Despite this, while all (honest) students of scripture must acknowledge, at the outset, our fallen state, we have this sense that we can climb mount improbable. We can figure it all out. Our minds are equal to the task of grasping all that God's vast wisdom has recorded for us. We might not state it so bluntly, but it is the underlying presupposition of every author of a systematic theology text and of every denominational committee which publishes their creeds. They've wrestled with the data, done the homework, and have the answers for you, neatly presented with footnotes and charts. Here is the mind of God! Obviously, this is the height of conceit, as God clearly teaches in Isa 55:8-9:
neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Similarly, when Job finally gets his "day in court" before the Almighty, he is sharply reprimanded for thinking that he had the level of knowledge required to figure out God. "“Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?" Job 38:2.
What then? Should we not try to understand scripture? Certainly not! On the contrary, God invites, even commands, us to seek him out, to read His words and to make sense of them.
"'Come Now, Let us reason together,' says the Lord." Isa 1:18
"And these words that I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise." Deut 6:6-7
"Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers, but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers." Psa 1:1-3
Most clearly: "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." 2Tim 2:15
So we are to study, read, meditate, and then admit when we don't have all the answers. This balance has proven very hard to strike, as time after time throughout Church History pastors have either acknowledged the impossibility of knowing everything and so they haven't tried or they dig deep, build their footnotes and systems, and then fail to acknowledge when it doesn't always add up perfectly. Let's explore this problem a little deeper and see what we can learn.
The Immeasurable Benefit of Systematic Theology
Consider one famous example, which is recorded within the pages of scripture itself. The most internally-quoted passage of scripture (the reference that other scripture cites more than any other) is Exodus 34:6-7:
The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.”
More people writing scripture quote God's self-revelation there than any other passage, so you'd think that meant that we had its meaning nailed down, but the last phrase, the bit about God "visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children," made many Biblical scholars and Rabbis teach that a child can be punished by God for what their Fathers did. If you read through scripture, you can see this presupposition showing frequently.
We know that this isn’t the intended point of the passage because God has to correct the Rabbinical teaching himself in Ezekiel 18. God goes to great length to make sure that his people know that they will live or die because of their own sins, not the sins of the Father. He has to do this, though, because one passage was allowed to form a complete theology. The point of this passage is that there are consequences in the lives of every person because of the sinful lives we see modeled and the broken habits we inherit, and God cannot turn a blind eye to my sin just because I can point to my Dad and say that I learned it from him. My sin will be judged in my personal accounting with God, even if it is the sin that I learned on my parents’ lap. I know this because I can read passages like Ezekiel 18 and John 9 among others and put together a “big picture.” That is a systematic theology, and it is immeasurably beneficial to us as believers.
Systematic Theology helps reign in our interpretation of one verse because we know what scripture says in other places. Systematic Theology turns a pixelated view of God, understanding individual verses as points of revelation, into a beautiful high-definition image of God as revealed in His word. It provides organization, framework, and even beauty to the pursuit of knowing God.
Systematic Theology is why I know that while God is invisible (Col 1:15), transcendent (2Chron 2:6), and unfathomable (Rom 11:33), He is still a person who loves (John 15:9), wants to be known (Jer 29:13), that He loves humanity in general (John 3:16) and me in particular (Romans 5:8)!
Systematic Theology tells us that Jesus is God (John 1:1-3), told others that He was (John 8:58-59), was believed to be so by His apostles (Matt 16:16), and that acceptance of this fact is the foundation of saving faith (Romans 10:8-10).
If we don’t systematize our theology, we end up knowing isolated facts, not the person of God. We might win the Bible Challenge, but not the race of faith. Without systematizing our beliefs, we may embrace some post-modern vague spirituality drawn from inspired truths in scripture, but we would not be able to relate in a saving way to the faith that those truths demand.
We live in a time when people “outside the camp” of faith in Messiah like to point to the Bible and ridicule it as outdated, illogical, and irrelevant. In sharp contrast to this attitude, we are called by God to pour our attention into our study of His Word, the Bible. Only when we do so will we make sense, not only of it but of everything else. Over and over again, I read authors who speak in the past tense about when people believed that the Bible was not only theologically true but also reliable in the areas of history and science. The erosion in confidence in the Bible begins when we start to take difficult passages out of context, bronze them in popular culture as too hard to understand or systematize, and then set them up on pedestals as representations of all of God’s Word.
