Latest / Reformed Thinking / Introduction to Systematic Theology

Transcript

Introduction to Systematic Theology · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Hello and welcome to Reformed Thinking.
0:02
I'm your host and I'm really looking forward to sitting down
0:05
once again to get into some of the biggest questions regarding
0:08
our faith. As always, I am joined by my Co
0:11
host and expert guide. It is good to have you here.
0:14
It's wonderful to be back. As we always say, our goal here
0:17
is to take our shared heritage, Protestant Christianity,
0:21
specifically looking through the lens of Reformed theology and
0:24
the Westminster Confession, and apply that rigorous thinking to
0:28
the text that we have in front of us.
0:30
We want to understand what we believe, and you know why we
0:33
believe it. That is the whole point, isn't
0:35
it? We're not here to skim the
0:36
surface. We want to get into the Gears of
0:38
how truth works. And today we're opening up a
0:42
topic that, I have to be honest, it might scare a few people off.
0:45
Just by the title alone, we're talking about systematic
0:48
theology. It does have a heavy sound to
0:50
it, doesn't it? It really does.
0:51
When I hear systematic theology, my mind, it just immediately
0:55
goes to dusty libraries. You know, thick books with tiny
0:58
font that smell like old paper and scholars using words I have
1:02
to look up in a dictionary. It feels intimidating.
1:04
It feels dry. It feels like something for
1:06
academics in an ivory tower, not for the person sitting in the
1:09
Pew on Sunday morning. And that's a very common
1:11
reaction, a very understandable one.
1:14
But I want to correct that assumption right out of the
1:16
gate. Systematic theology is not about
1:18
making things complicated or dry.
1:20
It's actually the opposite. It's about standing together.
1:24
Standing together. Yeah, that's what the word
1:25
itself points do. It's about organizing truth so
1:28
that it can be understood, digested, and then lived out.
1:33
So think of it less like a dusty library and more like a map.
1:37
You can have all the landmarks in the world, but if you don't
1:39
have a map to show you how they all relate to one another, you
1:42
are going to get lost. I like that image.
1:45
We need a map that's good, so for this deep dive, we're
1:48
looking at a specific source. To help us draw that map, we're
1:51
using The Moody Handbook of Theology by Paul Ends.
1:54
Right, Paul ends has done the church a great service with this
1:57
work. What we're aiming to do today is
2:00
take the stack of information he presents, you know, regarding
2:02
how we categorize God's truth and then simplify it.
2:05
We want to help the learner. That's you listening right now.
2:08
Move beyond a surface level reading of the Bible and into a
2:11
structured, robust understanding of who God is.
2:15
So let's unpack this. We need to start with the basics
2:18
section. One of our discussion is simply
2:20
defining the terms. What do we even mean when we say
2:23
systematic theology? Well, to understand the
2:26
definition we really have to look at the etymology, the
2:28
history of the words themselves, the word theology.
2:31
It comes from 2 Greek words. The 1st is Theos Theos which
2:34
means God, and the second is Logos which means word or
2:39
discourse. So putting those together, it's
2:41
literally a discourse about God, a conversation about God.
2:44
Concisely, it is talking about God, but then we add that
2:47
modifier systematic. This comes from the Greek verb
2:49
sunistano, and this is a fascinating word.
2:52
It means to stand together or to organize.
2:55
OK. That's where you got that from.
2:57
Right. So when we talk about systematic
2:59
theology, we're talking about the systematization of our
3:01
discourse about God. We are organizing the facts so
3:04
they stand together in a coherent structure.
3:07
That makes a lot more sense. So it's not just random thoughts
3:10
about God, it's organized thoughts.
3:12
But I noticed in the source text that there's a bit of tension it
3:14
seems in how different scholars define this.
3:18
It seems like not everyone agrees on how wide the net
3:20
should be cast. That is a very keen observation.
3:24
ENDS highlights 2 contrasting definitions to show this very
3:28
tension. First we have Lewis Barry
3:30
Schaefer. His definition is quite broad.
