# The Trueman—Goldsworthy Debate



## WAWICRUZ (Jan 17, 2010)

*Carl Trueman's position*

*Graeme Goldsworthy's position*


Carl Trueman gave vent to what he perceives as the danger of biblical theology's usurpation of systematic theology's place in the church's theological discourse. This he likened to a "revolution" in which the element that once was the "outsider" or the "rebel" now has become the "establishment", thereby wielding the greater influence if not the only. He rightly lamented the uncouth implementation of biblical theology by some of its proponents wherein if Christ is even made to "leap from the page", it is an unbiblical Christ that ends up flopping on the floor. He also raises the concern that an overemphasis on biblical theology has the potential of making the church lose sight of what its forefathers labored hard for, namely, the systematization of biblical doctrine in the forms of its catechisms, creeds, and confessions, thereby eroding the ground on which its faith is based as these systematics adhere to Scripture. This he calls a forsaking of "ontology" for "economy", i.e., a giving of too much import to the saving acts of God over the being of God. Finally, he calls for "balance" between biblical and systematic theology, making an appeal for the reclaiming of the ground that systematic theology supposedly lost to its biblical cousin.

Graeme Goldsworthy responds in his classic lucid, and yet very much erudite, fashion (if you've read any of his books, you'll know what I mean). He observes Trueman's statement of the problem as bordering on exaggeration, and that it has the potential effect of sowing a misunderstanding of the function of biblical theology in church life. In this he challenges the claim of the "establishment" status that biblical theology supposedly currently enjoys. While assenting to the possibility of the various errors (Trueman's "mediocrity") that are open to the implementation of biblical theology, this he states is not inherent to the method itself but to the improper actualization of it. And with regard to the charge that biblical theology is overshadowing systematic theology's rightful place in the theological milieu, and that there is the distinct danger of losing the heritage of the church's catechisms, creeds and confessions, with the neglect of the "ontology" of theology over its "economy", Graeme makes the case that biblical and systematic theology have never been in such a relationship of mutual exclusivity. In fact, he claims, the biblical writers, along with all of the divines of church history, utilized biblical theological method in coming up with their systematizations in what apparently is a relationship that is best described as the hermeneutical spiral. He categorically goes against the proposal of a "balance" between the two paradigms, seeing that such a balance is not to be found in Scripture or is propounded by it. Instead he advances the notion that the relationship between biblical and systematic theology is perichoretic, in that while each carries its own distinctions, an inter-penetration exists that makes the realization of one impossible without the other.

I was deeply impressed by Graeme Goldsworthy's treatment of the matter at hand, and sorely disappointed at Carl Trueman's hasty generalizations. Goldsworthy actually made an appeal to the nature of knowledge (epistemology) in his defense of biblical theology. One cannot know about categories, abstractions, and absolutes without coming to grips with particulars, specifics, and instances, and vice-versa. Scripture makes plain that the created order (particulars) bears testimony to God and His many divine attributes (abstraction), though not in a salvific way. Conversely, God's moral will (abstraction) shows us why the Decalogue, with its imperatives (particulars), are good and are to be obeyed and lived out. The relationship between induction and deduction is perichoretic.

Underdog Theology: The Trueman—Goldsworthy Debate (Biblical Theology and Epistemology)


----------



## MW (Jan 17, 2010)

Trueman's points are valid from a dogmatic point of view, and one might also note the tendency to over-objectivise biblical theology and make it solely concerned with the historia salutis since the days of Cullmann. OTOH, Goldsworthy is simply repeating the usual rejoinders which serve to keep biblical theology in its proper place. His view of perichoresis will not impress, I should think, seeing as the two disciplines do not actually cover the same space. Biblical theology is concerned with the progress of revelation within the canon whereas systematic theology is exclusively a post-canonical discipline which looks at the product of revelation.


----------



## WAWICRUZ (Jan 17, 2010)

Sir,

To put it simply, one cannot engage in biblical theology without already having theological categories in place (the product of systematic theology), and one cannot formulate dogma without engaging in exegesis (the primary domain of biblical theology), hence, their perichoretic relationship.


----------



## MW (Jan 17, 2010)

WAWICRUZ said:


> To put it simply, one cannot engage in biblical theology without already having theological categories in place (the product of systematic theology), and one cannot formulate dogma without engaging in exegesis (the primary domain of biblical theology), hence, their perichoretic relationship.


 
This simply isn't going to work and will result in a misunderstanding of what perichoresis actually is. To begin with, in biblical theology you have continuity and discontinuity. Certain structures exist which merely serve as temporal assistants to theological truth while the building is in construction. Further, while there are theological categories in place, one is not at liberty to read the developed theological dogma into the germ -- a fact Vos insists upon and Goldsworthy would undoubtedly acknowledge.


----------



## WAWICRUZ (Jan 17, 2010)

Sir,

Please do elaborate on this statement of yours: "_Certain structures exist which merely serve as temporal assistants to theological truth while the building is in construction._"

What comes to mind are the O.T. figures and typologies, but then again, these can be certainly affixed in the category of covenantal dogma. 

If it can be shown that one cannot be engaging in this discipline without appealing to the other, then I believe _perichoresis_ is an apt designation, as Goldsworthy posits.


----------



## MW (Jan 18, 2010)

WAWICRUZ said:


> If it can be shown that one cannot be engaging in this discipline without appealing to the other, then I believe _perichoresis_ is an apt designation, as Goldsworthy posits.


