Systematic Theology under fire

[doulosChristou]

I've noticed an inceasing number of folks (not here) disparaging Systematic Theology while exalting Biblical Theology in its place. It seems to me that the primary goal of doing sound Biblical Theology is to provide a solid foundation for doing Systematic Theology. Without ST, surely the church's teaching, preaching, missions, evangelism, and apologetics will suffer much. Has anyone else run into this sort of attack on ST? Is this a new trend? Will it lead to unsound doctrine?

 

[wsw201]

I have seen it with the FV guys. They need to re-read Vos's Biblical Theology. He takes the position that the two disciplines feed off each other.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Is not true biblical theology systematic? Everything God has done and will do will be based upon a systematic. He decree's something and works it out according to that system of decree. Looking at the scriptures outside of a systematic is like trying to read the bible underwater. Why go to a medical doctor, just use a homeopath..........

 

[doulosChristou]

FV = Federal Vision/Auburnism/Hyper-covenantalism?

I've seen it with some group identifying themselves as Reformed Catholics. Are they related to FV?

 

[doulosChristou]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Is not true biblical theology systematic?

You bet. It is systematic with a small "s". So are the disciplines of Hermeneutics and Biblical Studies, for that matter. But the discipline of Systematic Theology is distinct from the discipline of Biblical Theology. The latter culls from a particular book or author or genre while the former culls from the whole counsel of God's word.

 

[BobVigneault]

I agree with Scott that Biblical theology is fundamentally systematic. In Matt McMahon's shorter survey of church history he referred to the Institutes as biblical theology and to Turretin as sytematic theology.

Matt, if you are following this thread I would like to know more of how you define these two studies and how Calvin's institutes and Turretin's institutes fall into these categories.

Blessings to all!

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Strictly speaking, and as defined by Vos, Biblical theology is the study of revelation as it develops in history. Systematic theology is a more logical presentation of the doctrines taught in Scripture rather than a historically based presentation. And he contends that you need both.

[Edited on 29-12-2004 by puritansailor]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Both Calvin and Turretin are systematics. Calvin is expounding the apostle's creed and Turretin is systematizing doctrine.

Owen wrote an excellent biblical theology, and Vos' is great as well. Biblical theology is called the handmaiden on systematic theology by the theological giants of history. The reason is that a more comprehensive understanding and relationship is bound up in systematics. It takes more work to carefully join the biblical data systematically.

The Federal Vision is the same as Reformed Catholicism. They are the same bunch for the most part. They like biblical theology "telling a story" rather than systematic theology "comprehensive understanding of all the bible" because the latter is more difficult than the former and it fits nicely into their conceptions of "covenantalism" as "covenant faithfulness". They don't want to get bogged down (or rather corrected) by all the systematic ideas and terms.

 

[JohnV]

I thought that systematic theology was the study of theology in a structured setting, like in Bible College or Catechism Class. I find it suspect that someone would make a distinction between a Systematic Theology and a Biblical Theology as if they were two different things. If someone were to teach a course on Biblical Theology it would be a Systematic Theology course, no matter what they called it. And if they taught a real systematic theology, it would be a Biblical one. To make two different things out of it is artificial, I would think.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by doulosChristou

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Is not true biblical theology systematic?

You bet. It is systematic with a small "s". So are the disciplines of Hermeneutics and Biblical Studies, for that matter. But the discipline of Systematic Theology is distinct from the discipline of Biblical Theology. The latter culls from a particular book or author or genre while the former culls from the whole counsel of God's word.

Greg,
Scripture is not open to private interpretation. Based upon that, what we study (solely out of the bible) must be weighed against that which the masses have embraced in the church over time; safety in numbers principle. Also, is not our theology presuppositional to a degree, and aren't these presups based upon what other men conveyed to us? I've studied, plus what my pastor or teachers have claimed, is generally how we think and even believe. Because of this, I disagree with your premise that the "latter culls from a particular book or author or genre" alone. What we gleen from systematics is gleened from the bible as it is weighed against the bible alone. Else, what these guys are proposing, would it not be wrong then sitting under pastors or teachers?

[Edited on 12-29-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[wsw201]

John,

I would recommend reading Vos' Biblical Theology. Owen's work on Biblical Theology is excellent but Vos gets into the technical differences between Biblical and Systematic Theology. What Patrick noted is true about the difference between the two.

 

[Irishcat922]

Is Vos more comprehensive than Owen? I just got a copy of Owen I am fixin to start reading it, maybe I should read Vos as well. I read some in Vos years ago, should I reread him?