3:33
Schaefer says that systematic theology is the collecting,
3:35
scientifically arranging, comparing, exhibiting and
3:38
defending of all facts from and this is the key phrase from any
3:42
and every source concerning God in His works.
3:45
Any and every source. Wow, that sounds huge.
3:47
It's massive. The implication here is that
3:50
Schaefer is casting a very, very wide net.
3:52
He's including the Bible, obviously, but he's also
3:54
including nature, history, science, philosophy, anything
3:58
that gives U.S. data about God. So if I'm looking at a sunset
4:01
and I learned something about God's creativity, in Chafer's
4:04
view, that's a piece of theological data.
4:07
It is. It's considered a valid input
4:09
into the system. That's one side.
4:11
OK, so that's one side. What's the contrasting view
4:13
then? On the other side, we have
4:14
Charles Hodge. Now, as reform thinkers, we
4:17
often look to ODD with a lot of respect, and Hodge defines
4:20
theology as the science of the facts of divine revelation
4:24
concerning the nature of God and our relation to Him.
4:27
OK, divine revelation. That sounds different already.
4:30
It is. And here's the kicker.
4:32
Hodge remarks that all these facts are in the Bible.
4:34
Oh, that is a significant difference, Schaefer says.
4:39
Any and every source. And Hodge says the Bible alone.
4:43
It's a much more restrictive, or you could say narrow view
4:47
compared to Schaefer. Hodge is limiting the data
4:49
primarily to the scriptures. Now we have to talk about the
4:52
difference here because it matters.
4:53
There's a reformed tendency which we share to prize
4:57
scripture above all else. We believe in Sola Scriptura.
5:01
Right, Scripture alone. But there is utility and broader
5:04
inputs. I mean, we can't ignore that God
5:06
reveals himself in nature, as the Psalms tell us the heavens
5:09
declare the glory of God. So Hodge wouldn't deny that,
5:12
would he? No, not at all.
5:14
But he wants to ensure that our theology, our system, is
5:18
anchored in special revelation in the text of the Bible so that
5:21
we don't drift into speculation or, you know, just human
5:24
philosophy. He's putting up guardrails.
5:27
OK, so he's worried about the data getting corrupted in a
5:30
sense. If you let everything in, you
5:32
might let error in too. That's a good way to put it.
5:35
He wants to maintain the purity of the source material for the
5:38
system itself. So is there a middle ground
5:41
here? Is there a definition that maybe
5:43
captures the best of both worlds?
5:44
I think so ends points us to Millard Erickson, and Erickson
5:49
offers a comprehensive definition that I think is very
5:51
helpful for us. He describes theology as a
5:54
discipline that strives to give a coherent statement of the
5:57
doctrines of the Christian faith.
5:58
OK, based primarily upon the Scriptures.
6:01
So there's the anchor, like Hodge.
6:03
Right. But then, he adds, placed in the
6:06
context of culture in general, worded in a contemporary idiom,
6:10
are related to issues of life. That sounds much more robust.
6:13
Yeah, it seems to cover all the bases.
6:14
Yeah, I see. Ericsson actually breaks this
6:16
down into five specific ingredients of theology.
6:20
I think we should walk through those because they provide
6:21
almost like a checklist for whether we're doing theology
6:24
correctly. Let's do that.
6:25
It's a great framework. The first ingredient is that
6:28
theology is biblical. Biblical.
6:30
This means it has to use biblical research tools.
6:33
We're talking about, you know, Greek and Hebrew lexicon work,
6:37
understanding historical context, proper exegesis, really
6:41
digging into the text. However, Erickson notes it can
6:44
employ insights from other areas of truth.
6:47
So it's not shut off from the world, but the basis is the
6:51
Bible. So it starts with the Bible, but
6:53
it's not afraid to look at other fields to what shed light on it.
6:55
To help understand it and apply it.
6:57
Yes, the Bible remains the final authority, but we can use
7:00
history or archaeology to better understand the biblical world,
7:03
for instance. OK, that makes sense.
