"I have long come to the conclusion that men may be more systematic in their statements than the Bible, and may be led into grave error by idolatrous veneration of a system." J.C. Ryle Pithy Gems
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Calvin wasn't afraid to disagree with his influences(St, Augustine, church fathers) were he felt they went astray and we shouldn't either.I've been accused of being more open to biblical theology than ST, though I have read almost every major evangelical and Reformed ST in the last 300 years (some of them, like Bavinck, more than once). I've also memorized up to question 70 in the Shorter Catechism.
But yes, Ryle is correct. If your system is iron-tight, then it might not end well.
That's fine. But that doesn't mean that Ryle is wrong. It's very possible to try and say more than the bible says. But notice the last part? It is possible to idolize a System of Theology? I've ran into people who have a superstitious fear of going against or criticizing whatever theology they hold to or the people that they follow.It is not possible to be more systematic than the Bible. The truth by nature is systematic; all parts must necessarily cohere and relate to the others. Where our systems fail, the fault lies with the systemetizer, not the systematic nature of truth. It because of the fall and the consequent noetic effects of sin that we ought to beware of elevating our system over Scripture. In a perfect world, though, there will be not one iota of natural or special revelation that will not be seen perfectly clearly and perfectly ordered (i.e., systematized) within the grand and sweeping whole.
But, for now, Berkhof says it well:
"There seems to be a lurking fear that the more we systematize the truth, the farther we wander from the presentation of it that is found in the Word of God. But there is no danger of this, if the system is not based on the fundamental principles of some erring philosophy, but on the abiding principles of Scripture itself."—Louis Berkhof, Introductory Volume to Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1932), 15.
I never said Ryle is wrong. And I agree with what you've said here. All I am saying is that the problem is not systems, but bad systems.That's fine. But that doesn't mean that Ryle is wrong. It's very possible to try and say more than the bible says. But notice the last part? It is possible to idolize a System of Theology? I've ran into people who have a superstitious fear of going against or criticizing whatever theology they hold to or the people that they follow.
CoolI never said Ryle is wrong. And I agree with what you've said here. All I am saying is that the problem is not systems, but bad systems.
I have seen more of the opposite; making a big show of disagreeing with a Reformer (e.g. Calvin) as a sort of uneducated virtue-signal of independent thinking.That's fine. But that doesn't mean that Ryle is wrong. It's very possible to try and say more than the bible says. But notice the last part? It is possible to idolize a System of Theology? I've ran into people who have a superstitious fear of going against or criticizing whatever theology they hold to or the people that they follow.
Especially shocking is the number of members of Reformed Churches who disagree with Limited Atonement.I have seen more of the opposite; making a big show of disagreeing with a Reformer (e.g. Calvin) as a sort of uneducated virtue-signal of independent thinking.
I think so. Could be both. Saying more or less than what scriptures say. I know revelation says whoever takes away or adds to this book. Maybe a way to apply that.Is he taking about a situation where one comes across a passage, and rather than let the passage inform their system, they try to make the passage conform to the system? That is a possible attitude, and liable to Ryle’s charge of undue veneration.
Or perhaps a system where there is no allowance for mystery, and God leaving some things unrevealed? In that case, your systematics can make an unlawful intrusion into the secret things of God. Perhaps in some degree that is being more systematic than lawful.
We are talking about the infinitely wise God, so we must engage in systematics with the understanding that in the topic of God we are, to say the least, in over our heads as to the subject matter, and so while we stand by what is known to be good and right, our systematics themselves will be shaped and remolded with new and better understanding.
It is not possible to be more systematic than the Bible.
Oh, absolutely. I completely agree. But, as Berkhof said, just because one is presenting the truths of Scripture in a systematic fashion does not necessarily mean they are staying from biblical truth itself—unless, of course, it is just a bad system.It is true that truth is systematic, but the Bible isn't written as such. It has poetry, song, symbol, story (none of which are in systematic texts).
Is he taking about a situation where one comes across a passage, and rather than let the passage inform their system, they try to make the passage conform to the system? That is a possible attitude, and liable to Ryle’s charge of undue veneration.
Or perhaps a system where there is no allowance for mystery, and God leaving some things unrevealed? In that case, your systematics can make an unlawful intrusion into the secret things of God. Perhaps in some degree that is being more systematic than lawful.
We are talking about the infinitely wise God, so we must engage in systematics with the understanding that in the topic of God we are, to say the least, in over our heads as to the subject matter, and so while we stand by what is known to be good and right, our systematics themselves will be shaped and remolded with new and better understanding.
I've been accused of being more open to biblical theology than ST
I do not have time to look it up right now, but I believe that the quotation in the OP is taken from J. C. Ryle's commentary on John wherein he is discussing particular redemption in relation to hypothetical universalism. His point was that you cannot dismiss the notion that, in one sense, Christ died for all men because it does not fit in with a system or appears inconsistent with Christ's particular redemption of the elect.
As in William Ames (1576-1633)? I wouldn't have thought there would have been a distinction between, or even the terminology for, these two disciplines at that time.I love what Ames said--that the best systematics are thoroughly biblical, and the best biblical theology is thoroughly systematic.