Systematic Theology As Biblical Discipline-MWilliams-chap.11-38pp

11
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY AS A BIBLICAL DISCIPLINE

MICHAEL WILLIAMS
Professor of Systematic Theology
___________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
In Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic

Theology, a group of biblical theologians and systematic theologians came
together to discuss and write on the relationship between Scripture,
hermeneutics, and systematic theology. The contributors to the project—
perhaps somewhat to their own dismay, but not surprisingly at all—quickly
located the disciplinary Moloch that seems to haunt all discussions of the
relationship between biblical theology and systematics: what are we to make of
systematic theology? The participants could reach no consensus on the
question. “Our disagreement on this score,” write the editors, “had to do with
ongoing controversies among systematicians regarding definitions of their task
as theologians and with some of our own caricatures of ‘theology’ as attempts
merely to organize the core, historic doctrines of Christian faith.”1
While there has been a spate of attempts to offer some definition of the
discipline in recent years,2 these attempts have usually come through the
1 Max Turner and Joel B. Green, “New Testament Commentary and Systematic Theology: Strangers or
Friends?” in Max Turner and Joel B. Green, eds., Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and
Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), 12.
2 E.g., Robert K. Johnston, ed., The Use of the Bible in Theology: Evangelical Options (Atlanta, Ga.: John
Knox, 1985); Trevor Hart, Faith Thinking: The Dynamics of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity Press, 1995); Charles J. Scalise, From Scripture to Theology: A Canonical Journey into Hermeneutics
197
198 ALL FOR JESUS
elucidation of theological hermeneutics. Theologians describe what systematic

theology does (or should do) and set down some guidelines for the doing of it,
but never quite define just what it is that is done. When definitions are
proffered, they have tended toward either the banal—such as the organization
of doctrines—or the outright dismissive and demeaning. Systematic theology,
we are told, is the product of a Greek philosophical mind, and as such is foreign
to and subversive of the Christian faith’s actual substance and shape. It is
argued that the emphasis upon topics rather than story, rationality rather than
action, and ideas rather than persons suggests that systematic theology is
simply the wrong tool for the job. In the doing of systematic theology, the
particularity of the biblical story is absorbed into the abstract, the relational into
the cognitive, the historical into timeless truth. In contrast, it is said that the
Christian faith invites us to accept the biblical story as our story, to know and
live within an encompassing drama that produces Christian identity and calls
us to live within a transformed and transforming community for the sake of
God’s kingdom mission over all things. In short, its critics say that systematics
makes no claims upon us and nurtures no relationships, but merely encourages
us to bend the Word of God to questions not of its own asking.
I have cited no examples of these criticisms of systematic theology. I have
said them all myself. And I am a systematic theologian. My goal in this essay is
to present a defense of systematic theology, a discipline that suffers from
decidedly poor reviews within present Christian academia and some sectors of
the church. Along the way, I will offer my own definition of systematic
theology, one that is humbler and more circumspect than some would like, but
one that is defensible in light of the sources and calling of the theologian. My
thesis is simple, but, I believe, profound and provocative.3 I will argue that
systematic theology, within the evangelical and Reformed tradition,4 is
(Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996); David K. Clark, To Know and Love God: Method for Theology
(Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2003). Aside from these evangelical contributions, see David H. Kelsey, The Use
of Scripture in Recent Theology (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1975) for a liberal treatment of theological
hermeneutics, and Gerald O’Collins and Daniel Kendall, The Bible for Theology: Ten Principles for the
Theological Use of Scripture (New York: Paulist Press, 1997) for a Roman Catholic treatment.
3 Profound in the sense that I wish I had been exposed to it somewhere during my theological studies
(I was not), and provocative in the sense that it will produce a measure of discomfort among many of my
peers.
4 By limiting myself to the evangelical and Reformed tradition, I acknowledge the possibility of other
ways of envisioning and doing systematic theology. As theological reflection is oriented to the resources
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY AS A BIBLICAL DISCIPLINE 199
properly bound by the Reformation principle of sola scriptura, and thus should
be regulated by the scriptural message and by sound biblical hermeneutics.
Systematics is, first of all, a biblical discipline, and not a speculative one. Far
too often, the Bible has functioned merely as a limiting principle within
systematic theology, a negative stricture: if Scripture does not disallow an idea,
we are free to employ it. Thus, the Bible is more of a constraining authority than
a positive guide to theology. My thesis, however, is that Scripture must be
allowed to lead our theological reflection rather than merely test it. While those
who take the approach toward systematics just described may, and often do,
appeal to the authority and even the inerrancy of Scripture, the Bible often fails
to function for them as a constructive guide. I want to argue this precise point:
the biblical narrative structure, the story of God’s relationship with his
creation—from Adam to Christ crucified and resurrected to Christ triumphant
in the restoration of all things in the kingdom of God—forms the regulative
principle and interpretative key for systematic theology no less than it does for
biblical theology. This suggests that a systematic theology that is oriented to the
biblical narrative and scriptural ways of knowing ought to be redemptive-
historically grounded rather than ordered to a cultural convention of rationality
or an extra-biblical conception of system.
TRADITIONAL SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
The Movement from Task-Driven Reflection to Systematic Discipline
The discipline of systematic theology did not simply come with the
revelation of Scripture. Broadly speaking, theology may be defined as a
disciplined reflection upon divine revelation,5 and systematic theology is a
particular approach toward theological reflection. While Christians have always
sought to make sense of their faith and understand its implications and
for thinking about God and his ways that a tradition accepts as legitimate, the discipline of theology will
take on quite different contours.
5 I am here making a distinction between revelation and theology. Revelation is a divine activity;
theology is a human activity undertaken in reflective response to revelation. See John Jefferson Davis,
Foundations of Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1984), 44; John Feinberg, “Introduction,” in
David K. Clark, To Know and Love God (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2003), xv; Stanley J. Grenz and Roger E.
Olson, 20th-Century Theology: God and the World in a Transitional Age (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press,
1992), 9.
200 ALL FOR JESUS
applications to life—and thus it may be said that there has been a theological
enterprise as long as there have been believers—the earliest theology of the
church could not really be called systematic theology. Thinkers such as Irenaeus
and Tertullian were engaged in theological reflection for the purpose of
polemical engagement with teaching that they took as contrary to Scripture
(e.g., the Marcionite denigration of creation and rejection of the Old Testament
as Scripture), doctrinal exposition of problematic issues (e.g., the relationship
between Jesus Christ and God), and the exposition and summation of Scripture
for catechetical purposes in the life of the church. In other words, for these early
Christian writers, theology was an occasional and task-driven enterprise.6
As a disciplined approach toward doctrinal reflection which seeks to create
a summary of what the Bible teaches, systematic theology had its beginnings in
the medieval church, in the work of such thinkers as Thomas Aquinas and Peter
Lombard.7 The first real textbook of what would become systematic theology,
and what would set the model for theological reflection for centuries to come,
was Peter Lombard’s Sentences in the twelfth century. Following John of
Damascus’ topical division of doctrine, Lombard gathered into his book
statements from church fathers and theologians throughout the history of the
church and organized them under six topics (loci).
In this model, theology became a topical and synthetic discipline, the goal of
which was the creation of a system—an integrated, coherent and
comprehensive statement of Christian doctrinal teaching. That sounds innocent
enough, and there was nothing inherently pernicious about it. But problems did
attend the approach. Over the next several centuries, theological study became
increasing abstract and distanced from the text of Scripture. One primary
principle would inform both the move toward abstraction and the relativization
of Scripture: the goal of theology came to be understood as a declaration of
timeless truth—eternally true doctrinal statements. This goal itself seems to
have been influenced by the Greek suspicion of history (think Pythagorus, not
Heraclitus). Theology was not oriented toward historical knowing, but
6See Yves M. J. Congar, A History of Theology (New York: Doubleday, 1968), 37ff.
7Origen’s De Principiis and Augustine’s Enchiridion may stand as pre-medieval forays into system-
atics, as both men sought to produce a sort of compendium of Christian doctrine.
ahistorical knowing, toward definitions rather than relationships, toward things

rather than persons or processes.8
The Impulse Toward Abstraction
I have just mentioned the suspicion of history that came from Greek
philosophy and informed so much of the Western mind. As that is a very vague
broadside sort of statement, let me offer a particular example. From Aristotelian
metaphysics, medieval theology inherited the distinction between essences and
accidents. According to this way of thinking, an essential attribute is necessary
to a thing such that the loss or diminution of that attribute would constitute a
loss of being. When applied to God, a divine attribute is a property that God
could not lose and continue to be God. Indeed, knowing these attributes
constitutes a kind of knowledge of God, for they define what God is; they
define his essence. But things also possess nonessential properties. Aristotle
called them “accidents.” A table, for example, could be painted, varnished, or
left unfinished. One could cut its legs shorter, move it to another room, use it as
a surface upon which to serve the evening meal or perform open heart surgery,
but in all these cases, the thing would still be a table. Its essence would not be
changed. The only changes effected by carrying out any of these proposed
actions would be to the nonessential characteristics of the table (the accidents).
Many of the predicates ascribed to God in Scripture denote not attributes or
essential properties but nonessential properties—accidents. These nonessential
properties, according to Thomas Aquinas, do not define what God is but relate
God to his creatures. Relational predicates such as personhood, emotional
states, character traits, and actions do not denote essential divine attributes.
They are relations that are extraneous (accidental) to the divine being. To say
that God is the Creator, or that God is the covenant Lord of Israel, is to make
nonessential statements. It is rationally possible that God may never have
chosen to create in the first place or to enter into a covenant relationship with
Abraham. And if he had not done those things he would still be what he is.
Historical actions and relationships are of negligible import philosophically
8 G. R. Evans, Old Arts and New Theology: The Beginnings of Theology as an Academic Discipline (New
York: Oxford, 1980), 137ff.