7:05
What's #2. #2 is that theology is systematic and this is
7:09
crucial. It draws from the entirety of
7:11
Scripture. You cannot take one verse from
7:14
Leviticus and build a whole doctrine on it.
7:16
You. Know right, You can't just
7:17
cherry pick no. You have to relate that verse to
7:20
Romans, to the Gospels, to the Psalms.
7:22
You have to relate all the different portions to one
7:24
another to get the whole picture of what God is saying on a
7:27
topic. That prevents us from taking
7:29
things way out of context, which happens all the time.
7:32
All the time. A system protects you from that.
7:34
What's the third ingredient? The third is that theology is
7:37
relevant. It must connect to culture, to
7:40
cosmology, to psychology and philosophy.
7:44
This is where we touch on Shaffer's Every Source idea
7:46
again, but in a more controlled way.
7:48
So we're not doing theology in a vacuum.
7:50
Not at all. We have to understand how God's
7:53
truth interfaces with how people today think about the universe,
7:57
about the human mind, about what is good and true.
8:00
If our theology can't speak to those things, it's not actually
8:03
relevant. OK.
8:04
And the 4th. 4th Theology must be contemporary.
8:08
Now this does not mean we change the truth to fit the times.
8:11
That's a huge misunderstanding. That's a very important
8:14
clarification. It is.
8:15
It means we must speak in a contemporary idiom.
8:19
We have to answer today's questions using language that
8:22
people today can actually understand.
8:25
If we're answering questions nobody's asking, or if we're
8:27
using language from the 16th century that nobody speaks
8:30
anymore, we're failing in our task.
8:32
We're just talking to ourselves. That is a big challenge for the
8:35
church. We often get stuck in our
8:37
Christianese, our insider language.
8:39
We do, and it builds a wall between US and the world we're
8:41
trying to reach. A good theologian is also a good
8:43
translator. I like that good translator.
8:46
And the final ingredient? Finally, theology must be
8:49
practical. It cannot remain abstract
8:51
theory. It must relate to life itself.
8:54
If your theology doesn't change how you live, how you treat your
8:57
neighbor, how you vote, how you spend your money, or how you
9:00
pray, then it's not good theology.
9:03
It's just intellectual gymnastics.
9:05
I love that it brings it right back down to earth.
9:08
So we've defined systematic theology.
9:11
But as I look at the source text, I see a lot of other
9:14
labels, biblical theology, historical theology, dogmatic
9:17
theology, and I can see why people get confused.
9:20
Isn't it all studying God? Why do we need all these
9:24
different buckets? It is all studying God, you're
9:26
right, but the angle of approach is different.
9:29
I like to think of it like looking at a diamond.
9:32
You can look at it from the top, you can look at it from the
9:34
side, you can put it under a microscope.
9:36
Each view gives you different information, a different
9:38
perspective on the same object. OK, that's a good analogy.
9:42
So let's clarify these distinctions so we don't get
9:44
mixed up. They're all valuable tools, but
9:45
they do different jobs. Let's start with biblical
9:48
theology. That sounds like it should be
9:50
the same thing as systematic. I mean, we just said systematic
9:52
theology has to be biblical, right?
9:54
Yes, but biblical theology as a technical term is narrower.
9:58
It focuses on a specific writer or a specific era.
10:02
For example, you might study Johannian theology, which is
10:05
just the theology found in the writings of the Apostle John,
10:08
his Gospel, his letters, Revelation.
10:10
So you're only looking at John's unique contribution.
10:13
Exactly. Or you might study Old Testament
10:15
theology or the theology of the prophetic era.
10:19
It's like zooming in with a microscope on one specific part
10:22
of the timeline or one specific author to see their unique
10:25
contribution and how they develop a theme.
10:28
So biblical theology is zooming in.
10:30
And systematic theology, by contrast, is zooming out to see
10:34
how John's theology fits with Paul's theology and with Moses's
10:38
theology to create the whole picture.