Systematic theology urges the exact opposite: let’s understand those difficult passages (for certainly, they exist) in light of all the easy to understand ones and see how they bring contrast, shades of meaning, and color to the testimony of all of scripture, making God’s word actually more beautiful, not less. We must let scripture speak as an organized whole into our lives!
We must systematize our beliefs, and in the overwhelming majority of the cases, challenges to our logic and comprehension can legitimately be resolved by careful study. It took years of debate for the finer points of our faith to be described. The doctrines of the nature of Christ, the definition of the Trinity, and the meaning of baptism have all been hammered out by well-intentioned, Spirit-filled people toiling at the task of Systematizing Theology. It can be done, and the final product is beautiful, durable, and well worth the effort.
We have a rational faith, and its reasoning and reliability can be demonstrated by the Holy Spirit’s guidance of our study. We don’t hold a faith which has no foundation in reality. In fact, Christianity, more than any other religion, bears out time and time again its reliability when tested against the evidence produced by science. Biology, archaeology, cosmology, and others constantly bear witness to truths contained in the scriptures. We don’t hold our faith, “by faith,” meaning “without understanding.” Our faith is rational, and Systematic Theology is the best way to demonstrate this rationality. Organization and systematization of beliefs are required by God both directly in scripture and by the desire to organize that He has built into the human mind. So, what’s the problem?
The Very Real Danger of Systematic Theology
The problem with Systematic Theology is that sometimes we get really good at it (or read books written by people who are really good at it), and we start to trust our own ability to reason (or the author’s) so much that we forget that we are flawed, fallible, and impossibly inadequate to the task of knowing everything about God. Also, we live in a scientific age when people are used to being able to “Google” any conceivable question and have the knowledge in seconds. Physics works that way. Shouldn’t God? I can watch a 5 minute YouTube video and know how to change the spark plugs on my truck. Shouldn’t I be able to know the details of the Divine in as much time? God becomes just one more intellectual challenge to be figured out.
The problem is that this is not at all who God actually is. He is neither a natural law, a concept, or a force. He is a person, an infinitely complex and wonderful (as in inspiring wonder) person, and we have to know Him like we know a friend, not like we know a fact. I’ve been married to my wife for 15 years now, and there is much about her that is still a mystery (just ask her!). She resists systematization, and my attempts to know the “facts” about her only frustrate my desire to know her as a person. God is like this, but since He is infinitely more complicated a person than my wife, it is infinitely more difficult to reduce knowledge of God to a formula. Sometimes, the “math” of God just doesn’t work.
When our “God math” fails to work, when infallible truths resist clean systematization, we can do one of two things: 1) We can force statements to fit by either ignoring contrasting scriptures or playing linguistic games with the text until we’ve explained it away and made it not really say what is says, or 2) We can admit the fact that God is not math and that there is mystery here and embrace it. Honest Theologians take the second road, but those books don’t sell as well, and “mystery” rarely gets the votes in denominational committee meetings. Consequently, most systematic theologians push for an answer where one clear statement may, in fact, be further from the truth than an honest admission that “your ways are too wonderful for me” (Psa 139:6).
Let’s consider just one example, and it’s a big one. There are two clear truths taught in scripture throughout its entire testimony. They run parallel from the beginning of scripture to the end, seemingly leading to two different conclusions, but both supported by correct hermeneutics. In order to be Biblical, we need to understand and believe both of these statements.