202 ALL FOR JESUS
since they are voluntary, nonessential, accidental. They are, then, irrelevant to
knowing God’s essence (the accumulation of his attributes).9
With this construction, high medieval theology (what may be called
scholasticism) would move toward a distinction between nature and works.
Nature (essences) became the subject of natural theology and was thought of as
prior to and determinative for the study of works and relationships, which are
known through biblical revelation. God, and what is most important to know
about God, can be known apart from his actions and relationships in history.
Theology came to be a defining of the divine, an abstractive and metaphysical
knowledge of God apart from the plane of history.10
The Metaphysical Orientation
We might think of the scholastic relativization of history as an attempt to

position human knowing on the transcendent side of the Creator-creation
boundary. To use Karl Barth’s memorable phrase, the scholastics sought “to
lighten heaven with earth’s searchlights,” rather than “let the light of heaven be
seen and understood on earth.”11 Curiously, the ahistorical impulse of
scholastic theology even extended to the divine acts within history. According
to the datum that whatever God does in history he has already determined in
eternity, scholastic theology thought of creation, sin, redemption, and
glorification as categories in the mind of God rather than as historical events.
Once these things have been abstracted from the temporal sequence of
Scripture and turned into divine ideas or free-floating theological constructs,
they are free to be ordered according to the preferences of the theological
system. And, of course, this would give birth in seventeenth-century Reformed
thought to complex systems of decrees in which the theologian speculates upon
a pre-creational moment in the mind of God rather than attending to the
biblical and temporal order. What we have, then, is theology as a virtual
9See Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, part 1, for a discussion of the divine attributes.
10Addressing the medieval habit to engage in “ontologizing thought,” and thus the development of
theology as a “metaphysical science of speculation,” Harvie M. Conn notes that “the danger of this
abstractionist thinking has always been that things are viewed as existing in themselves without taking
into consideration the relationships in which they stand to other things.” (Harvie M. Conn, Eternal Word
and Changing Worlds: Theology, Anthropology, and Mission in Trialogue [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1984],
217–18).
11 Quoted in G. C. Berkouwer, A Half Century of Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1977), 38.
dissection of the divine mind and an assumed familiarity with that mind.
Notice that in this move away from history and toward metaphysics, actual,
living, breathing human beings and actual history become irrelevant to the
theological agenda. And that was intentional within the scholastic theological
scheme. Persons, relationships, and events are messy things, hard to fit into the
unilateral views of agency favored by the canons of logic and rationality that
emerged with the western academy. Unfortunately, the kind of unilinear,
rational neatness prized by the scholastic theologians is not much in evidence in
the Bible.
Scripture Under the Assumption of an Extra-Biblical System
Under the theological method I have just described, the Bible came to be
understood not as a story but as a data dump, a collection of timelessly true
propositions that were somewhat haphazardly thrown together. As one
modern evangelical theologian who follows this traditional method of theology
put it: the Bible is a huge jigsaw puzzle that the theologian must put together.12
The analogy of mining a hillside for precious jewels has also been employed.
Criticizing rather than affirming the proof-text approach toward theology,
Kevin Vanhoozer writes that “for large swaths of the Western tradition, the task
of theology consisted in mining propositional nuggets from the biblical deposit
of truth.”13
What is the Bible in such a system? It is a depository for proof-texts. A
proof-text is a biblical statement or citation that does not require a context in
order to be coherent and meaningful. Its function has nothing to do with the
over-arching biblical story in which it is embedded or the specific genre in
which it is found. Also, the function of a proof-text is assigned by an extra-
biblical structure: the system of doctrine. The Bible exists primarily to support
the system, in the same way that bricks provide building material for a
building. As the bricks are but raw material for the builder, with the building
itself being his goal, so here the goal is the system of doctrine, not the knowing
12 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Zondervan, 1994), 29.

13 Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Lost in Interpretation? Truth, Scripture, and Hermeneutics,” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 48, no.1 (March 2005): 94.

204 ALL FOR JESUS
of Scripture. God is known not through Scripture so much as through the

system.
What of events? At best, biblical events and relationships became instantia-
tions of eternal truths. And according to this way of thinking, that is the real
purpose of Scripture: to provide declarations and examples of eternal truths.
The historical drama that stands behind the text is but the delivery mechanism
for the collection of eternal verities. Vanhoozer suggests that the traditional
systematic tendency of focusing on the propositional content of proof-texts
“leads one to dedramatize the Scriptures, and in so doing misrepresenting the
Bible.”14 Trevor Hart has added the helpful insight that the traditional habit of
thinking of the Bible merely as a collection of doctrinal propositions
undermines the integrity of the Bible as canon and its unity as revelation, or at
least redefines canon and biblical unity in unfortunate ways. As bits of text are
“torn away from their textual, let alone their canonical, contexts and
reassembled within some framework of interpretation,” we implicitly declare
that the canon of Scripture is merely “‘these particular texts and no others’
rather than ‘these texts as a whole’,” because the whole, the unifying principle,
or what Hart calls “the essential logic behind proof-texting” lies within the
theologian’s system rather than within Scripture.15
BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
Beginnings: The Reaction Against Scholasticism
The beginnings of biblical theology are hard to trace, if by beginnings we

mean the identification of that one person or point in time as the genesis. We
might better speak of contributors to the phenomenon. Luther’s principle of sola
scriptura—the Bible as the norming norm for all theological reflection—and
14 Ibid., 102. Vanhoozer has also employed the metaphor of fishing to describe the proof-text approach
toward systematics: “Much systematic theology that passes as ‘biblical’ enjoys only a casual acquaintance
with the biblical texts. The method of proving doctrines by adducing multiple proof-texts leaves much to
be desired. One typically begins with a doctrinal confession and then sets off trawling through the
Scriptures. One’s exegetical ‘catch’ is then dumped indiscriminately into parentheses irrespective of where
the parts are found” (Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “From Canon to Concept: ‘Same’ and ‘Other’ in the Relation
Between Biblical and Systematic Theology,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 12, no. 2 [1994]: 104).
15 Trevor Hart, “Tradition, Authority, and a Christian Approach to the Bible as Scripture,” in Between
Two Horizons, 200.

Calvin’s use of the humanist dictum ad fontes (“back to sources”) must both be
counted as early igniters of the movement toward biblical theology. Johannes
Cocceius (1603–69) anticipated later developments in biblical theology through
his emphasis on the biblical covenants and God’s dealing with his people in the
history of salvation. The first uses of the term biblical theology appear to have
come from the Pietist tradition of Spener and Franke (ca. 1700). And the rise
throughout the Enlightenment period—with its emphasis upon historical
interpretation—of what might be called the historical consciousness and new
tools for critical and historical research also played an important role in the
maturation of biblical theology.16
What all of the persons and movements mentioned here had in common
was that they were all reacting against the scholastic tradition in theology. All
noticed the disconnect between the Bible and the theological habits of
scholasticism: this does not look like that. The Bible does not read like a
scholastic textbook; to find the conclusions of a lot of scholastic theology in
Scripture, one must begin by presupposing them in the first place. And if that is
the case, the question arises: are we reading those conclusions out of Scripture,
or reading them into it?
Some recent definitions of biblical theology have concentrated merely upon
the idea of order. Thus, Scott Hafemann writes that “biblical theology attempts
to ascertain the inner points of coherence and development within the biblical
narrative and exposition. It does its work inductively from within the Bible in
an attempt to bring out the Bible’s own message.”17 Likewise, Trevor Hart
suggests that biblical theology seeks to unfold unifying patterns within the
biblical canon, “thereby to offer some more organized interpretation of the faith
which vibrates through what is intrinsically an ‘unsystematic’ body of
literature, and so to offer an account of Scripture’s own theological priorities
and emphases.”18 Yet, as Hart notes, if this is all biblical theology is or does,
what truly distinguishes it from systematic theology? If biblical theology’s
16 For a useful survey of the emergence and history of biblical theology as an academic discipline, see
Craig Bartholomew, “Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation: Introduction,” in Craig Bartholomew,
et al., Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2004), 1–10.
For a more detailed exposition, see Charles H. H. Scobie, The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical
Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003), 9–28.
17 Scott J. Hafemann, ed., Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity
Press, 2002), 16.

18 Trevor Hart, “Systematic—In What Sense?” in Out of Egypt, 345.
206 ALL FOR JESUS
concern is to trace patterns and find connections within the biblical text, is it not
“already involved in a ‘systematic’ enterprise, and . . . therefore a form of
systematic theology”?19
Well, not in the sense of traditional systematic theology. The question is:
what is being ordered and what is being traced? Biblical theology begins with
the insight that the Bible is a referential revelation.20 I. Howard Marshall makes
the point most elegantly when he proclaims that “evangelicals would want to
insist that if the text does not witness to a genuine saving and judging
intervention of God in human history, ‘we are of all men most miserable.’”21 In
other words, the Bible is about—refers to—God’s mighty deeds in history. The
biblical revelation is about something other than the mere words of the text.
“Christianity is not in the last resort about relations between texts, but about
events in the real world: the Word of God did not for us become incarnate in a
book, but in a life.”22 This means, as Hart is quick to point out, that “the real
point of Scripture, what it is ‘about,’ is God’s dealings with humankind in
history, and its meaning is bound up, therefore, with the meaning of events in
which this history unfolds, events in the life of Israel and the life of Jesus
through which God in some sense reveals himself and his purposes for us.”23
This is not to denigrate or marginalize Scripture in any way, for “our access to
the referent of the text is through the text.”24 Within the Reformed and
evangelical understanding, the Bible belongs to the organism of God’s special
or particular revelation, but the biblical text does not exhaust that revelation.
Richard Gaffin has depicted the relationship between Scripture and historical
referent this way:
Scripture is a record of revelation. It witnesses to the special revelation of

God which consists in his ongoing covenant faithfulness in word and deed and
which has its consummation in the person and work of Christ. In an important
respect inscripturation as a mode of revelation is not an end in itself but the
19Ibid.
20The debate surrounding historical reference and the Bible is far more complex than we can entertain
here. See Scalise, From Scripture to Theology, 27–41, and the contributions in Hafemann, Biblical Theology.
For a recent defense of historical referentiality, see Craig Bartholomew and Michael Goheen, “Story in
Biblical Theology,” in Out of Egypt, 144–171.
21 I. Howard Marshall, Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker,
2004), 22.
22 John Barton, People of the Book? (London: SPCK, 1988), 34, quoted in Trevor Hart, Faith Thinking, 114.
23 Hart, Faith Thinking, 114.
24 Vanhoozer, “Lost in Interpretation?” 105.
(necessary and sufficient) means to an end. And the proper focus of interpreta-
tion is the subject matter of the text, that is, the history with Christ at its center
that lies in back of the text.25
Looking for the Story:

Affirmation of the Bible as an Historical Document
Biblical theology seeks to read the Bible as an historical document. In this it

is almost the opposite of scholastic theology. The biblical theologian is looking
for the story, what Geerhardus Vos called “the history of redemption.” Why
look for the story? Vos’ answer is: that’s what the Bible is. “God has embodied
the contents of revelation, not in a dogmatic system, but in a book of
history…The Bible is not a dogmatic textbook but a historical book full of
dramatic interest.”26 The Bible’s subject matter is not abstract ideas or context-
free truth-claims; rather, Scripture is oriented toward and is meant to be a
disclosure of God’s action in history. Richard Gaffin, using words that sound
amazingly like those of Calvin, describes Vos’ understanding of the nature of
Scripture: “Revelation is not so much divinely given gnosis to provide us with
knowledge concerning the nature of God, man, and the world as it is divinely
inspired interpretation of God’s activity of redeeming men so that they might
worship and serve him in the world.”27 Gaffin summarizes the Vosian notion
this way: ”The deepest motive controlling the flow of the history of revelation is
not instruction but incarnation.” He then quotes Vos himself: “The circle of
revelation is not a school, but a ‘covenant.’”28
What is Vos doing? If he is right that salvation depends on what God has
done in history, especially in the work of Christ, then the fact that biblical
revelation comes to us as an organically unfolding historical drama bears
theological import. That fact should set the theological agenda. It should
25 Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology,” Westminster Theological Journal
38 (1976): 293–94.
26 Quoted in Richard Gaffin, “Introduction,” in Geerhardus Vos, Redemptive History and Biblical
Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R
Publishing, 2001 [1980]), xv. The focus of the written biblical word is the redemptive history, which is
declared and interpreted by the written word. Vos wrote: “Revelation is so interwoven with redemption
[God’s redemptive action in history] that, unless allowed to consider the latter, it would be suspended in
the air” (Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1948], 24).
27 Gaffin, “Introduction,” xvii.
28 Ibid.
208 ALL FOR JESUS
structure the theological mind. Vos wants to allow the structure of biblical
religion to set the structure of theological reflection.
THE RELATION BETWEEN BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

AND SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
Systematics and Rationalism
We should note that, even if we subtract the more speculative aspects of

traditional systematic theology—that which we typified as the scholastic
interest in the metaphysical at the expense of the creational and the temporal—
the discipline is still oriented to the rational more than to the relational, and to
the pursuit of a timeless statement of the facts more than to the historical
unfolding of God’s Word. In the words of D. A. Carson, the traditional and still
prevailing model of systematic theology is oriented to the rational and
hierarchical rather than to the temporal, and thus does not “encourage the
exploration of the Bible’s plot-line, except incidentally.”29
Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology makes Carson’s point. Grudem sees
systematic theology as a topically-driven, synthetic presentation of Christian
doctrine in which all the facts of revelation “fit together in a consistent way”
within the revelational jigsaw puzzle. The goal of rational consistency is an
organized, internally coherent, non-contradictory system of truth.30 Grudem’s
own system is seen in his stated methodology:
1. Select all the “verses” that speak to a topic.

2. Summarize the teaching of each verse.
3. Synthesize them into a coherent doctrinal statement.31
Under this scheme, the doctrine of God is a rational explication of the facts
about God, the doctrine of Christ is a rational presentation of the facts about
Christ, and so on. Theology is a systematization of revelatory facts, collected
into a rationally organized encyclopedia. We should note the disembodiment of
29 D. A. Carson, “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology,
(Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 102.

30 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 21–24.
31 Ibid., 36.
proposition in this approach toward theology. It assumes that the truth

statements of Scripture are so sufficiently self-contained that they are separable
not only from the literary genres and contexts (both literary and historical) that
bear them (making the exegete cry “foul”), but also from the historical
relationships and acts which are their intended biblical referents (driving the
biblical theologian crazy). What is the assumed hermeneutic here? The
assumption that the Bible is a loose collection of disembodied propositions
produces its own way of reading God’s Word.32
Focusing upon Scripture as doctrinal propositions, traditional systematics
tends to flatten out the biblical text. The complexity and ambiguity of reality is
lost in the press toward univocal neatness and rational fit, and the dynamic of
events and relationships is reduced to broad generalities. Noting the bloodless
and impoverished world depicted in many systematics texts, Rainer Albertz
commented that “they often have an effect that is remarkably static, lifeless, and
at times boring.”33 Applying and developing J. L. Austin’s speech-act theory,
Kevin Vanhoozer has located the failure of systematics to capture the vitality
and depth of Scripture not simply in its sacrifice of the historical but also in the
way systematics has tended to treat all biblical expression as if it were ontologi-
cal and conceptual. In handling all biblical statements as if they were the same
sort of statement—didactic declaration—systematics treats the Bible as if it were
nothing more than a collection of lecture notes.34
Vos’ Criticism of Systematics
Working more than half a century ago, Geerhardus Vos was critical of
traditional systematic theology. But to what was Vos opposed? Did he reject the
very idea of systematic theology, in which case biblical theology is presented as
an alternative theological approach? Many people see the relationship between
biblical theology and systematic theology as antithetical. If biblical theology is
32 For a provocative reflection on the point that our assumptions about the nature of Scripture and
how the believer accesses revelation affect what we actually find in the reading of the Bible, see Calvin G.
Seerveld, How to Read the Bible to Hear God Speak: A Study of Numbers 22–24 (Sioux Center, Ia.: Dordt, 2003).
33 Quoted in John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, vol. 1: Israel’s Gospel (Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVasity Press, 2003), 38.

34 For a helpful summary of speech-act theory, see Kevin Vanhoozer, “The Semantics of Biblical
Literature: Truth and Scripture’s Diverse Literary Forms,” in D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, eds.,
Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1986), 85–92.
210 ALL FOR JESUS
good, then systematics must be bad. And, of course, within this dichotomous
construct, if systematic theology is good, then biblical theology must be bad.35
Characterizing systematic theology as the elevation of ideas over history, the
abstract over the relational, the biblical theologian John Goldingay writes that
“if systematic theology did not exist, it might seem unwise to invent it.”36
Vos was not so eager to dismiss systematics. Take note of the way in which
Gaffin couches Vos’ criticism. Gaffin notes that because Vos understood the
Bible as itself possessing a unified structure—the history of redemption—Vos
was opposed to “the ever-present tendency to view the Bible as a mass of
ambiguously related particulars for which some extra-biblical prolegomena or
systematics supplies the necessary structuring principle.”37 Gaffin continues:
“There is little question that Vos is countering what he considers a tendency in
Protestant orthodoxy to deal with Scripture largely in terms of the loci or topical
structure of dogmatics and in so doing to treat its statements as more or less
isolated proof-texts.”38
Summarizing the Vosian biblical theological criticism of systematics, Gaffin
writes:
The notion has to be avoided that the historical character of the Bible must
somehow be overcome before we have the truth for today. It is no more the case
that the Bible is true in spite of or apart from its historical qualification than it is
the case that the death of Christ is efficacious in spite of its historicity. In fact, to
remove the negatives and disjunctives from the preceding sentence will disclose
the integral tie between truth and history from a biblical point of view: the Bible
is true in view of its historical qualification, just as the death of Christ is
efficacious in view of its historicity.39
35 Richard Gaffin has recently noted the phenomenon that some “question the value of biblical
theology, if they have already concluded that it has introduced novelties detrimental to the well-being of
the church,” or that they believe that biblical theology undermines “doctrinal stability by diminishing
interest and confidence in the formulations of classical Reformed theology.” Yet Gaffin is quick to point
out that biblical theology is no modernist innovation. Centering our faith and our theological reflection
upon the history of redemption can be traced to the second century and the church’s battle against the
Gnostic heresy. Irenaeus of Lyons championed the insight that “salvation resides ultimately not in who
God is or what he has said, but in what he has done in history, once for all, in Christ.” (Richard B. Gaffin
Jr., “Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards,” Westminster Theological Journal 65 [2003]: 165.)
36 John Goldingay, “Biblical Narrative and Systematic Theology,” in Between Two Horizons, 138.
37 Gaffin, “Introduction,” xviii.
38 Ibid., xix–xx.
39 Ibid., xx–xxi.
Neither Vos nor Gaffin are suggesting that systematics is automatically

wrong-headed. But they are asking us to rethink what we mean by systematic
theology and how we go about practicing it.
The Call to Reform Systematic Theology
Let us begin by affirming that there is nothing wrong with asking topical
questions of the biblical text. We all do it. And, after all, synthesis is
unavoidable. All human beings seek coherence of thought. We add this to that,
and, if need be, order the two in some way. Thus, if we do theology, the
impulse toward systematic coherence will be present.
I am making the assumption that such a practice is not inherently foolhardy
or contrary to the spirit of Scripture. Yet, two immediate objections arise to the
impulse to systematize. First, it might be pointed out that all attempts to ask
questions of the Bible as a single book assume that it speaks with one voice and
presents a unified, lucid perspective on reality. To object to this assumes that
the biblical materials are just too diverse to bear the weight of the synthetic
enterprise. Rather than get a single answer to a question—say, “what is the
nature of sin?”—a survey of Scripture will produce a multitude of answers. One
answer (or perhaps three) will come from Isaiah, another from the Psalms,
another from John, another from Paul. And there is no reason to expect (insist?)
that these different answers will gibe with one another. Indeed, one may end up
with a series of answers that defy synthesis, even answers that contradict one
another (or, in some cases, with no answers at all).
Although this objection might strike the evangelical as the product of liberal
assumptions about the nature of Scripture, we should at least appreciate that it
wants to do justice to the diversity within the Bible. Evangelicals confess that
the Bible is the Word of God, by which we mean that ultimately God is the
author—and the authority—who stands behind the text. While there is one
speaker—God in the written revelation of his ways to his people—Scripture is
mediated to us by means of many voices, voices that have their own specific
historical and cultural circumstances, needs, and interests. The multiplicity of
voices within the canon of Scripture presents the theologian with challenges,
but they are actually allies rather than impediments.
Second, even if we confess Scripture as a faithful and reliable revelation of
God, and even if we affirm a principle of analogy that will allow the synthesis
212 ALL FOR JESUS
that the topical agenda requires, it might still be asked whether the systematic
impulse arises from and complements the biblical message, or in fact obscures
or even loses that message in the forest of systematic loci. Reminiscent of the
biblical theology movement of the post-World War II era, John Goldingay goes
so far as to allege that systematic theology emerged from within a Greek
philosophical framework in which ideas replace stories as the bearers of truth
and meaning. And thus, systematic theology, he says, is an alien branch grafted
onto the vine of Christian faith. From this perspective, the systematic project is
foreign in heritage and contrary in method—the wrong tool for the job of
faithful reflection upon biblical faith.40 Although I do not wish to gloss over the
issues raised in Goldingay’s fine essay, I find his assertions relative to the
heritage and essential nature of systematics too broad and somewhat ill-
defined. Regardless, we will seek to keep a number of his challenges to
systematics in mind as we proceed.
What is Systematic Theology?
Defining systematic theology is both as easy as pie and as vexing as trying