10:40
OK. That is a very helpful
10:42
distinction. Zoom in versus zoom out.
10:44
What about historical theology? Historical theology is the study
10:48
of development. It tracks how ideas or doctrines
10:51
have unfolded over time in the life of the Church.
10:54
So like a history class for ideas.
10:56
Pretty much. For example, think about the of
10:58
Christ or Christology. Historical theology would look
11:01
at how the early church councils, Messiah Telesadon
11:04
debated and formulated their position on the two natures of
11:06
Jesus. It studies what the church has
11:09
believed at different points in history.
11:11
It's vital for understanding how we got to where we are today.
11:14
It keeps us connected to that great cloud of witnesses who
11:17
came before us, so we're not just reinventing the wheel every
11:20
Sunday, right? We learn from their struggles
11:23
and their insights. Now here's a word that gets a
11:26
bad rap Dogmatic theology. When I hear dogmatic, I think of
11:30
someone who is stubborn and refuses to listen to anyone
11:34
else. Just, you know, arrogant.
11:35
We often use the word that way in casual conversation for sure,
11:39
but technically, dogmatic theology refers to the study of
11:42
a creedal system of a specific denomination or theological
11:46
tradition. OK, so it's about a specific
11:48
system. Right.
11:49
For example, WGT Shed wrote a famous work called Dogmatic
11:53
Theology. The word denotes the study of
11:55
dogma, which simply means settled doctrine.
11:58
So it's the study of what a specific group has decided is
12:02
the settled truth. For US, studying the Westminster
12:05
Confession could be seen as an exercise in dogmatic theology.
12:08
So it's not about being rude, it's about being settled in your
12:11
beliefs and studying those settled beliefs.
12:13
Precisely. It's about coherence within a
12:16
particular tradition. Then we have the term Christian
12:20
theology. You'll see this used often, and
12:22
sometimes it's just a synonym for system theology.
12:25
Like Millard Erickson's book. Exactly.
12:27
His book is titled Christian Theology.
12:29
It's just flags that the perspective is decidedly
12:33
Christian, distinguishing it from, say, Jewish theology or
12:37
Islamic theology or Buddhist philosophy.
12:40
It's a way of marking the starting point of the author.
12:42
OK, that's straightforward. And there's one more distinction
12:45
in the list that I found interesting.
12:47
Theology proper. Yes, theology proper.
12:49
This is actually a subcategory within systematic theology.
12:52
So it's one of the topics in the big system.
12:54
That's it. Systematic theology covers
12:56
everything. God, man, sin, salvation, the
13:00
church. The End Times theology proper is
13:03
specifically the study of God the Father, His nature, His
13:07
attributes, His existence. So why the word proper?
13:09
We use the word proper to distinguish the specific study
13:13
of God the Father from the general field of theology, which
13:16
covers all religious truth. It properly belongs to the study
13:20
of God Himself, as opposed to Christology, which is the study
13:24
of Christ, or pneumatology, the study of the Spirit.
13:28
So if I'm studying the attributes of God, His Holiness,
13:31
His omniscience, His love, I'm doing theology proper.
13:35
You are. You're working in that specific
13:37
room of the larger House of systematic theology.
13:40
OK, we have the definitions and the distinctions.
13:42
This is very helpful for clearing up the confusion.
13:44
But I want to play devil's advocate for a moment.
13:46
I can still hear someone listening to this saying this is
13:49
all well and good, but why do I need a system?
13:51
Why can't I just read my Bible and be done with it?
13:53
Why do I need to organize it into all these categories?
13:56
That's the question of necessity, isn't it?
13:58
Why do we need a system? And it's a fair question.
14:01
The source text gives us three very compelling reasons.
14:05
The first is simply for the explanation of Christianity.
14:08
Explanation. Yes, we have to realize that the
14:10
Bible is not written as a doctrinal outline.
14:13
It's not. I think some people treat it
14:15
that way. They do, but it's not how it was
14:17
written. You don't open the Bible and
14:19
find chapter 1, the attributes of God, then chapter 2, the
14:22
nature of sin. The Bible is history.