First, God is sovereign on the question of salvation. He declared before the foundation of the world not only that Jesus would be Saviour (1Pe 1:20; Rev 13:8) but the individual persons who would benefit from that salvation (Eph 1:4; Acts 13:48). When the word goes forth and the Spirit of God rides out and convicts people of sin, driving them to their knees in repentance and faith, that knowledge, faith, and repentance are all gifts of God (2Tim 2:25; Eph 2:4-5) given to people who had already been chosen to receive it (Rom 8:28-30). If people don’t like this situation and feel it is unfair, Paul tells them to suck it up and stop complaining. God is sovereign. We are not. Deal with it (Rom 9-11, esp 9:18-23), and after you have come to terms with it, worship Him for it (Rom 11:38). This sovereignty is a fact of scripture and an unswerving reality in God’s universe. He keeps his own counsel on questions of election. Just ask Korah.
Running parallel to this truth throughout scripture is the unquestionable reality of your need to choose to follow God. Jews were admonished to choose faith in God under the old covenant (Josh 24:15). New covenant believers are similarly told that they need to choose God (Matt 4:17; Mark 1:15; Acts 2:38). We are offered blessings or curses based on our choice to follow or reject God under the old covenant (Deut 30:19; Ezek 18:30-32) and the new (1Tim 6:9-10; Rom 10:1-3). Changing your mind on this issue is a possibility and bears worse consequences than having rejected in the first place (Heb 6 and 10). Just because we are sinners by nature (Psa 51:5; Eph 2:1-3) does not mean that we are not also sinners by choice (Gen 6:5; Matt 5:19; Prov 20:9). We need to make a real, conscious decision to turn from sin and choose Christ (1Jn 3:6-7; Jas 4:7; Acts 3:19). The failure to do so is a real choice, for which the unrepentant will be held accountable (Matt 23:37; Rev 2:21; 9:21; 16:11).
We can build a systematic theology about either of these truths, but to build a system that embraces them both is very difficult. This has caused systematic theologians of all traditions to create polemics embracing one set of truths at the expense of the other. In one corner, Reformed theologians in the tradition of Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and Edwards have exposited thoroughly the sovereignty of God at the expense of the reality of our choice. To that school, in order for God’s call to be effective, His grace must be irresistible, atonement must be limited, and our will’s freedom is at least greatly restrained, if not an illusion entirely. This is clearly not the teaching of scripture.
In the other corner are champions of our freedom of will, lead by Huss, Arminius, and Wesley, who rightly proclaim the truth and genuine nature of our choice and its consequence. In order to make this work completely, they have to reduce God’s prescriptive decree to simply a predictive one. God’s decree is not the reason we are saved. It is simply his foreknowledge informing Him that we have chosen Him in the then-future in which we now live. This is clearly not the teaching of scripture either, but it’s the corner you paint yourself into when you start with “above all else, we are free.”
Systematic Theology is why I know that while God is invisible (Col 1:15), transcendent (2Chron 2:6), and unfathomable (Rom 11:33), He is still a person who loves (John 15:9), wants to be known (Jer 29:13), that He loves humanity in general (John 3:16) and me in particular (Romans 5:8)!
Systematic Theology tells us that Jesus is God (John 1:1-3), told others that He was (John 8:58-59), was believed to be so by His apostles (Matt 16:16), and that acceptance of this fact is the foundation of saving faith (Romans 10:8-10).
If we don’t systematize our theology, we end up knowing isolated facts, not the person of God. We might win the Bible Challenge, but not the race of faith. Without systematizing our beliefs, we may embrace some post-modern vague spirituality drawn from inspired truths in scripture, but we would not be able to relate in a saving way to the faith that those truths demand.
Systematic theology urges the exact opposite: let’s understand those difficult passages (for certainly, they exist) in light of all the easy to understand ones and see how they bring contrast, shades of meaning, and color to the testimony of all of scripture, making God’s word actually more beautiful, not less. We must let scripture speak as an organized whole into our lives!
We must systematize our beliefs, and in the overwhelming majority of the cases, challenges to our logic and comprehension can legitimately be resolved by careful study. It took years of debate for the finer points of our faith to be described. The doctrines of the nature of Christ, the definition of the Trinity, and the meaning of baptism have all been hammered out by well-intentioned, Spirit-filled people toiling at the task of Systematizing Theology. It can be done, and the final product is beautiful, durable, and well worth the effort.