to understand one’s spouse. First, the easy part. Systematic theology is oriented
to this question: What does the entirety of God’s revelation tell us about X? And
that question itself tells us two things. First, systematic theology is a topically-
driven discipline.41 Second, systematic theology is synthetic in nature; it is an
integrative, interdisciplinary activity. Systematic theology is dependent upon
the exegesis of Scripture; dependent upon the entirety of Scripture; and
dependent upon the insights of biblical theology, two millennia of the church’s
theological reflection, the church’s confessional heritage, and whatever else
40 “Perhaps it is indeed the case that humanity’s rationality necessitates analytic reflection on the
nature of the faith; at least, the importance of rationality for intellectuals necessitates our analytic reflection
on the nature of the faith as one of the less important aspects of the life of Christ’s body. Yet such rational
and disciplined reflection need not take the form of systematic theology . . . . We need to distinguish
between the possible necessity that the church reflects deeply, sharply, coherently, and critically on its
faith, and the culture-relative fact that this has generally been done in a world of thought decisively
influenced by Greek thinking in general as well as in particular (e.g., Platonic or Aristotelian)” (John
Goldingay, “Biblical Narrative and Systematic Theology,” 129).
41 I agree with Richard Gaffin that the topical nature of systematics does not make it an inherently
abstract and rationalistic endeavor. While the so-called loci method may be easily bent to a dehistorical
and decontextual understanding the faith, there is no reason that it must do so. See Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.,
“The Vitality of Reformed Dogmatics,” in J. M. Batteau, et al., The Vitality of Reformed Theology (Kampen:
Kok, 1994), 28–9.
from human experience and academic study that can help us to answer the
question.
Now for the hard part: What does the word system mean? We might begin
by hazarding the notion that system refers to that which holds together all the
different parts and dependencies just noted. But what might this system be?
The truth is, system is a vague term, so vague in fact that people often throw up
their hands and fall silent here. In an essay devoted to the nature of systematic
theology, John Murray offers a number of warnings about the discipline—such
as “there is an ever-present tendency toward abstraction in systematic
theology,”42—but beyond that he spends most of the essay talking about
biblical theology. John Frame also struggles with the word system. He explicitly
asks, “What does the word ‘systematic’ mean in the phrase ‘systematic
theology’?” Does it mean logical consistency and orderliness? Yes, but should
not all theological disciplines be consistent and orderly, and be sensitive to the
rules of valid inference and inductive generalization? Does it mean coherence?
Yes, but does that mean that other approaches to theology are then to be seen as
incoherent? It seems that most of the adjectives used to distinguish systematic
theology from other approaches to theology fail to distinguish it at all, for they
name general, even expected, reflective virtues. And just where is this system,
whatever it is? If the system is something other than Scripture itself, then we
have set up some extra-biblical grid through which we access God’s Word, and
that is dangerous. We have created a new norming norm, the very thing from
which the Reformers were seeking to escape. When we talk about a system of
doctrine, we had better be talking about Scripture itself, or we have violated the
principle of sola scriptura.43
Some years ago, Richard Gaffin wrote an article for the Westminster
Theological Journal on the relationship between biblical theology and system-
atics. Spending the lion’s share of his efforts on defining and defending biblical
theology, Gaffin really had little to say about systematic theology. In this, he
was simply following Vos and Murray before him. Comparing biblical theology
and systematics, Gaffin wrote:
42 John Murray, “Systematic Theology,” in Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 4: Studies in Theology
(Edinburgh, Scotland/Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 1982), 17.

43 John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Publishing, 1987), 212–14.
214 ALL FOR JESUS
The approach of biblical theology is historical, while that of systematic

theology is logical. The former deals with revelation as an activity or process, the
latter deals with it as a finished product. Vos uses the difference between
drawing a line (biblical theology) and a circle (systematics) to illustrate how they
differ.44
Footnoting his comment, Gaffin elaborates on systematic theology by saying

that the use of the terms “logical” and “systematic” as descriptors are, of
course, “conventional.”45 This is not much help, although I am convinced that
Gaffin is right. Frame too gives up on trying to define systematic theology.
After speaking of the scope or calling of the discipline (what does the whole
Bible teach us about X?), Frame says simply, “I cannot make any positive sense
of the term ‘system’ in the phrase ‘systematic theology’.”46 But one phrase in
Frame is helpful. While admitting defeat in trying to define “systematic,” he
does go on to speak of a “systematic perspective.”
I would like to suggest that the idea of a system comes from the ancient
Christian notion of the analogy of faith. As the Word of God, the Bible constitutes
a harmonious whole. This means that all the parts—that is, those beliefs
generated by the reading of Scripture and our familiarity with the historical
discussion of the church—will cohere with one another. The systematic impulse
perceives that coherence from the standpoint of the whole (Frame’s “systematic
perspective” or Vos’ circle). Systematic theology is thus a holistic discipline. By
itself, that suggests that the key to systematic theology is its accumulative and
integrative character. It seeks to synthesize all the elements from the standpoint
of the whole.
But a bit more needs to be said. D. A. Carson argues that systematic
theology is characterized by cultural engagement, a bridging of the original
horizon of the text with the present cultural horizon of the people of God.
While exegesis and biblical theology cannot escape cultural influence, their
focus is the biblical text. One can legitimately argue, as has Harvie Conn, that
all theology is “historically contextual” in that the theologian functions within a
44Richard Gaffin, “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology,” 290.

45Gaffin cannot seem to make up his mind whether the terms “logical” and “systematic” have any
real meaning at all. In one footnote he says that “while the appropriateness of these adjectives for
distinguishing the discipline in view is subject to question, surely the intention is to identify its topical or
loci structure” (“Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology,” 290n24). A bit later he writes that
“‘systematic’ or ‘logical’ hardly serve to identify the topical approach that distinguishes it” (ibid., 295n29).
46 Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 214.
particular cultural moment, a moment that invariably informs and shapes his or
her reflection.47 Systematic theology, however, takes cultural engagement as
part of its explicit focus. The systematic theologian asks his questions from the
historical-cultural standpoint of the church, and seeks to speak to the church.
But Carson takes this a step further. Not only does systematic theology emanate
from within a cultural moment as the church asks: What does it all add up to?,
but the culturally embedded systematic impulse also shapes the questions that
are asked. As an integrative, holistic, culturally-engaged enterprise, systematic
theology is also the most worldview-forming of all the theological disciplines.48
It seeks to shape the theological reflection and the cultural engagement of the
church from the vantage point of the big picture (Carson), or the systematic
perspective (Frame). Pursuing a “large-scale, worldview-forming synthesis,”
systematic theology stands one step further away from Scripture than does
biblical theology, and one step closer to culture.49 While I do not much like the
characterization of systematic theology as relatively distant from Scripture, I
appreciate Carson’s point that systematics not only arises from within a
particular historical-cultural location—as does all theological reflection—but is
also conscious of the fact that it speaks to a particular historical moment.
Reforming the Method: How Do We Do It?
Biblical Truth is Neither Ahistorical Nor Acultural. Contrary to Carson and

Conn, evangelicals have traditionally tended to think of theology in acultural
and decontextual terms, that is, as the pursuit of timeless and universal truth.
Accordingly, systematic theology seeks to emancipate theological reflection
from any historical-cultural context. But this is exactly the problem: it
represents a right insight gone wrong. The right insight is that God’s character
and ways are universally true and universally relevant to human life. Where it
goes wrong is that traditional systematics seeks to find the universality of
theological assertions through an ahistorical, rationalist method. As the rational
construct comes to dominate theological discourse, the biblical story fades into
comparative irrelevance. What is missed here is that the Bible refuses to
function this way. The truth about God, about sin, about angels, about Christ,
47 Harvie Conn, Eternal Word and Changing Worlds, 241–42.

48 D. A. Carson, “Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology,” 102.
49 Ibid., 103.
216 ALL FOR JESUS
about the Holy Spirit, is transcultural, but it is never acultural. It is

transhistorical rather than ahistorical. The biblical message—doctrine—arises
within historical-cultural context in the sense that it is revealed within, is
always applicable to, and is inseparable from human cultural and historical
existence. Curiously, the very historicity of the story is crucial to the biblical
message, to doctrine. As the biblical materials begin with creation and refuse to
end before the promise of recreation is fulfilled, all history—and thus all people
within their particular historical contexts—are addressed by the biblical
message.
William Edgar suggests that the movement toward abstraction in which the
biblical materials are transformed into ahistorical, universal themes, is both
unnecessary and, ultimately, less than helpful:
The second person of the Trinity became not humanity in general, but a man,
a unique person from a unique place. Jesus Christ and his teachings, as William
Temple once put it, were a “scandal of particularity.” In S. Mark Heim’s
felicitous expression, “If God were to be as human as we are, Jesus must have a
fingerprint as unique as each one of ours.” Only from this extraordinary
particularity can Jesus then be universal. He did not look down from heaven and
proclaim timeless truths with no application to culture. Rather, he became a real
human being, a particular Semitic male, at a particular time of history, because
such concreteness is the only way to be human. Because Jesus is a particular
man, his message is then truly applicable to all of humanity, to women and to
men from every tribe and group.
And so, the message has a shape. It has contours. It is particular in order to
be universal. Just as God brought about the redemption of every kind of person
through the one man, the God-man Jesus Christ, so his revelation, though
encapsulated in words from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek languages, is
universal, valid across all boundaries of time and space and culture.50
One of the reasons that systematic theology is forced to fight the battle of
relevance is because of its own abstraction away from the historical-cultural
concreteness of the biblical drama. By choosing a philosophical frame of
reference for talking about God—a language which speaks in universal,
abstract, and often impersonal categories—classical systematics spoke about
God in ways that were less than biblically relevant to the realities of our
historical life in the world.
50 Willam Edgar, Truth in All Its Glory: Commending the Reformed Faith (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R
Publishing, 2004), 2–3.