 

[doulosChristou]

I must be using the terms differently than you. I'm drawing from what I've studied under Dr. Bruce A. Ware. An example of BT would be, for instance, a study of "the doctrine of sanctification in the Johannine corpus" or "Paul's theology of law," while a good example of ST would be Frame's The Doctrine of God. This is the way these terms are being used today in the academy. The discipline of BT answers questions such as "What does wisdom literature say about suffering?" or "What does Matthew teach concerning Redemption?" whereas ST answers questions such as "What does God teach about suffering?" or "What does God teach about Redemption?"

 

[wsw201]

Sean,

Owen's work was considered the forerunner to Vos' Biblical Theology. Both are pretty good and both are loooong!

 

[doulosChristou]

Originally posted by webmaster

The Federal Vision is the same as Reformed Catholicism. They are the same bunch for the most part. They like biblical theology "telling a story" rather than systematic theology "comprehensive understanding of all the bible" because the latter is more difficult than the former and it fits nicely into their conceptions of "covenantalism" as "covenant faithfulness". They don't want to get bogged down (or rather corrected) by all the systematic ideas and terms.

Thanks! That was helpful. Dismissing or neglecting ST is sure to lead to error, and it obviously has with these guys.

 

[JohnV]

Wayne:

Patrick and Matt wrote that while I was typing. I didn't see it.

I don't think that I disagree with that. I'll leave it to you guys to read those big books for now. I'd like to read Vos' book, though, and sometime I likely will. I've begun to read Turretin; I've read a lot of Calvin, and I now have a Brakel too. I've got Owen on my hard drive too, thanks to the links on this Board.

But its hard to read all that while my focus has to be narrowed to a particular field of study for the time being. Without a good sound Biblical and systematic background apologetics is useless. But I think I have that without going into the artificial division between the two, the either/or distinction Greg is reporting.

 

[doulosChristou]

John,

Just to clarify, no one is saying that ST is not biblical or that BT is not systematic. Simply put, BT and ST are two distinct disciplines. That does not mean that there is no overlap. Vos is right that the two interact with one another and the church must be doing both. Apologetics, Homiletics, Evangelism, and Missiology are also distinct disciplines with much overlap between them.

 

[luvroftheWord]

I think its interesting that the liberal theologians, such has G. Van Rad were doing Biblical Theology in principle before Vos popularized it. You can see the transition from an emphasis on Systematics to Biblical Theology at Princeton Seminary from Hodge to Warfield to Vos.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by luvroftheWord
I think its interesting that the liberal theologians, such has G. Van Rad were doing Biblical Theology in principle before Vos popularized it. You can see the transition from an emphasis on Systematics to Biblical Theology at Princeton Seminary from Hodge to Warfield to Vos.

That is true that some liberals started using the term "biblical theology" but Vos explains what the difference is in his introduciton to his Biblical Theology. Those liberals didn't hold to the inerrancy/infallibility of Scripture. Their study was simply "what did the Jews believe in that time." most of them didn't even think the accounts prior to and during Moses ever even happened in history but were just pagan myths or folklore to give them meaning and purpose. Vos firmly held to the traditional doctrine of Scripture and instead turned BT into a study of how God has revealed himself to men over history and what the purpose was in doing so, mainly preparing us for Christ.

 

[JohnV]

Greg:

I've noticed an inceasing number of folks (not here) disparaging Systematic Theology while exalting Biblical Theology in its place.

This is from your first post. I too have had to deal with this at the local church that really pulled at every string to jutify itself. They were disparaging not only ST, but preached from the pulpit criticisms of men like Berkhof, Hodge, and others who said things which were construed as being against their particular narrow views. Matt has also intimated the same in his post, the one about the FV/RefCath.

The Federal Vision is the same as Reformed Catholicism. They are the same bunch for the most part. They like biblical theology "telling a story" rather than systematic theology "comprehensive understanding of all the bible" because the latter is more difficult than the former and it fits nicely into their conceptions of "covenantalism" as "covenant faithfulness". They don't want to get bogged down (or rather corrected) by all the systematic ideas and terms.

They are deliberately putting one against the other to justify themselves. Somehow, I don't think that is what Vos had in mind, though I don't know because I haven't read his book. And I don't say that you or anyone has this in mind. But it is still true that this is what this thread was originally about, namely the disparaging of the one to exalt the other, as if they could be artificially separated. I was only answering from a practical point of view, rather than citing from the authoritative text books on the subject. I'm not disagreeing, I was just showing that the ordinary pew sitter like myself can also discern that such disparaging is undermining and not helpful.

We don't all have to be great theologians to know when things are wrong. I don't even have a High School certificate, and I am not afraid to take on these guys. That's because they don't make their mistakes in the fine print; its usually, if not always, on a basic issue. Its called the"dividing by zero" mistake. I think we need to see that before we get into the nitty gritty of the theological frameworks of the erroneous teachings. In other words, we have to keep it simple so that the general constituency in the church understands it. So that's why I put things like I did.

