mentioned it usually find its friends with higher criticism, dispensationalism, and the such. 

A charge often laid against Covenant Theology is that it "ignores the context." What could possibly be the biggest context if not the context of the whole bible one could ask. Nevertheless I don't work in a Reformed setting so I deal mostly with well, non-reformed folks. I don't know of a link between biblical theology and German rationalism but I agree mostly with Adam's reply.


----------



## proverbs31woman (Oct 26, 2009)

Wow, thanks everyone for the awesome thread. I really liked what many of you had to say :-D


----------



## Jon Peters (Oct 26, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> Most troublesome are the offshoots of such thinking which make Old Testament ethics or examples questionable or off limits because of the "point in redemptive history"... Argument such as the Mosaic civil institutions being typical rather than binding all nations.



In my very limited and anecdotal experience, this appears to be the real animus against Biblical Theology. 

I'm not very familiar with the history of Biblical Theology as a discipline. What I know comes from reading about Vos and his adaptation of the discipline to an orthodox pursuit. But the insights I have gained into God's redemptive work by reading the work of many modern Biblical theologians has been invaluable.

I would never say that some (even conservative Reformed) don't, at times, go to far. But, like all Biblical instruction by man, we need to read and listen with discernment.


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 26, 2009)

*A Moderator (Prufrock) just made a horrible blunder; I accidentally erased this post by Christusregnat; I'm hoping it can be recovered. Until then, portions of his post, at least, can be seen below in the quoted sections of my post. Sorry guys!*


----------



## Prufrock (Oct 26, 2009)

> Originally Posted by *Christusregnat*
> _For example, Vos wrote a book entitled The Pauline Eschatology. Titles and concepts of this sort abound among Biblical Theologians. _



What, exactly, is wrong with that title _in se_? Also (don't take this insultingly), but have you read the whole of Vos' _Pauline Eschatology_? When we speak of, say, the Pauline teaching of Christ and the Mosaic teaching of Christ, that doesn't mean we are setting them against each other as teaching a different substance: but it should be a matter of course that the form and manner in which the doctrine of Christ is presented by the pen of Paul is going to differ greatly from that by the pen of Moses. Understanding the different forms in which Christian teaching has been presented by God in different times and through different prophets is an essential part of being able to _*harmonize*_ these teachings and demonstrate how they are _*not*_ opposed.



> Originally Posted by *Christusregnat*
> _NT Wright (a prime example of Biblical Theology gone haywire) speaks of Paul as the Founder of Christianity._



All I can say is that either you or I have *disastrously * misunderstood the most basic and fundamental purpose and thesis of Wright's book, _What St. Paul Really Said._



> Originally Posted by *Christusregnat*
> _It may help to explain why I'm drawing parallels where many people see none._


It is not a lack of sight or vision. I understand fully the slippery slope traveled through just a few barely mistaken underlying premises to the Biblical Theological program, and how easily one can slide into finding human authors interpreting other human authors within the Biblical text. This does not warrant such sweeping condemnations, however, which can easily prejudice the minds of the pious into thinking that godly Reformed teachers who speak of Biblical Theology are, in fact, introducing contra-confessional teachings into the church. We need to be careful with our language.


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 26, 2009)

ewenlin said:


> If what I'm reading by Adam is correct, this sort of "fragmented" approach to theology is pernicious. Not so much in its tendency to go against confessional teachings; I run in different circles (Pentecostals have no confessions), but it sure is troublesome, as timmopussycat mentioned it usually find its friends with higher criticism, dispensationalism, and the such.
> 
> A charge often laid against Covenant Theology is that it "ignores the context." What could possibly be the biggest context if not the context of the whole bible one could ask.



Ewen,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. This sounds very much like the issues that I am troubled by. If the Bible is the word of man as well as the Word of God, then competing theologies within the Scriptures are an inevitability. However, if there is truly only one Author, then there must be only one Theology, equally derived from all of the contexts in Scripture.

The connection between this and German Rationalism is that they began to divide up Scripture into different schools of theology: Petrine, Pauline, Johannean, Jacobine, etc. For German Rationalists (who resembled the heretic Marcion), the Old Testament was a book about a tribal deity who was harsh, vindictive and cruel. In the New Testament, this god became a nice guy with grace and sweetness. They considered the OT to be useless (virtually), while most of the NT was likewise useless (reflecting too Jewish and miraculous of a bent), so they finally accepted four or five of Paul's Epistles, and created a "theology of Paul". Paul was the left wing of progressivism, Peter the Moderate, and James the Conservative, while John is the yet future Ecumenical union. Some went so far with this fancy to make Peter the father of Papist, Paul of Protestant, James of Eastern Orthodoxy, and John to the yet future Ecumenical Cum By Yah.

My point about Biblical Theology is that most modern expressions are not unaffected by this movement, and to one degree or another have adopted a portion of its teaching. Hence, the reticence to draw on OT examples, or the studies in "Pauline" theology, etc.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## ewenlin (Oct 27, 2009)

This brings to mind Keith Mathison's _From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology_. In it Mathison traces the development of eschatology from Genesis to Revelation, squaring each book beside the other, not setting them up against each other but to present a continuous harmonious case for post-millenialism in the Scripture.

Like what Prufrock said, it's not to oppose said teachings. Anyway, I see where you're coming from and I certainly understand what you're railing against. Thanks for the primer on German rationalism.


----------