An example or two might help us to make the point. It has long been the
tradition within dogmatics to speak of God’s power under the term omnipotence.
I have to admit that there is something about the classical “omnis” (i.e., the
entire method of thinking about the divine attributes by classical theism) that
leaves me cold. They may be correct in a technical sense, in the sense that a
schematic or a diagram or a flowchart is correct, but they are also somewhat
lifeless. Does God possess all power? Yes, of course. As Yahweh himself says to
Abraham when Sarah laughed at God’s promise of a child for them, “Is
anything too hard for the LORD?” (Gen. 18:14).51 He is the maker of worlds.
Isaiah 40 speaks of God measuring out the waters in the palm of his hand and
marking off the heavens by his mere fingertip. Truly, his power is incomparable
and inconceivably great.
My problem with the notion of omnipotence—and I admit that it may be at
least partly linguistic—is that the language of the classical omnis is too diffuse,
too general, too abstract. When Scripture speaks of God’s power, it is always
directed power, personal power, righteous power. It is not power in the
abstract, but his power. The classical approach, however, was concerned to
articulate God’s power, knowledge, and presence in universal, undifferentiated,
and extensive terms. Thus God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. But God’s
particularity, his person, suffered in the equation. Yes, God’s lordship is
universal, but it is as a particular God that he is also the universal LORD.
Furthermore, and terminally adding to the abstraction, classical theism has
often developed the divine attributes such that they become mere ideas,
separated from any hint of particularity; omnipotence, for example, is not God’s
power so much as it is the raw idea of unlimited power. Thus the discussion
becomes a philosophical analysis of omnipotence per se.
The Apostles’ Creed might help us here. The first article of our English
translation describes God as the Father Almighty. The word almighty is a
translation of the Greek παντοκρατωρ (all-governing one). Latin versions of the
Creed employed the word omnipotens. The Latin omnipotens speaks of
unqualified, universal, impersonal, extensive power. Παντοκρατωρ, however, is
directed, purposeful, particular, personal power. After all, a ruler presupposes
a subject or a realm that is ruled, and thus relationship, a context in which
51 Unless otherwise noted, Bible quotations in this essay are taken from the English Standard Version
(ESV).
218 ALL FOR JESUS
power is exercised. Further, a particular kind of rule is implicit within the

Creed, namely, a morally righteous rule.
From a biblical perspective, παντοκρατωρ (all-governing) is closer to the
biblical reality than is omnipotens (omnipotent). The term omnipotence represents
power within itself, without reference to anything else. And this was a real
problem in medieval theology. For many theologians in the middle ages, God
was potentia absoluta (absolute possibility). By definition, God can do anything.
Thus, he might do anything (this was the conclusion of medieval nominalism).
This caused real anxiety of soul for Martin Luther as a young monk. Perhaps,
thought Luther, God will change his mind about me, for as absolute power,
God is arbitrary power. Biblically, however, we must say that God’s power is
bound to his covenant word. There are, after all, things God cannot do. He
cannot, for example, fail to keep his promises. Simply put, God’s covenant
promises limit the range of things he can do. God binds himself to his promises.
What of omniscience and omnipresence? Psalm 147:5 says that there is no
limit to God’s understanding. We would, then, be right to conclude that God
knows everything there is to know. And I want to affirm that. Yet the biblical
focus usually lies upon an intensive knowing on God’s part. The existential
relevance of God’s knowledge is that God knows each one of us me inside and
out. We see this quite clearly in Psalm 139, a classic text relative to God’s
knowledge and presence. In that text, divine knowing and presence are
functions of God’s covenantal lordship. Nothing is hidden from his gaze. There
are no secrets in his universe:
O LORD, you have searched me and known me! You know when I sit down
and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar. You search out my path
and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways. Even before a word is
on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether. You hem me in, behind
and before, and lay your hand upon me. (vv.1–5)
In verse 7 and following, David focuses his attention on the presence of

God:
Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
(vv.7–8)
This is no diffuse presence that exists everywhere like oxygen. Rather, it is

personal, intensive, and purposeful presence. There is nowhere for the sinner to
hide. There is nowhere where God cannot help his covenant people. God may
be present everywhere, but he is intensively so, covenantally so. In Jeremiah
23:23–24, Yahweh himself warns us against limiting his presence to the
parochial as well as making his presence so vague and universal that it is of no
practical good.
Am I a God at hand, declares the LORD, and not a God afar off? Can a man
hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the LORD. Do I not
fill heaven and earth? declares the LORD.
In a sense, the classical emphasis upon divine attributes as the key to

knowing God is a bit misplaced. More often than not, Scripture reveals God by
way of his actions and relationships rather than by a discussion of the divine
nature. God’s identity and character, rather than his nature, seem to be the
fundamental biblical concern. As depiction is more central than definition, the
operative question for theological reflection is not so much what is God? as it is
who is God?52 Creating, judging sin, calling a people to himself through acts of
redemption, making promises, walking with his people: these are the ways that
God is known in the biblical story. The little credo of Deuteronomy 26:5–9
identifies and confesses God through a recitation of his mighty deeds on behalf
of Israel: his calling of Abraham to walk in his ways, his rescuing of the seed of
Abraham from the Egyptian brick pits, and his bringing of them into the land
he had promised to the patriarchs. In effect, the credo answers the question, who
is God? Its answer is that he is the One who calls, redeems, and walks with us.
This story was, if you will, Israel’s gospel, the story she was called to live within
and declare to the nations. Further, as Goldingay notes, “New Testament faith
sees itself as the continuing of that story. Like the Old Testament, the New
Testament takes predominantly narrative form, and the form corresponds to
the nature of the faith. Its gospel is not essentially or distinctively a statement
that takes the form of ‘God is love,’ but one that takes the form ‘God so loved
that he gave . . . .’”53
52See Vanhoozer, “From Canon to Concept,” 108.
53Goldingay, “Biblical Narrative and Systematic Theology,” 130. Goldingay’s comment betrays a false
dichotomy, one that can be allowed to stand only as a relative statement identifying a general trajectory,
and not an absolute. After all, Scripture does tell us that “God is love” (1 John 4:16).
220 ALL FOR JESUS
Elsewhere Goldingay has written:
Christian theology has not regularly talked about God in narrative terms.
The creeds, for instance, are structured around the persons of the Father, Son and
Spirit, and systematic theology has often taken God’s trinitarian nature as its
structural principle. Before the revival of trinitarian thinking in the late twentieth
century, systematic theology often emphasized the fundamental significance of
attributes of God such as omnipotence, omniscience and perfection. The Old
Testament narrative does incorporate equivalent statements about God’s
character, such as God’s self-description in Exodus 34:6–7. But the kinds of
statements about God that emerge more directly from the narrative itself are not
those one typically sees in a systematic theological treatment of divine attributes.
It is narrative that nuances who the Father is, for example, or what omnipotence
is, or what grace is.54
That Scripture primarily reveals God’s identity and character by his active
involvement in the life and history of his people does not mean that it cannot
also speak in more discursive, even metaphysical, ways in its depiction of God.
Next to the little credo stood the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4–5 as a fundamental
Old Testament confession of faith: “Hear, O Israel, The LORD our God, the LORD
is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your
soul and with all your might.” Certainly this text is making an ontological
assertion about God. Yet this statement is itself grounded in the story of Israel’s
deliverance, in which narrative declarations such as Deuteronomy 5:6–7 (“I am
the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house
of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me”) give not only the context
of the ontological assertion, but also, it seems to me, the essential clues for the
correct interpretation of the meaning of the assertion. Referring both to
Deuteronomy 6:4 and Exodus 34:6–7 (in which Yahweh himself proclaims his
identity to his people, and does so in relational and contextually significant
ways seemingly less compatible with the classical systematic approach to
divine attributes), Goldingay writes that “the statements are inextricably linked
to narrative; they gain their meaning from the narrative contexts in which they
are set. But they are open to being reflected on as statements offering insight on
God’s nature that hold beyond their narrative context.”55 Does the Word speak
54 Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, 32.

55 Goldingay, “Biblical Narrative and Systematic Theology,” 134.
“beyond” its “narrative context?” Yes. But always in terms of and through that
context.
The Centrality of Biblical Theology. Does the criticism of the abstractive

tendency of systematics necessarily mean the death of systematic theology?
Some undoubtedly have said that it does. Others have tried different routes.
Although writing from a decidedly postmodern context, Stanley Grenz has
helpfully asked the question: What would systematic theology look like if we
were to step out of the traditional model and cast a systematic along narrative
lines? He answers his own question by saying that “we must view theology in
terms of its proper context within the narrative of God’s action in history.”56
Taking his commitment to story from the biblical drama of redemption
rather than postmodern notions about the sociology of knowledge, Richard
Lints provides us with both a description of the rationalist loci method and a
challenge to traditional notions of system:
It is important to ask whether the conception of doing theology by stringing

together Christian doctrines like pearls in a necklace might not be undermining
the essential unity of the biblical message. As it stands, evangelical theology
tends to deal with each component part individually, at best stitching things
together after the fashion of a patchwork quilt. There may be interesting patterns
evident in each of the individual pieces, but there is no pattern that holds the
quilt together overall, other than its diversity.57
Henry Vander Goot offers the same criticism of classical systematic theology,
but in even more pointed language:
When we fail to notice the character of Scripture as dramatic narrative, we

reduce the text of Scripture to abstractions of the mind. We tap the conflict out of
the text and subsequently out of our view of human life as well . . . . Rationalism
and the narrative form of Scripture are incompatible.58
56 Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman and Holman, 1994),
72.
57 Richard Lints, The Fabric of Theology: A Prolegomenon to Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1993), 261.

