More systematic than the Bible?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
Calvin wasn't afraid to disagree with his influences(St, Augustine, church fathers) were he felt they went astray and we shouldn't either.
 
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 is 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.​
 
Last edited:
Funny, I was just reading this earlier this week. It was a timely read after having a discussion with someone who rejects the free offer of the gospel.
 
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.​
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.
 
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.
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.
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 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.
Especially shocking is the number of members of Reformed Churches who disagree with Limited Atonement.
 
What's the difference between biblical theology and systematic theology?
“In Biblical Theology the principle is one of historical, in Systematic Theology it is one of logical construction. Biblical Theology draws a line of development. Systematic Theology draws a circle.”
Vos, Bib-Theo, 16
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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 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.
 
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).
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.
 
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 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.
 
I've been accused of being more open to biblical theology than ST

I'm somewhat of a biblical theologian myself.
Below is the totality of my work so far. I attempted to be consistent with the whole Bible...

God displays His glory through judgment unto salvation.
(Sometimes I substitute 'and' for 'unto,' because I am unsure which is more accurate). :)
 
We do need to be aware of some dangers of over-systematizing. I think this is a reaction to the Federal Vision's over-infatuation with biblical theology. Many think that the Gospel, Acts (and most of the Old Testament) are just stories that are good enough for little children. The real meat is Paul. Paul wrote systematic theology (even though he actually says he is writing letters, and occasional ones at that).

If your system can't account for tabernacle imagery, ritual purity, sacred space (sometimes in conjunction with blood and genital emissions), and the like, then you might need to rethink some things.
 
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.
Well in his commentary on John there is a similar quote.

"Let us take heed that our views of the love of God are Scriptural and well-defined. The subject is one on which error abounds on either side. On the one hand we must beware of vague and exaggerated opinions. We must maintain firmly that God hates wickedness, and that the end of all who persist in wickedness will be destruction. It is not true that God's love is "lower than hell." It is not true that God so loved the world that all mankind will be finally saved, but that He so loved the world that He gave His Son to be the Savior of all who believe. His love is offered to all men freely, fully, honestly, and unreservedly, but it is only through the one channel of Christ's redemption. He that rejects Christ cuts himself off from God's love, and will perish everlastingly. On the other hand, we must beware of narrow and contracted opinions. We must not hesitate to tell any sinner that God loves him. It is not true that God cares for none but His own elect, or that Christ is not offered to any but those who are ordained to eternal life. There is a "kindness and love" in God towards all mankind. It was in consequence of that love that Christ came into the world, and died upon the cross. Let us not be wise above that which is written, or more systematic in our statements than Scripture itself. God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. God is not willing that any should perish. God would have all men to be saved. God loves the world. (John 6:32; Titus 3:4; 1 John4:10; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:4; Ezek. 33:11.)" From expository thoughts on the gospel of John Chapter 3




 
While it is true that Reformed theologians are often tempted to collapse biblical theology into systematic theology (the two disciplines should be, as those ubiquitous watchwords would have it, "distinct yet inseparable," and I would argue completely and utterly interdependent), that is not the major danger in the matter present in the academy. The major danger in the academy is the rejection of systematic theology's relationship to biblical theology and exegesis altogether. The academies have not so much a distinction as a wall triple reinforced between the disciplines. This is the result of the Enlightenment, and Gabler's attempt to throw off churchly theology in the pursuit of exegesis. If I had a dollar for every time I saw "That's a dogmatic category, and we can't talk about that in a commentary" in a commentary, I would be fabulously wealthy.

The fact of the matter is this. It is not a question of whether we will allow our ST to influence our exegesis and BT. Everyone's ST does that. Everyone has a grid by which they determine which interpretations of a given text are more plausible than others. The question is whether the ST that actually does influence our exegesis and BT will be a good ST or a bad one. The question is, as Berkhof said, whether our ST is biblical or not. Is it sympathetic to what Scripture says, or does it stand over the Bible in critical superiority? Is it, as Jacob noted, capable of taking into account all the biblical evidence, or is it too brittle for that? This is why BT and ST must be in constant conversation, constant interdependence. Without ST, BT will wander off the reservation, since there is no fence. Without BT, ST will reify into an ingrown rigidity incapable of being taught.

One last point in connection with this must be made. Creativity in theology is much too often considered to be lateral movement. Heaven forbid, in some quarters, that an exegesis of a biblical text would actually be consistent with churchly teaching! There is a word for lateral movement creativity. That word is heresy. Creativity is rather to be understood as digging down deeper to understand the same truths better, more fulsomely, and more in connection with everything else God has revealed. This is the kind of creativity the best theologians of history have had. There is a faith once for all delivered to the saints. It does not keep getting changed into something else.
 
I love what Ames said--that the best systematics are thoroughly biblical, and the best biblical theology is thoroughly systematic.
 
I love what Ames said--that the best systematics are thoroughly biblical, and the best biblical theology is thoroughly systematic.
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.
 
Taylor, you may be right. I think it was rather not what he said but what he did and how he wrote about the covenants. I'm looking back over it now (Book 1, chs 38-39 in his Marrow of Sacred Divinity). His chapters on the covenants are laid out in a thoroughly systematic fashion. As he deals with each manifestation of the covenants, he draws out the doctrines of calling, justification, sanctification, etc etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top