14:25
It's poetry. It's letters written to specific
14:28
churches about specific problems.
14:30
It is a collection of diverse literature spanning thousands of
14:34
years. Right, it's a library of books,
14:36
not a single textbook. A library is the perfect way to
14:39
describe it, and systematic theology organizes the truths
14:42
scattered throughout that entire library so we can understand the
14:45
doctrinal emphasis of the entire Bible.
14:48
It takes the narrative and the poetry and the law, and it
14:51
synthesizes the core truths they're all teaching.
14:54
So it turns the library into a usable, A coherent story.
14:58
It helps us see the overarching themes.
15:00
That's it. The second reason is apologetic.
15:03
Apologetic meaning a defense. The defense of the faith.
15:06
We need to be able to defend our beliefs rationally.
15:08
Historically, the early church used systematic thinking to
15:11
refute heresies. If someone came along and said
15:14
Jesus wasn't really God, the church had to go back through
15:17
all the scriptures, organize the data, and build a systematic
15:20
case for the deity of Christ. And if you don't have a system,
15:23
you're vulnerable to false teaching.
15:25
Incredibly vulnerable. The source mentions some
15:28
specific modern threats, Humanism, communism, various
15:32
cults, eastern religions. And that's still true today.
15:35
It's just as relevant today, if not more so.
15:37
If a cult member comes to your door and they have a very
15:40
organized, very thought out system of error, and you just
15:44
have a vague, fuzzy idea of what you believe, well, you're going
15:48
to get confused. You might even get persuaded.
15:50
It's hard to argue against a system if you don't have one of
15:53
your own. That's why the text makes this
15:54
point. You cannot defend what you
15:57
haven't defined. Systematic theology helps us
16:00
research, delineate, and then present a defense of historic
16:03
Christianity against these opposing worldviews.
16:06
You cannot defend what you have not defined.
16:08
That's a quote to write down. That's really good.
16:10
What's the third reason? The third reason, and maybe the
16:12
most personal one, is maturity, spiritual growth.
16:16
There is a direct connection between doctrine and character.
16:20
We often try to separate them. We think doctrine is for the
16:23
head and practice is for the hands.
16:25
But the Bible links them inseparably.
16:27
Just look at Paul's epistles. The source brought up Ephesians
16:30
specifically. That's a great example.
16:31
Ephesians is a perfect example. Chapters one through three are
16:34
some of the heaviest doctrinal foundations in the whole Bible.
16:37
You have predestination, grace, the mystery of the church, the
16:42
union of Jew and Gentile in Christ.
16:44
It's incredibly deep theology. Very heady stuff.
16:47
And then you hit chapter 4, and what does Paul say?
16:50
Therefore, walk in a manner worthy of the calling.
16:54
The rest of the book, chapters 4 through 6, is all exhortation to
16:58
live correctly, how to treat your spouse, how to work, how to
17:01
speak to one another. So that therefore is the hinge.
17:04
It's the hinge of the whole book.
17:06
Paul lays the deep foundation of truth before he calls for the
17:09
action of life. You cannot have the fruit
17:12
without the root. The doctrine is the root.
17:14
And the the text also gave a pretty stark warning here.
17:17
It said people can attend church for decades and remain immature.
17:20
That's a tragic reality, isn't it?
17:23
You can sit in a Pew for 30 years, sing all the songs, hear
17:26
hundreds of sermons, but if you lack a major doctrinal
17:29
understanding of God, sin, grace, you can remain a
17:34
spiritual infant. The Bible talks about that being
17:36
tossed to and fro. Right from Ephesians 4, tossed
17:39
here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of
17:42
doctrine. A lack of system makes you
17:45
unstable, Correct doctrine, a solid system protects us from
17:49
error. The source cites first John 4
17:51
test the spirits and Jude 4 which talks about contending for
17:55
the faith. Theology is a protective
17:58
guardrail for our souls. That puts a real urgency on
18:01
this. It's not just an optional hobby
18:02
for super Christians or pastors. It's necessary for actual growth
18:06
and stability. It is.