58 Henry Vander Goot, Interpreting the Bible in the Church and Theology (Toronto: Edwin Mellen, 1984),
69.
222 ALL FOR JESUS
Following in the redemptive-historical tradition of Geerhardus Vos, both

Vander Goot and Lints argue that there may be better ways to “package
theology” (Lints’ phrase) than the rationalist method of traditional systematics.
In the pursuit of timeless truth, classical systematics obscured both the biblical
storyline and the unitary inter-relatedness of Scripture that the story provides.
The historical referents of the biblical Word—the mighty acts of God in
creation, preservation, and redemption—if not annulled, are rendered
theologically less relevant. Thus, Lints appropriately comments:
Evangelicals have traditionally emphasized the speech of God by

encapsulating it in doctrinal formulations. In doing so, they have neglected the
acts of God. They have ably defended the historicity of these acts, but they have
virtually ignored the centrality of their theological character.59
The diminution of historical reference sidelines the dramatic movement of

story, and the Bible is—at the very least and at its most fundamental level—a
story, the telling of God’s historical relationship with mankind and creation.
The Bible does not present itself as a theological dictionary or doctrinal treatise,
and the content of scriptural revelation does not exist in isolated compartments,
awaiting an external theological framework to provide some sort of order. The
Bible has an order—the redemptive-historical story it tells. Lints contends, and I
agree, that the framework of the theological enterprise “ought to be linked to
the actual structure of the biblical text and not merely to the content of the
Bible.”60 While the topical question, what does the Bible teach?, is legitimate,
the answer is always regulated and mediated by the redemptive-historical
story. The biblical way is the way of the story. The metanarrative of creation,
fall, redemption, and new creation, along with the embeddedness of that grand
drama in covenantally particular episodes, constitutes the subject of the divine
accommodation that is biblical revelation. As such, the biblical story itself—and
not some rational structure extraneous to Scripture—ought to regulate the
framework by which we theologize about God and his ways. I believe that
Goldingay is right when he argues that the overall narrative structure of
Scripture is not accidental to the Christian faith and our theological reflection
upon the faith, but rather corresponds to the very nature of the biblical faith,
59 Lints, The Fabric of Theology, 264n8.

60 Ibid., 271.
and as such should inform and drive our reflection.61 “The biblical gospel is not
a collection of timeless statements such as God is love. It is a narrative about
things God has done.”62
This is no less true of the New Testament. While the Gospels clearly have a
narrative feel, Christians have often been tempted to think of the New
Testament epistles, especially Paul’s writings, as strictly discursive in character.
Paul wrote doctrinal treatises, not narrative.63 What is missed, however, is what
Bruce Longenecker calls the “narrative bedrock,”64 or what N. T. Wright has
characterized as the “narrative world” that undergirds all of Paul’s writings.65
Herman Ridderbos was on to the same insight when he observed that Paul was
more interested in the history of salvation (historia salutis) than an order of
salvation (ordo salutis).66 The Old Testament story of God calling a people who
will be his mediators in the undoing of the Adamic fall—a story that finds its
acme and fulfillment in Jesus the Messiah—is not only a recurrent theme but
also a controlling heuristic of Paul’s thought. This is displayed with special
vividness in the Epistle to the Romans.67
What I am arguing for here is a redemptive-historical approach toward
theological reflection, one that seeks to respect not only the content of Scripture,
but also the methodologies and pedagogies of the biblical text. I. Howard
Marshall has recently called for the same thing:
My intuition is that if we are directed by Scripture as our authority in what

we are to believe and do, then we are also directed in our investigation of how we
61 Goldingay, “Biblical Narrative and Systematic Theology,” 130; Old Testament Theology, 28–29, 40–41.
62 Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, 31.
63 It is still common within evangelical and Reformed circles to hear the book of Romans described as
Paul’s systematic theology, by which is meant that Paul is developing doctrine rather than telling or
engaging in story.
64 Bruce W. Longenecker, “The Narrative Approach to Paul,” Currents in Biblical Research 1, no.1
(2002): 88–111.
65 N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1992), 403–8.
66 Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1975), e.g., 14,
205–6, 214ff, 221–22.

67 Notice Paul’s description of the gospel in 1:1–3 as the fulfillment of God’s redemptive purposes in
Jesus Christ, the covenant indictment against all sin, including the presumptions of God’s Old Testament
people (1:18–3:20), Abraham as the father of all believers (chapter 4), Christ as the second Adam (5:12–21),
the law and sin (2:12–29; 7:7–25), the groaning of creation for the consummation (8:18–30), the future of the
Jewish nation (chapters 9–11), the restoration of the law as love (chapters 12–14), Christ the hope of Jews
and Gentiles alike (chapter 15). All of these constitute what is essentially a reflection upon the significance
of the Old Testament story of Israel in light of the coming of Christ.
224 ALL FOR JESUS
are to interpret Scripture by Scripture itself rather than by any overriding

external authority. What we need, then, is some kind of scriptural approach to the
problem of development and interpretation.68
What we see, both within the pages of Scripture itself and in the early
development of Christian theology, is that the telling of the story (ultimately the
story of Jesus as the fulfillment and goal of Israel’s story) in contextually
relevant ways and for the sake of contemporary Christian practice was
fundamental both to the identity of the people of God and their understanding
of the faith. Although often ignored, this is implicit in the New Testament
language of “doctrine” and “tradition.” Doctrine (διδαχη), as it was understood
by the writers of the New Testament,69 included the gospel story of Jesus, for
doctrine was the teaching of God’s redemptive Word and deed.70 We might
think of doctrine as both the declaration of the redemptive drama and its
application to the faith and life of the people of God. It seems to me that
Vanhoozer is certainly in the ballpark when he comments that “my view is that
doctrine is direction for the church’s fitting participation in the ongoing drama
of redemption.”71 Tradition, that which is handed down, is often a virtual
synonym for doctrine in Paul, so much so that the editors of the NIV rendered
68 I. Howard Marshall, Beyond the Bible, 48. David Wells was heading in the same direction when he
wrote that “the biblical revelation is worked out within a historical framework comprised of God’s
redemptive acts. It is a framework within which meaning is given by God . . . . Systematic theologians
make a great mistake if they allow their systematic interests to carry them away too far from the kind of
framework for understanding which Geerhardus Vos provided for us so well” (David F. Wells, “On Being
Framed,” Westminster Theological Journal 59 [1997]: 299).
69 Vos, Biblical Theology, 6–7. The New Testament occurrences of διδαχη are not in and of themselves
transparent as to the meaning of the term (Rom. 16:17; Eph. 4:14; 1 Tim. 1:3, 10; 4:6; 6:3; Tit. 1:9; 2:1, 10;
Heb. 6:1). The meaning must be inferred from the texts. The same holds for διδασκαλια, “the teaching,” or
“that which is taught” (e.g., Mark 7:7; Col. 2:22; 1 Tim. 1:10).
70 So Vos could say that “without God’s acts the words would be empty, without His words the acts
would be blind” (Geerhardus Vos, “The Idea of Biblical Theology,” 10, quoted in Richard Lints, “Two
Theologies or One? Warfield and Vos on the Nature of Theology,” Westminster Theological Journal 54 [1992]:
247).
71 Kevin Vanhoozer, “Into the Great ‘Beyond’: A Theologian’s Response to the Marshall Plan,” in
Marshall, Beyond the Bible, 87. A bit later in his essay, Vanhoozer helpfully expands upon this definition:
“To exposit the Scriptures is to participate in the canonical practices—practices that form, inform, and
transform our speaking, thinking, and living. To interpret the Bible in this manner is to make the church
itself into an exposition, or what Paul calls a ‘spectacle’ (theatron) to the world (1 Cor. 4:9). This theatrical
metaphor highlights the pastoral, and practical, function of doctrine. Doctrine, I submit, is an aid in
understanding the theodrama—which God has done in Jesus Christ. As such, doctrine provides direction
for our fitting participation in the ongoing drama of redemption. It is the canonical script that guides the
church’s performance of the way, the truth, and the life” (ibid., 94).
παραδοσις (“tradition”) as “teaching” in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians

2:15 and 3:6. What was it that was handed down or taught? What was the
doctrine that Paul was so careful to teach and protect throughout his epistles? It
was the Gospel, the story of the fulfillment of Old Testament messianic promise
in Jesus Christ.
Is it possible that our theological reflection is tied to the biblical story in such
a way that the “eventedness” and particularity of the drama of redemption are
theologically crucial (“if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in
vain and your faith is in vain” [1 Cor. 15:14])? Is it also possible that, if our
theologies do not take stock of the historical and organic nature of Scripture
and the Christian faith, they risk the very loss of the biblical truth? And is it
possible that—to borrow the phrase from Dorothy Sayers—the dogma is the
drama? If this is so, it will mean that systematics needs to take a step closer to
biblical theology and at least a step or two away from philosophical theology.
Systematic theology is about the contextualization of the faith, not an exercise in
abstraction. It must be bounded by the biblical story—in method as well as in
content.
We need to carefully think through the relationships between systematic
theology and biblical theology and between systematic theology and biblical
hermeneutics. The academic discipline of biblical theology originally arose in
the eighteenth century as an alternative to systematic theology. It was a
descriptive discipline that sought to recover the beliefs of the biblical authors,
and therein saw no rationale for dogmatics. Yet, the integration of biblical
theology into the curriculum of Princeton Seminary under the leadership of B.
B. Warfield and Geerhardus Vos did not pit the two disciplines against one
another. Indeed, from the beginning of Vos’ tenure as professor of biblical
theology, systematics was understood as being dependent upon biblical
theology. One might well expect Vos to think of all theological reflection as
being dependent upon Scripture. He held that systematics is as much a biblical
reflection as is biblical theology. The two disciplines differ not in content but
merely in mode of organization, biblical theology being organized according to
the history of redemption and systematics according to a thematic or topical
framework.72 Warfield argued along similar lines. He envisioned a process of
72 Vos, Biblical Theology, 4-5.