 

[fredtgreco]

This is the latest fad in Reformed Circles. You know:

Systematics = bad
Biblical Theology = good

like

Greek = bad
Hebrew = good

Confessionalism = bad
"contextualization" = good

Biblical theology is (like Systematics) a discipline with its advantages and disadvantages. Even as used by men like Vos, it has the advantage of showing the flow of redmptuve history, and the scope of God's work, while at the same time it opens up opportunties for holding "tensions" that indirectly attack the Bible (men talk about being Pauline in soteriology or ecclesiology instead of Petrine or Johannine, or vice versa). Systematics has the advantage of taking the whole counsel of God together, but it needs Biblical theology to assist it in redemptive focus. BT is indeed the handmaid of ST.

Now, we should not jump to the conclusion that BT is causing these abberrant views in the Church. It provides opportunity for cover for men to needlessly pit historical orthodoxy against their new and innovative views, as they claim to be going back to BT "sources." But this should not cause us to denigrate BT - which after all, did not begin with Vos or Ridderbos (regardless of what some say). Edwards wrote a Biblical theology of sorts. So did Owen. The Church Fathers have much of BT in them (especially Irenaeus).

We should also not lump (in my view) the Federal Vision in with Reformed Catholics. There is a lot of overlap (especially in the blogging community), but whereas the FV folks are more concerned with covenantal issues (e.g. John 15) and twisting that to suit their needs, the RefCats are more concerned with twisting Hodge and others to show that we really should love Catholics and denigrate the average Protestant.

That's probably more than I needed to say now.

 

[doulosChristou]

Originally posted by JohnV
Greg:

I've noticed an inceasing number of folks (not here) disparaging Systematic Theology while exalting Biblical Theology in its place.

This is from your first post. I too have had to deal with this at the local church that really pulled at every string to jutify itself. They were disparaging not only ST, but preached from the pulpit criticisms of men like Berkhof, Hodge, and others who said things which were construed as being against their particular narrow views. Matt has also intimated the same in his post, the one about the FV/RefCath.

The Federal Vision is the same as Reformed Catholicism. They are the same bunch for the most part. They like biblical theology "telling a story" rather than systematic theology "comprehensive understanding of all the bible" because the latter is more difficult than the former and it fits nicely into their conceptions of "covenantalism" as "covenant faithfulness". They don't want to get bogged down (or rather corrected) by all the systematic ideas and terms.

They are deliberately putting one against the other to justify themselves. Somehow, I don't think that is what Vos had in mind, though I don't know because I haven't read his book. And I don't say that you or anyone has this in mind. But it is still true that this is what this thread was originally about, namely the disparaging of the one to exalt the other, as if they could be artificially separated. I was only answering from a practical point of view, rather than citing from the authoritative text books on the subject. I'm not disagreeing, I was just showing that the ordinary pew sitter like myself can also discern that such disparaging is undermining and not helpful.

We don't all have to be great theologians to know when things are wrong. I don't even have a High School certificate, and I am not afraid to take on these guys. That's because they don't make their mistakes in the fine print; its usually, if not always, on a basic issue. Its called the"dividing by zero" mistake. I think we need to see that before we get into the nitty gritty of the theological frameworks of the erroneous teachings. In other words, we have to keep it simple so that the general constituency in the church understands it. So that's why I put things like I did.

Now I understand what you meant. Thanks for clarifying. And I agree. Disparaging of the one to exalt the other artificially separates and undermines both disciplines.

 

[doulosChristou]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
This is the latest fad in Reformed Circles. You know:

Systematics = bad
Biblical Theology = good

like

Greek = bad
Hebrew = good

Confessionalism = bad
"contextualization" = good

Biblical theology is (like Systematics) a discipline with its advantages and disadvantages. Even as used by men like Vos, it has the advantage of showing the flow of redmptuve history, and the scope of God's work, while at the same time it opens up opportunties for holding "tensions" that indirectly attack the Bible (men talk about being Pauline in soteriology or ecclesiology instead of Petrine or Johannine, or vice versa). Systematics has the advantage of taking the whole counsel of God together, but it needs Biblical theology to assist it in redemptive focus. BT is indeed the handmaid of ST.

Now, we should not jump to the conclusion that BT is causing these abberrant views in the Church. It provides opportunity for cover for men to needlessly pit historical orthodoxy against their new and innovative views, as they claim to be going back to BT "sources." But this should not cause us to denigrate BT - which after all, did not begin with Vos or Ridderbos (regardless of what some say).

Yes! Well put, Fred.