18:06
It's for everyone who wants to mature in their faith.
18:08
So if we're convinced that we need to build a theology, a
18:11
system, how do we do it? What are the rules of the road?
18:16
Section four of our outline covers the requirements.
18:18
And there are strict rules for building a theology, we can't
18:21
just make it up as we go along. The 1st and most critical
18:24
requirement is inspiration and in RANSI.
18:26
This is the bedrock, the non negotiable.
18:29
Absolutely non negotiable. If you don't believe the Bible
18:32
is God's inspired and errant word, you have no foundation to
18:36
build on. Your house is built on sand.
18:38
So what's the logic there? Why is that so essential?
18:41
The logic is simple. If you abandon and an inerrancy,
18:44
then your own reason becomes the final authority.
18:47
You end up sitting in judgment over the text, deciding which
18:50
parts you think are true and which parts are not, based on
18:53
your own feelings or modern sensitivities.
18:56
We must submit our reason to the text, not have the text submit
18:59
to our reason. So rule #1 is the Bible is true,
19:03
and it's our authority. What is rule #2?
19:05
Rule #2 is the application of proper hermeneutical principles.
19:09
Now hermeneutics is a fancy word, but it just means the
19:11
science of interpretation. How to read the Bible correctly?
19:14
That's it. We need objective rules for how
19:16
to read. We can't just say, well, this
19:17
verse means this to me. That's not interpretation,
19:20
that's just opinion. We have to ask, what did the
19:23
author intend to convey to his original audience?
19:26
Proper homonetics force us to set aside our personal biases
19:30
and extremes and listen to the text on its own terms.
19:33
That sounds like it leads right into the third requirement.
19:36
You have listed a scientific approach.
19:39
Now you need to clarify we're not talking about Bunsen burners
19:42
and lab coats here. No, not at all.
19:44
But we are talking about rigor. Theology should be scientific in
19:48
the sense that it is a disciplined, ordered body of
19:51
knowledge. It employs the general arts,
19:54
culture, history, and of course, the biblical languages to draw
19:57
its conclusions. It's disciplined.
19:59
We check our work. We use the tools of language and
20:03
history to ensure our conclusions are accurate and not
20:05
just based on a whim. OK, that's helpful.
20:07
And the 4th requirement is objectivity.
20:10
The text contrasts inductive research with deductive
20:13
reasoning. Can you explain that difference
20:15
for us? Sure.
20:16
Deductive reasoning often starts with a theory or a conclusion
20:19
and then goes looking for facts to support it.
20:21
That's very dangerous in theology because you can force
20:24
the Bible to say whatever you want it to say.
20:26
You find the verses that fit your theory and ignore the ones
20:28
that don't. Confirmation bias.
20:30
Exactly. Productive research, on the
20:32
other hand, gathers the facts first.
20:35
It looks at all the verses on a topic, all the context, all the
20:37
relevant passages, and then it draws A conclusion based on the
20:40
weight of the evidence. This is where that concept of
20:43
tabula rasa comes in, right? Yes, tabula rasa means blank
20:46
slate. The ideal is that the theologian
20:49
must try to approach scripture with an open mind, allowing the
20:53
scripture to speak for itself without imposing a pre made
20:57
system onto it. But is that really possible to
21:00
have a totally blank slate? It's incredibly difficult,
21:03
probably impossible in a pure sense.
21:05
We all bring our baggage, our traditions, our assumptions to
21:09
the text. But the goal is to be aware of
21:11
that baggage and to strive to let the Bible surprise us, to
21:15
let it correct us, rather than just having it confirm from what
21:18
we already think we know. That's a lifelong discipline.
21:20
I think requirement #5 is progressive revelation.
21:23
This is a. Crucial rule for organizing the
21:25
whole Bible. It's the recognition that God
21:27
revealed truth over time. He didn't just dump the whole
21:31
load of truth on Adam and Eve in the garden.