226 ALL FOR JESUS
dependence in which exegesis forms the foundation for biblical theology, and
biblical theology in turn funds systematics.73
Biblical Theology is not, then, a rival of Systematics; it is not even a parallel

product of the same body of facts provided by exegesis; it is the basis and source
of Systematics. Systematic Theology is not a concatenation74 of a scattered
theological data furnished by the exegetic process; it is a combination of the
already concatenated data given it by Biblical Theology.75
Why can the theologian not move straight from exegesis to systematics?
Warfield recognized that such a move lends itself to a simplistic proof-text
approach to Scripture. The biblical materials exist within an organic-historical
unity from which they can never be truly abstracted. Even though systematics
focuses upon topical concerns and views Scripture as a completed whole—a
canon—the theologian “must recognize the organic unity of the data of
Scripture and in this must see the facts not in inductive isolation from one
another but in organic relation to one another.”76 While systematic theology
presents the biblical materials topically, and hence in a fashion that is not
identical to the narrative pattern of Scripture, it must be careful to respect and,
whenever possible, work from the historical structure of the text.77 No
contemporary theologian has argued this point as consistently or for so long as
Richard Gaffin. The tendency toward abstraction is so strong in the western
theological tradition, the habit of treating the Bible as the servant of a system—
as a collection of disconnected proof-texts—is so second-nature to us, the
73 Lints notes that “Wafield suggested that biblical theology provides the soil out of which systematic
theology grows. To use another metaphor, exegesis is not the proper parent of systematic theology but
rather its grandparent. Biblical theology is the proper parent. The data for systematic theology is not
individual texts or individual results of exegesis of individual texts but rather the completed conception of
revealed truth offered by biblical theology” (Lints, “Two Theologies or One?” 237).
74 Concatenation: that which is linked or united into a sequence or system.
75 B.B. Warfield, “The Idea of Systematic Theology,” Presbyterian and Reformed Review 7 (1896); quoted
in Lints, “Two Theologies or One?” 238.

76 Lints, “Two Theologies or One?” 239.
77 Lints notes that the theological method in which systematics is dependent upon biblical theology
put forth by Warfield and Vos was an innovative departure from the proof-text method of Charles Hodge
(Lints, “Two Theologies or One?” 244n35). He poignantly comments that “it is unfortunate that they have
not exercised the influence on later evangelical theological method which their work merits” (ibid.,
243n34). Perhaps this was due, at least in part, to the fact that Warfield himself was not very successful in
integrating the historicity of the biblical text into his own systematic endeavors. “It is as if he is standing
on the edge of the promised land convinced that it must be entered and yet not sure of how to embark on
the journey” (ibid., 250).
practice of viewing the Bible “as a manual of ‘timeless’ first principles or static
truths” is so common, that the systematician needs to be ever reminded that
these are biblical vices, not theological virtues.78 And that is achieved by
anchoring systematics in biblical theology, which focuses upon the very
historical and covenantal dynamics that systematics is apt to ignore. If it is true
that the biblical message is not merely situated within a narrative structure—the
progressively unfolding story of creation, fall, Israel, and Jesus—but that the
overall theme and point of Scripture is that epic story itself, then a systematic
theology that fails to think historically and narratively as it thinks topically will
not only miss the vitality of Scripture, but also be in danger of sacrificing the
integrity and meaning of the text.
Systematics and Hermeneutics. Both Warfield and Murray79 insisted that

systematic theology is dependent upon the proper exegesis of Scripture. The
tasks of the exegetical and biblical theologian precede the synthetic and
integrative calling of the systematic theologian. A reasonable correlate of this
contention is that systematics also bears a dependent relationship to biblical
hermeneutics. Where biblical theology is naturally organized textually and
historically, systematic theology has tended to access the Bible without
reference to the historical nature of biblical revelation and without much
attention to contextual issues—that is to say, without respect to sound biblical
hermeneutics. But if systematics asks the question, what does the whole Bible
teach about X?, then it is inherently connected to what the Bible teaches—that is,
what Scripture intends to teach, or even what the text demands. Does not the
principle “do not go beyond what is written” hold for our theologizing? The
single most important principle of hermeneutics—figuring out the meaning of a
communication—is authorial intent. Just as we expect people to interpret our
words according to our intention, so too do the authors of Scripture.80
Remember the analogy of faith? There is a closely related traditional
principle of biblical hermeneutics called the analogy of Scripture. All this means is
78 Gaffin, “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology,” 292; “The Validity of Reformed Dogmatics,”
22.
Murray, “Systematic Theology,” 1–2.
79
Stephen Fowl has well defended the notion of authorial intention for hermeneutics, not as an ideal
80
subjective moment in the author’s mind but as the “communicative intent” revealed within the text
(Stephen Fowl, “The Role of Authorial Intention in the Theological Interpretation of Scripture,” in Between
Two Worlds, 71–87).
228 ALL FOR JESUS
that Scripture interprets Scripture. But the principle itself has been interpreted
in two different ways. Systematic theologians have taken it to mean that
different texts which speak to the same topic can be brought together, and the
clearer text sheds light on the less clear text. Thus, Scripture interprets
Scripture. In biblical theology, however, the analogy of Scripture is understood
a bit differently. Richard Gaffin explains the principle this way:
To say that Scripture interprets itself means that it has one pervasive sense—
a unified meaning. Because it is God’s word, the Bible is a unity, so that any one
part has its place within the unified teaching of the whole. A particular passage is
located within a pattern of God-given contexts which can only serve to clarify.
The pervasive meaning of Scripture should be brought to bear on any single
portion. Biblical revelation is self-elucidating because it has an organic, unified
structure.81
In short, the principle is simply follow the story. Interpret the text as it gives
itself to be read. Read the text as it was intended to be read. Do not read the text
contrary to the author’s intention or contrary to its character. Carl Armerding
suggests that the dogmatic approach toward Scripture—reading it by looking
for timeless doctrinal verities rather than seeing it as an unfolding story of
God’s redemptive ways with his creatures—dictates to the text how we will
allow it to speak to us. We stop being listeners and become speakers. We
become dictators rather than cooperators. Being a listener, however, is a matter
of submitting to the text, allowing the biblical authors to speak, and “seeking
within the story itself the guidelines for its exegesis.”82
While not every biblical text is narrative in genre, the ultimate context that
controls any text is the overarching story that the Bible tells. “In the final
analysis the analogy of Scripture is the analogy of parts in an historically
unfolding and differentiating organism.”83 The unity of Scripture—or the
Christian faith—is not found within an extra-biblical system or rational
principle; it is in the biblical story of the divine purpose for our world. This
suggests that the unfolding drama of God’s redemptive ways ought to be both
Richard Gaffin, “Introduction,” xvii.

81
Carl Armerding, “Faith and Method in Old Testament Study: Story Exegesis,” in P. E. Satterthwaite
82
and D. F. Wright, eds., A Pathway Into the Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994), 46.
83 Gaffin, “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology,” 294.
the fundamental control upon exegesis and the informing principle of

theological reflection.
This is not a new idea in any way. The second century Rule of Faith (which
would become what we call the Apostles’ Creed) delineated the faith for
believers. To counter heretical interpretations of the faith, Irenaeus and
Tertullian used the Rule to declare that the Bible is about the creative and
redemptive work of the triune God.84 Yet, the Rule was not so much a summary
of the content of the Christian faith as it was a direction for the proper
interpretation of Scripture. Its broadly narrative form identifies what the Bible
is about. Biblical religion is a declaration of the works of the triune God in the
progressively historical work of creation, fall, redemption, and new creation.
That which Christians are to believe, that which they are to proclaim to the
world, is not a collection of static concepts, but a story. And that story is the
fundamental principle for the true interpretation of Scripture.85 Thus, the Rule
of Faith provided something of a regulative principle for biblical interpretation:
Read the Word according to the story. Look for the declaration of the great
things God has done.86
Does the emphasis upon authorial intention, the narrative analogy of
Scripture, and the early church’s use of the Rule of Faith as a hermeneutical
guide declare the systematic use of the analogy of Scripture illegitimate? No,
but it does set limits upon it. John Murray put it this way: “Texts will not thus
be forced to bear a meaning they do not possess nor forced into a service they
cannot perform.”87 In other words, the systematic use of the analogy of
Scripture should not violate the authorial intention of the text. But this can be
stated more positively and concretely. Echoing Vos, Lints aphoristically writes
that “theology, in its content and form, ought to be what the Scripture
irresistibly demands.”88
84 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.9.3; 1.10.1, 3; Tertullian, Prescription, 1.19.

85 See Paul M. Blowers, “The Regula Fidei and the Narrative Character of Early Christian Faith,” Pro
Ecclesia 6 (1997): 199–228; Henri Blocher, “The ‘Analogy of Faith’ in the Study of Scripture: In Search of
Justification and Guide-lines,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 5 (Spring 1987): 17–38.
86 Robert Wall writes that “there is a sense in which biblical interpretation that is truly Christian in
content and result is the by-product of the interpreter whose theological convictions conform to the Rule
of Faith” (Robert Wall, “Reading the Bible from within Our Traditions: The ‘Rule of Faith’ in Theological
Hermeneutics,” in Between Two Horizons, 101).
87 Murray, “Systematic Theology,” 21.
88 Lints, “Two Theologies or One?” 247.
230 ALL FOR JESUS
Although Christian theologians have always seen the Bible as authoritative

for their reflection, it is often difficult to discern just how the Bible relates to a
lot of systematic theology, even within evangelical and Reformed circles. The
way Scripture is often employed implies that “whatever is not forbidden is
permitted.” If we can make something fit with all the statements of the Bible—
read as decontextual propositions—we may employ any idea within our
theology. But just because we can do so does not mean that we should. This is
the great limitation of thinking of systematic theology as a fundamentally
rational enterprise. The law of non-contradiction does not include—nor does it
suggest—any positive or constructive ethic for understanding historical or
personal dynamics, or for reading texts for that matter. What is needed is a
regulative principle for theological construction. Whatever is not demanded by
the Word of God is forbidden. Our theologies must tell the story.89 Simply
because an idea might seem justified by a biblical statement, it does not follow
that the text should be so understood. Romans 4:17 says that God “gives life to
the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.” This text has often
been used as a proof-text for the doctrine of creation out of nothing. Taken as a
refrigerator-magnet sort of declaration, one can see how the text might be so
used. God calls into being what does not exist. Creatio ex nihilo. But, of course,
that is not what Paul is saying in Romans 4:17 at all. It is not a reference to the
original act of creation, but to God’s call of Abraham to faith and fatherhood. To
use the text as a proof-text for the doctrine of creation out of nothing is
illegitimate, for this ignores the communicative intention of the text, the
purpose of the statement within its context in the book of Romans, and its
context within the unfolding biblical story. As Christopher J. H. Wright has
stated the point, “the text must govern the framework, and not the other way
round.”90 What is the framework of which Wright speaks? The biblical drama
of redemption—the story that comes from the biblical text—which is the special
focus of biblical theology.
89 See John Frame, “Crucial Questions About the Regulative Principle,” Christian Counterculture
Newsletter, May 23, 2005: 1–7, for an appeal for expanding the regulative principle beyond Reformed
worship.
90 Christopher J. H. Wright, “Mission as a Matrix for Hermeneutics and Biblical Theology,” in Out of
Egypt, 138.
THE CHALLENGE OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
I have spoken of Scripture as a regulative principle or informing story for