 
No, you would have to show that one must always appeal to the other discipline, that one permeated the other to such an extent that there was no overlap where one possessed a distinctive the other did not have. This cannot be done. The eschatological element in biblical theology and the organisational element in systematic theology makes it impossible. Besides, between the two disciplines one must encounter historical theology and its development of doctrine as a post-canonical enterprise. It is better to give up the term rather than corrupt its meaning.


----------



## WAWICRUZ (Jan 18, 2010)

Sir,

You left this question of mine hanging: "_Please do elaborate on this statement of yours: 'Certain structures exist which merely serve as temporal assistants to theological truth while the building is in construction'._"

Also, could you please cite specific instances wherein biblical theology is not appealing to systematic theology in the course of its processes, and vice-versa?

Thanks.


----------



## MW (Jan 18, 2010)

WAWICRUZ said:


> You left this question of mine hanging: "_Please do elaborate on this statement of yours: 'Certain structures exist which merely serve as temporal assistants to theological truth while the building is in construction'._"



I didn't think it was necessary as your paragraph beginning with "what comes to mind" seemed to identify what I was referring to.



WAWICRUZ said:


> Also, could you please cite specific instances wherein biblical theology is not appealing to systematic theology in the course of its processes, and vice-versa?


 
If we look at the temple and its services through the eyes of biblical theology we should not discount the very real presence of God that was both manifested through the temple and experienced by the faith of the worshipper. At the same time, we know through the fulness of the ages that the temple sets forth an eschatological reality which was genuinely fulfilled in the person and work of Christ. The process of exegesis must look at both these factors and be prepared to deal with the element of historical discontinuity and eschatological continuity. The systematic theologian will incorporate the temple's "historial discontinuity" with other teaching pertinent to church, ministry, and worship, while the "eschatological continuity" will be taken up in its treatment of the person and work of Christ. Both disciplines will "sift" the text for its truth value, but the sifting process is so unique in each case that they are really two distinct and independent processes.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW (Jan 18, 2010)

John Murray (Writings, 4:17) helps to explain the point being made in my last post:



> Systematics must coordinate the teaching of particular passages and systematize this teaching under the appropriate topics. There is thus a synthesis that belongs to systematics that does not belong to exegesis as such.


----------



## WAWICRUZ (Jan 18, 2010)

Sir,

A biblical theological treatment of the temple and its liturgies, with its output of recognizing the typological significance of such and other ramifications, would necessarily appeal to theology proper, anthropology, and hamartiology, to say the least. And the systematic theological formulation of Christological dogma as including the substantiation of the temple and its liturgies would indeed take into account the specifics and intricacies surrounding the significance of the temple to the theocratic, geopolitical Israel and the implementation of liturgy. In this I see interdependence, and the distinctions in methodology between the two don't discount for the perichoretic nature of their relationship, since perichoresis accounts precisely for this distinction.


----------



## MW (Jan 18, 2010)

WAWICRUZ said:


> A biblical theological treatment of the temple and its liturgies, with its output of recognizing the typological significance of such and other ramifications, would necessarily appeal to theology proper, anthropology, and hamartiology, to say the least.


 
A system is more than "topic." It is the understanding of an inter-relationship which exists between facts as a result of logical organisation. It would be unsound to force this logical coherence on exegetical study; generally that is called eisegesis.


----------



## WAWICRUZ (Jan 18, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> WAWICRUZ said:
> 
> 
> > A biblical theological treatment of the temple and its liturgies, with its output of recognizing the typological significance of such and other ramifications, would necessarily appeal to theology proper, anthropology, and hamartiology, to say the least.
> ...


 
Sir,

Are you suggesting that one must approach the undertaking of biblical theology in a _tabula rasa_ fashion, devoid of presuppositions? 

Given the temple and liturgy example, one must already have established the nature of God (theology), the nature of man (anthropology), and the nature of sin (hamartiology) for any reasonable exegesis to occur. Neglect in these areas would leave one open to the errors of biblicism, as I see it.


----------



## MW (Jan 18, 2010)

WAWICRUZ said:


> Are you suggesting that one must approach the undertaking of biblical theology in a _tabula rasa_ fashion, devoid of presuppositions?


 
No, and I can't see how one can construe that from what was said. I am saying exegesis should not be a process of reading one's theology into the text. If one insists on bringing the logical system to the text then one will only draw from it what one reads into it, Moses will be made to speak like Paul and thus rob Scripture of its developmental genius, and biblical theology will be nothing more than a history of topics. One should ponder seriously what Prof. Murray said in the quotation provided above. In fact, the whole article on Systematic Theology may be well worth considering.


----------



## Archlute (Jan 18, 2010)

Having read both essays (and been around long enough to have thought about the issue a bit) I definitely agree with Trueman. As far as Goldsworthy's essay being more well thought out and nuanced, you have to acknowledge that he was working off of Trueman's statements in response, whereas Trueman was writing from scratch, so to speak. It would be interesting to read a further reply from Trueman to Goldsworthy. 

I have appreciated Graeme's books, but have always felt that when speaking of doctrinal issues he very nearly gets to something that could be great, but then because he constrains his formulations to BT discussions he never quite gets to what could be a solid doctrinal punch. Much of his doctrine is descriptive, as is the BT method, and not declarative in the way that ST formulations have classically been stated. I will say again that he has done fantastic work on many subjects through the BT method, but again, it doesn't quite give one that foundational certainty that you receive from older systematic writers. And, yes, I am an epistemic foundationalist, when that foundation of knowledge is the Scriptures.

Trueman's essay is a good corrective, and he is by no means attempting to run BT practices out the back door altogether.


----------