21:33
It unfolds. It unfolds.
21:35
He revealed more to Abraham than more to Moses, more through the
21:38
prophets, and then he fully and finally revealed himself in his
21:42
Son, Jesus Christ. Therefore, the operating rule is
21:46
that the New Testament has interpretive priority over the
21:49
Old Testament in formulating truths about God.
21:53
We read the Old Testament through the lens of the New.
21:56
A clear example would be that we don't sacrifice animals anymore.
21:59
Perfect example the old. Testament commands it, but the
22:02
New Testament explains that Christ is the final once for all
22:05
sacrifice. That's progressive revelation
22:07
and action. That's it exactly.
22:09
Requirement #6 brings in the spiritual dimension
22:12
illumination. The divine element.
22:14
You can have all the right methods, you can know all the
22:16
Greek and Hebrew, you can have a perfect inductive system, but
22:19
without the Holy Spirit you will miss the heart of it all.
22:22
We are dependent on the Holy Spirit to guide our
22:24
understanding. 1st Corinthians 2 is crystal clear.
22:28
Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.
22:31
We need God to help us understand God.
22:33
So it's not purely an academic exercise, it's a spiritual one.
22:36
It has to be, otherwise it's just dead orthodoxy.
22:39
And the final requirement #7 is a moment of humility,
22:43
recognition of human limitations.
22:45
Yes, we are finite beings trying to understand an infinite God.
22:50
We have to accept that we will never totally comprehend Him.
22:53
There will always be a mystery. We must be satisfied with
22:56
limited knowledge. We can know truly what He has
22:59
revealed, but we will never know exhaustively.
23:02
The secret things belong to the Lord.
23:05
That's a great check on our pride.
23:06
We should never be arrogant in our theology.
23:08
Never true theology should always lead to humility and
23:11
worship. So we have the rules for
23:13
building the system. Now let's talk about the raw
23:15
materials. Section 5 is about the sources.
23:18
Where does all the data come from?
23:19
ENS breaks this down into primary and secondary sources.
23:23
The primary sources are the ones that have supreme authority, and
23:26
first and foremost, obviously, is the scriptures.
23:28
The 66 Books of the Bible. The 66 books If God has revealed
23:32
himself, and we believe He has, and if the Bible is that written
23:36
revelation, that encoding, then it must be the primary source of
23:39
our knowledge about Him. Everything else is tested
23:42
against it. But the text also mentions a
23:44
second primary source nature. It does, and this goes back to
23:48
our discussion about Schaefer. Psalm 19 says the heavens
23:52
declare the glory of God, and Romans 1.20 says God's invisible
23:57
attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been
24:01
clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world.
24:04
So nature is a constant witness. So what can we learn from
24:07
nature? We can learn about God's power,
24:10
His order, His creativity, His beauty.
24:12
We can look at the world he made and know that there is a
24:15
powerful, intelligent Creator. It's what we call general
24:18
revelation. It's available to everyone.
24:21
But it can't tell you about Jesus or salvation.
24:23
No. It can tell you there's a God
24:25
and that you're accountable to him, but it can't tell you how
24:27
to be saved. For that you need the special
24:30
revelation of the Scriptures. OK, so those are the two primary
24:32
sources. Then we have secondary sources.
24:34
These are helpful, but they don't carry the same final
24:37
authority as Scripture. Right, they are tools, not the
24:39
foundation. First, we have confessions.
24:42
As Reformed Christians, we love the Westminster Confession, the
24:45
Nicene Creed, the Heidelberg Catechism, and others.
24:48
Why are these so valuable? They're valuable because they
24:50
show how the community of faith over many centuries has
24:54
understood the core concepts of Scripture.
24:57
They act as guardrails. We're not the first people to
25:00
read the Bible. We stand on the shoulders of
25:02
giants who wrestled with these same texts, and their
25:05
conclusions, summarized in the Creeds and Confessions, are a
25:08
gift to the church. It prevents us from going off
25:10
into some brand new heretical direction on our own.
25:13
That's a huge part of their function.