the theological enterprise—both in terms of its communicative intent for any
particular text and as the cosmic narrative of God’s unfolding work of the
restoration of all things. However, I have not sought to produce a rule book or a
how-to for doing theology. My concern is to apply the Reformation principle of
sola scriptura for the sake of theological reflection. I feel quite comfortable in this
enterprise, for if our theological labors do not take place for the sake of bringing
the Word of God home to the contemporary church, then those efforts are in
vain. Anchoring systematic theology in biblical theology, with its attendant
emphases in the biblical story and authorial intention, does not dictate how
systematics must be done. But biblical theology does offer some positive
challenges to systematics.
First, biblical theology challenges systematic theology to do justice to the
historical character of Scripture. The tendency to abstraction which moves
theological reflection toward ahistorical formulations of timeless truths and
thus obscures the historical-covenantal dynamic of Scripture must be resisted.
As we move away from the historical dynamic and toward the reductively
thematic, we will also experience a commensurate loss of biblical meaning.
Stated as a positive prescription, persons and events take precedence over ideas
and rational neatness in biblical reflection. While inferential relationships are
not to be ignored in our systematic endeavors, personal relationships take
priority and are the ultimate referents of systematic analysis. Historicity,
beginnings and endings, events, development and growth, continuity and
discontinuity, and the character of persons must all be part of, or at least
accounted for by, the theologian’s system.91 The systematic theologian must
always respect the nature of Scripture as a history of redemption. Put in
simplest terms, the narrative structure of Scripture encourages the systematic
theologian to think in historical and storied ways, even as he pursues the
topical agenda. At the very least, systematic theology needs to reflect on
91 I argue this point at length in a number of essays: “God: Idea or Person? The Necessity of Historical
Revelation to a Personal Knowledge of God,” In Covenant 12, no. 2 (April/May 1997); “Scripture and
Theology: Doctrinal Facts, a Community’s Narrative, or Redemptive-Historical Fabric?” Pro Rege 24, no. 3
(March 1996); “Climbing Out of Lessing’s Ditch: History and the Christian Faith,” in Michael Bauman, ed.,
God and Man: Perspectives on Christianity in the 20th Century (Hillsdale, Mich.: Hillsdale College Press, 1995).
232 ALL FOR JESUS
matters that have not often appeared within the traditional loci of the discipline.
What is the nature of history? Why is story the most foundational form of
biblical communication? Why are events so crucial to the gospel story? I suspect
that if systematicians were to take up such questions, we would be weaned
away from the traditional trajectory of seeing natural religion as the foundation
for revealed religion, and in so doing discover greater depths—scandalous
depths!—in the personal particularity of the God declared in the biblical story.
Second, biblical theology reminds the systematician that the Bible is more
than a repository of things to know. If our theological labors are to provide
direction for walking in the way of truth, they need to do more than merely
describe the world. They must also generate an identity for those who are called
to live the life of faith within the world. This is one of the particular advantages
of story over other forms of discourse. Story seeks to depict not merely a way of
seeing the world, but also a way of being within it. As Kevin Vanhoozer aptly
notes, “To become a Christian is not to become a subscriber to a philosophy; it
is to become an active participant in God’s triune mission to the world.”92 And
the only way to become such a “participant” is by entering into the story, to
take it as our own. The biblical story is not a tale told about strangers, people to
whom we have no relation. It is the story of the heirs to the faith of Abraham. It
is our story, and as such invites us to indwell it. As God’s identity is known
only by way of the story—his ongoing involvement in his creation with his
people—so our true identity can only be known in the same way. This is
precisely what Christian faith is all about: the formation of Christian identity as
the world of Scripture becomes our world as well. Vanhoozer has recently
made the same point:
As C.S. Lewis knew, stories too are truth bearers that enable us both to
“taste” and to “see,” or better, to experience as concrete what can otherwise be
understood only as an abstraction. What gets conveyed through stories, then, is
not simply a proposition but something of reality itself. For example, the biblical
narrative does not simply convey information about God but displays God’s
triune identity itself as this is manifest through the creative and redemptive work
of his two hands. One can state “that God is good” in a proposition, but it takes a
narrative to “taste and see that the Lord is good.”93
Vanhoozer, “Lost in Interpretation?” 102.

92
Ibid., 109. Some years ago, Harvie Conn put it this way: “From a redemptive-historical perspective
93
the interpreter affirms not only that he or she stands in the same continuum of the presence of the
kingdom as, for example, the apostle Paul; the interpreter also affirms that, just as biblical theology
Third, biblical theology reminds us that our systems are just that—our
creations. Trevor Hart’s comment is a sober relativization of the systematic
agenda: “Christian Scripture offers no neat system, and ambitious attempts to
systematize it ought to attract suspicion rather than assent in the first instance
from those whose concern is faithfulness to the text, and acknowledgment of its
authority in the integrally related tasks of theological reflection and Christian
discipleship.”94 Scripture does not exist to serve our systems. Just the reverse.
Theological reflection takes place for one reason: to help us think through the
biblical faith in our moment in history. As such, theology is the servant of the
Word of God and faith. Systematics is not the goal of Scripture, but a means for
our application of the biblical world to our own.
Finally, as biblical theology is oriented to the historical unfolding of God’s
redemptive ways, it reminds us of the grand purpose of Scripture—a purpose
that all else serves—namely, that biblical religion is not firstly or ultimately
about contacting a cognitive deposit of ideas or facts, but coming into a living
and vital relationship with the Savior and King who is revealed to us in the
biblical Word. When the people of God read the Bible, we are not simply
attending words on a piece of paper, or even a story found in a book. We are
attending, through the medium of the written word, Jesus Christ our LORD,
who is first a person, not an idea or a proper noun. The Bible is referential to the
acts of God in history—his covenantal relationship with his people. This principle
must inform the theologian as he uses this Word and must regulate how he
reads it.
demands fullest justice to the cultural context of redemptive history, so the commentator too must look at
his or her own situational context with care. Our contemporary setting is part of that flow of redemptive
history that is addressed by the Scriptures” (Harvie Conn, Eternal Word, Changing Worlds, 228).
94 Hart, “Systematic—In What Sense?” 342.
234 ALL FOR JESUS

Systematic Theology As Biblical Discipline-MWilliams-chap.11-38pp

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Systematic Theology As Biblical Discipline-MWilliams-chap.11-38pp

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Systematic Theology As Biblical Discipline-MWilliams-chap.11-38pp

Uploaded by

Copyright:

What criticisms are leveled against systematic theology?

What criticisms are leveled against systematic theology?

How does the author propose to define systematic theology?

How does the author propose to define systematic theology?

11

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY AS A BIBLICAL DISCIPLINE

In Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic

elucidation of theological hermeneutics. Theologians describe what systematic

TRADITIONAL SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

The Movement from Task-Driven Reflection to Systematic Discipline

ahistorical knowing, toward definitions rather than relationships, toward things

The Impulse Toward Abstraction

York: Oxford, 1980), 137ff.

The Metaphysical Orientation

We might think of the scholastic relativization of history as an attempt to

Scripture Under the Assumption of an Extra-Biblical System

Zondervan, 1994), 29.

Evangelical Theological Society 48, no.1 (March 2005): 94.

of Scripture. God is known not through Scripture so much as through the

Beginnings: The Reaction Against Scholasticism

The beginnings of biblical theology are hard to trace, if by beginnings we

Two Horizons, 200.

Press, 2002), 16.

Scripture is a record of revelation. It witnesses to the special revelation of

Looking for the Story:

Biblical theology seeks to read the Bible as an historical document. In this it

THE RELATION BETWEEN BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

Systematics and Rationalism

We should note that, even if we subtract the more speculative aspects of

1. Select all the “verses” that speak to a topic.

(Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 102.

proposition in this approach toward theology. It assumes that the truth

Vos’ Criticism of Systematics

InterVasity Press, 2003), 38.

Neither Vos nor Gaffin are suggesting that systematics is automatically

The Call to Reform Systematic Theology

What is Systematic Theology?

Defining systematic theology is both as easy as pie and as vexing as trying

(Edinburgh, Scotland/Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 1982), 17.

The approach of biblical theology is historical, while that of systematic

Footnoting his comment, Gaffin elaborates on systematic theology by saying

44Richard Gaffin, “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology,” 290.

Reforming the Method: How Do We Do It?

Biblical Truth is Neither Ahistorical Nor Acultural. Contrary to Carson and

47 Harvie Conn, Eternal Word and Changing Worlds, 241–42.

about the Holy Spirit, is transcultural, but it is never acultural. It is

Publishing, 2004), 2–3.

power is exercised. Further, a particular kind of rule is implicit within the

In verse 7 and following, David focuses his attention on the presence of

This is no diffuse presence that exists everywhere like oxygen. Rather, it is

In a sense, the classical emphasis upon divine attributes as the key to

Elsewhere Goldingay has written:

54 Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, 32.

The Centrality of Biblical Theology. Does the criticism of the abstractive

It is important to ask whether the conception of doing theology by stringing

When we fail to notice the character of Scripture as dramatic narrative, we

Eerdmans, 1993), 261.

Following in the redemptive-historical tradition of Geerhardus Vos, both

Evangelicals have traditionally emphasized the speech of God by

The diminution of historical reference sidelines the dramatic movement of

59 Lints, The Fabric of Theology, 264n8.

My intuition is that if we are directed by Scripture as our authority in what

205–6, 214ff, 221–22.