The Very Real Danger of Systematic Theology
The problem with Systematic Theology is that sometimes we get really good at it (or read books written by people who are really good at it), and we start to trust our own ability to reason (or the author’s) so much that we forget that we are flawed, fallible, and impossibly inadequate to the task of knowing everything about God. Also, we live in a scientific age when people are used to being able to “Google” any conceivable question and have the knowledge in seconds. Physics works that way. Shouldn’t God? I can watch a 5 minute YouTube video and know how to change the spark plugs on my truck. Shouldn’t I be able to know the details of the Divine in as much time? God becomes just one more intellectual challenge to be figured out.
When our “God math” fails to work, when infallible truths resist clean systematization, we can do one of two things: 1) We can force statements to fit by either ignoring contrasting scriptures or playing linguistic games with the text until we’ve explained it away and made it not really say what is says, or 2) We can admit the fact that God is not math and that there is mystery here and embrace it. Honest Theologians take the second road, but those books don’t sell as well, and “mystery” rarely gets the votes in denominational committee meetings. Consequently, most systematic theologians push for an answer where one clear statement may, in fact, be further from the truth than an honest admission that “your ways are too wonderful for me” (Psa 139:6).
Let’s consider just one example, and it’s a big one. There are two clear truths taught in scripture throughout its entire testimony. They run parallel from the beginning of scripture to the end, seemingly leading to two different conclusions, but both supported by correct hermeneutics. In order to be Biblical, we need to understand and believe both of these statements.First, God is sovereign on the question of salvation. He declared before the foundation of the world not only that Jesus would be Saviour (1Pe 1:20; Rev 13:8) but the individual persons who would benefit from that salvation (Eph 1:4; Acts 13:48). When the word goes forth and the Spirit of God rides out and convicts people of sin, driving them to their knees in repentance and faith, that knowledge, faith, and repentance are all gifts of God (2Tim 2:25; Eph 2:4-5) given to people who had already been chosen to receive it (Rom 8:28-30). If people don’t like this situation and feel it is unfair, Paul tells them to suck it up and stop complaining. God is sovereign. We are not. Deal with it (Rom 9-11, esp 9:18-23), and after you have come to terms with it, worship Him for it (Rom 11:38). This sovereignty is a fact of scripture and an unswerving reality in God’s universe. He keeps his own counsel on questions of election. Just ask Korah.
We can build a systematic theology about either of these truths, but to build a system that embraces them both is very difficult. This has caused systematic theologians of all traditions to create polemics embracing one set of truths at the expense of the other. In one corner, Reformed theologians in the tradition of Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and Edwards have exposited thoroughly the sovereignty of God at the expense of the reality of our choice. To that school, in order for God’s call to be effective, His grace must be irresistible, atonement must be limited, and our will’s freedom is at least greatly restrained, if not an illusion entirely. This is clearly not the teaching of scripture.
In the other corner are champions of our freedom of will, lead by Huss, Arminius, and Wesley, who rightly proclaim the truth and genuine nature of our choice and its consequence. In order to make this work completely, they have to reduce God’s prescriptive decree to simply a predictive one. God’s decree is not the reason we are saved. It is simply his foreknowledge informing Him that we have chosen Him in the then-future in which we now live. This is clearly not the teaching of scripture either, but it’s the corner you paint yourself into when you start with “above all else, we are free.”
Resolving this tension is not a matter of rigorous logic or being a better student of the original languages; it is a matter of humility. Honest, God-fearing, Jesus-loving, Word-respecting saved people have built their systems on one of these truths and have looked cross-eyed at the other.
Can I just pause here and add a plug for our own branch of the family tree of faith? I love that the Calvary Chapel Church stands in the middle on this difficult question (and a few others). They reject the clearly unbiblical conclusions of irresistible grace and limited atonement and then just say, “Simply teach the Bible simply.”
Humility and Mystery
Part of putting away our academic pride involves letting go of the commitment to have all truth fit in one neat little package. Obviously, when one answer is possible, we should take it. We don’t want to fail to walk as far down the road as warranted logical processes go, but we don’t want to push it farther than scripture intends either. We need to study hard to show ourselves approved, but we should not speak in greater detail than scripture does. When it is silent, we should be as well.