25:14
Next, there is tradition. Which is related to confessions
25:18
but broader. It is broader.
25:19
Tradition is fallible. For sure.
25:22
Churches and denominations have made mistakes, but it's
25:25
necessary to see what individuals and groups have
25:28
taught historically. We shouldn't lightly throw out
25:31
2000 years of church teaching on a subject.
25:34
We should engage with it, learn from it, even when we might
25:37
disagree. OK.
25:38
And finally, the last secondary source reason.
25:41
This is a big one. What is the role of the human
25:43
mind in all this? Reason is a source, a tool, but
25:46
we must make a crucial distinction here.
25:49
Reason is a servant, not a master.
25:51
A servant, not a master. Say more about that.
25:53
Our minds are God-given tools. We use reason to read the text,
25:58
to organize the data, to see logical connections, to deduce
26:01
implications. It's indispensable.
26:05
But our reason must submit to the supernatural.
26:08
We cannot use our limited human logic to stand in judgment of
26:12
God's revelation. So if the Bible says something
26:14
that goes against our human logic.
26:16
Like the Trinity, one God in three persons, or the
26:18
incarnation, the infinite God becoming a finite man.
26:21
Our reason bumps up against that and says that doesn't compute.
26:25
Right, it's a paradox. It is, and at that point reason
26:29
must bow the knee to revelation. It must say, I don't fully
26:32
understand this, but God has said it, so I accept it.
26:34
Reason helps us understand the revelation, but it doesn't get
26:37
to veto it. Has such a critical place to
26:39
land. It defines the whole
26:41
relationship between faith and reason.
26:43
It really does. It keeps everything in its
26:44
proper order. So let's try to recap this deep
26:47
dive. We have covered a lot of ground
26:48
today. We certainly have.
26:50
We started by defining systematic theology as the
26:53
organized discourse about God, the process of making his truth
26:57
stand together. Right.
26:58
And we distinguished it from other disciplines like biblical
27:01
theology, which zooms in, historical theology which looks
27:04
at development over time, and dogmatic theology, which studies
27:07
a specific creedal system. Then we talked about why it's so
27:10
necessary for the clear explanation of Christianity, for
27:13
the apologetic defense of our faith, and for our own personal
27:17
spiritual maturity. You can't grow without good
27:19
doctrine. And then we got into the rules,
27:22
the requirements for doing this well, starting with the
27:25
inerrancy of Scripture, using proper hermeneutics, being
27:28
objective, recognizing progressive revelation, and
27:32
depending on the Holy Spirit for illumination.
27:34
And finally, we identified our sources, the primary sources of
27:37
Scripture and nature, which have divine authority, and the
27:41
secondary sources of confessions, tradition and
27:43
reason, which are valuable but fallible human tools.
27:47
And I think it's good to restate that this structure, this isn't
27:51
just for academics or pastors in their studies.
27:53
This is the scaffolding for our listeners own spiritual growth
27:56
and mental clarity. It's about knowing God better so
28:00
that we can love Him more and live for Him more faithfully.
28:03
That is the whole goal. Knowledge is not an end in
28:05
itself. Knowledge leads to worship.
28:08
Before we go, as always, we'd like to leave you with a final
28:11
provocative thought, something to chew on this week.
28:15
Based on that last point we discussed regarding reason, I
28:18
want to leave you with this question.
28:20
If reason is a God-given tool, but it must submit to the
28:23
supernatural, where in your own life are you letting your reason
28:27
sit in judgement over Scripture rather than letting scripture
28:31
inform your reason? That's a challenging thought.
28:34
Are there parts of the Bible you tend to reject or explain away
28:37
or just ignore simply because they don't make sense to your
28:40
modern mind or your personal logic?
28:42
It's something we all have to ask ourselves.
28:44
A very challenging and very necessary question to end on.
28:48
Thank you for joining us on this deep dive into systematic
28:50
theology. We hope it's been helpful and
28:53
maybe a little less intimidating.
28:54
Indeed, until next time.