Unbelievers will often find difficulties in the Bible and say that the Bible has “contradictions.” It doesn’t. The Bible is perfect. It is the perfect word of a perfect God. Where the disconnect happens, it’s our fault, not God’s. I suck at Basketball. If I were to jump in and play with the Chicago Bulls, I would frequently fail to get their passes, read their plays, and run as quickly. It’s not their fault, though. They can pass, run, and communicate. I just can’t keep up. It’s the same issue here. God is revealing the perfect truth. I’m just too small-of-mind to see all the connections.
What unbelievers might call “errors” or “contradictions,” I call “mystery.” I’m not okay with the statement, “The Bible is full of errors,” but I agree heartily with, “The Bible is full of mystery.” In an error, the underlying truth claim is false. In a mystery, the underlying truth claim is true. I just don’t know what it is completely.
I met regularly with a very intelligent unbeliever who had read the Bible for years and not placed his faith in Christ. He was referred to me by a mutual friend who wasn’t up to the questions that this unsaved intellectual was asking. I agreed to meet with him weekly over lunch, and after about 6 months, this person still hadn’t been satisfied. I remember our final meeting when we were dealing with one such point of mystery in scripture. He, being of a mathematical background, said, “I can believe that ‘A’ is true. I can believe that ‘not A’ is true. I just can’t believe them both at the same time.” It was very well-put, and it reflects the attitude of many western people, saved and unsaved, when they read the Bible. We have learned our rules of logic so well that the rules themselves have blinded us to the genuine existence of mystery and the reality that there are true things that we can’t fully understand.
In closing, let’s look at an encounter one man had with the Living God. In Judges 13, Manoa, a man about whom we know very little, came face-to-face with the pre-incarnate Christ. He asked this Christophany for His name. In that culture, you name is more than a label. A name is your identity. It wasn’t simply a “who are you?” question. It was a “tell me all about yourself” moment. Look at what Jesus says:
When Jesus says that his name is “wonderful,” he doesn’t mean that this is his name. We aren’t to call him “Wonderful” as a personal address. The word means, “to arouse wonder about.” Wonder is “to stand in amazement, awe, or curiosity.” So, when Jesus calls himself “wonderful,” he says that he can’t be figured out. He can’t be nailed down. He is bigger than our ability to describe. We ought just to be amazed, awed, and even a bit curious.
Manoah understands. His immediate response is worship. That should be ours as well. Rather than fighting, striving, and doing grammatical gymnastics to force mysterious sections of scripture into man-made descriptive boxes, we should instead just take a page from Manoah’s playbook, accept the wonder, and worship a God who is too big to describe with perfect precision. Aren’t you glad that this is the God we serve?
At risk of exemplifying your point about the folly of stubborn reliance on human systems over sola scriptura, I would like to suggest that some conflicts between adherents of different systems may lie more, or at least to a great extent, in our failure to give full credit to all facets of the opposing system rather than in simple scriptural incompatibility.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the Remonsrants and the divines of Dortdt, both sides anathematized the other while strenuously protesting the misrepresentation of their views. Both sides admitted the inerrancy and sufficiency of scripture, and doubtless would both have denied reducing God's mystery to a man-sized equation. Yet we "Calvinists", and "Arminians" of the present day carry on hashing out the same arguments that presume the other side little less than heretic, and without any means of reconciling with scripture.
I think we should at least have the charity to recognize that both systems are, by this time, fully apprised of their own shortfalls, and that both now actually and duely make account for such.
But to be sure, regardless of these formulations, we ought to take on good faith the professions of all christians who resolutely affirm the words of God in the 2nd chapters of Ephesians and James; respectively admonishing us that we are saved by faith gifted from God, and that we are justified by the same gift of living faith wed to righteous works born of the same -as Eve born from Adam. These twin bastions withstand all the assaults of Antinomianism, Pelagianism, and the accompanying heresies touching on the fullness of Christ's atonement, and the efficacy of God's grace.
Or would you say that in drawing on these two facets only, we have a flawed system? I say that clinging directly to such simple and solid foundations is what allows us to admit the full and unknown mystery of God without being swept away in it's flood.