15 Responses for "Gospel Theology - Moving beyond Systematics"

1. sacred vapor February 7th, 2007 at 7:25 pm 1

   would you say that a narrative approach is more in-line with how Jesus, and hence the early followers portrayed the Gospel? I do, and I always wonder why I don’t see it in reformed circles as much.

   vapor

2. D. Goodmanson February 7th, 2007 at 8:24 pm 2

   I’d say that you need to look at the gospel normative/situational/existential aspect of all text in a redemptive historical view. I think doing this in a narrative format is helpful for people to see the both the particular theological doctrine and how it fits into the grand narrative of the Bible.

3. Rick February 10th, 2007 at 8:56 pm 3

   diachronically - as I believe Keller described it at R&R last year. looking at the gospel through a, as you call it, “redemptive historical view.”

4. iCalvinist February 11th, 2007 at 11:57 pm 4

   Good blog! I come from that Reformed tradition, but I couldn’t agree more. Systematic Theology, although helpful, is not organic to scripture (there is no book of systematics in the bible). I am a strong proponent of Biblical Theology which takes a more “Emmaus Road” approach (finding organic connections)to theology, seeing every text in its Redemptive Historical context.
   I had a question that I sent to John Frame (RTS) awhile ago about the relation of BT over ST (Systematic Theol.) in preaching. I was troubled by a recent over-emphasis on a particular form of Systematics in Preaching (an abstract Lutheran Law/Gospel imposition in preaching) at the Seminary he used to teach at (WTSC). He gave an unexpected answer which relates to what you mentioned about the way we “absorb information.”

   Here was his response….
   “I like BT preaching very much. But I cannot impose that model (or any other, including law/gospel) as law (!). The only NT reference to preaching-teaching in the context of a worship service is 1 Cor. 14:26, which refers to a “lesson” (didache). “Preaching,” with all the heralding theology behind it, is not done in Christian worship services, but in synagogues and marketplaces. It is distinctly evangelistic. But a “lesson,” in my judgment, can be almost anything biblical. It’s a very vague, open term. I suppose it could be a biblico-theological “preaching of Christ,” or a law/gospel exhortation, or any number of other things. It can be governed by BT, or ST, or just verse-by-verse exegesis. The important thing is that it should be clear, biblical, and interesting.”

   I believe most Calvinist are arrogant because they view knowledge in a static way. They dig up old answers that answered a particular culture’s questions in a biblical way, MEMORIZE it, and assume they have the answer to ALL modern questions. It’s simply impossible for any one culture to ask all the questions of Scripture there are, the gospel must be contextualized, this is the job of the church. The old Calvinist motto “semper reformanda” has gone by the wayside, Reformed yet always “reforming.” John Frame is a Calvinist, an uber-nerd academic, yet no one (friend or foe) would ever accuse him of arrogance. He was the one who taught me Systematics yet he also taught me the limits of academics divorced from real world use in the church (especially in Church planting). Here’s a great article he wrote on this topic. http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/1978Proposal.htm
   Part of the problem is that Churches entrust theological training to academia, so why are we surprised it produces academics? Conversely the Seminaries entrust pragmatics to churches, why are they surprised when seminarians have difficulty going beyond systematics? We need more churches committed to instilling systematics married to church life.
   (Sorry Drew, please don’t ban me! Like David I tend to be long winded.)

5. Jonathan February 12th, 2007 at 11:24 am 5

   I’m a little confused: what’s the difference between “Biblical Theology” and “Systematic Theology”. Is it a question of topical preaching compared to expository preaching? And which do you stand on as the most effective or Godly teaching from God’s Word? Please give insight….

   thanks,
   Jonathan

6. D. Goodmanson February 12th, 2007 at 1:26 pm 6

   Jonathan:

   Biblical Theology is a discipline within Christian theology which studies the Bible from the perspective of understanding the progressive history of God revealing himself to Man following the Fall and throughout the Old Testament and New Testament. It particularly focuses on the epochs of the Old Testament in order to understand how each part of it ultimately points forward to fulfillment in the life mission of Jesus Christ.

   Systematic Theology is the branch of theology which deals with the logical categorization of Biblical truths by tracing the self-revelation of God through the Scriptures as a whole and then carefully organized by doctrine. It answers the question, “What does the whole counsel of Scripture teach us about any given topic?”

   More reading on this: http://www.beginningwithmoses.org/articles/systematicandbiblical.htm

7. cavman February 15th, 2007 at 5:31 pm 7

   So, would it be safe to say that you think the real problem is not Reformed Theology, but Reformed Theology in the hands of sinners?
   Isn’t that true of any theological perspective?
   I guess I’d think you’d warn people against abusing it, instead of warning people against something you actually seem to hold to.

   I agree we need to utilize BT more, in part to take in the breadth and depth of Scripture, as well as to remember the Bible is theology in (hi)story, not just a collection of sayings or doctrinal propositions.

8. D. Goodmanson February 15th, 2007 at 5:45 pm 8

   No, I’m saying the real problem is how we develop people’s theological perspective. Often we start with systematics rather than providing a Biblical theology first and following up with teaching systematics while on mission. Certainly the more some grows in wisdom, the more you can teach systematics because they already have an integration point.

9. cavman February 15th, 2007 at 7:20 pm 9

   Oh, distracted by my daughter, I forgot to mention how Richard Pratt would remind us that we need both BT & ST. They are like 2 blades of the scissors (my illustration). Apart from the other, one becomes useless but dangerous. But BT & ST should inform and balance one another.

10. D. Goodmanson February 15th, 2007 at 8:28 pm 10

    Agreed, I hope my post isn’t coming across like we shouldn’t love/use systematic theology. It is more that we fit the systematics into the BT framework (and further our understanding of BT throught ST). I’ve seen too many ST-only people become TR missing the thrust of God’s redemptive plan.

11. cavman February 17th, 2007 at 1:18 pm 11

    Well, the intro came across that way to me.

    Sadly, there are plenty of TRs to give us bad names :-)

    Some guys are afraid of BT, since it isn’t neat & tidy.

12. D. Goodmanson February 17th, 2007 at 6:24 pm 12

    Thanks for the feedback, I probably should be more clear. As I’ve thought about this it isn’t so much BT or ST but Applied Theology that I’m speaking about.

13. Mike April 1st, 2007 at 6:23 pm 13

    I have seen too many Arminians trade the revealed truth in the Bible for unbiblical humanism. Worst still, accuse Reformed theology of saying that God is the source of all evil. Why would one expect a Calvinist not to pull out all the stops when the very nature of God is attacked in debate?

    Rather than justifying evil here, I would like to use this to expose problems on both sides. Too many people try to score points. Calvinists are just forced to do it much more often in conversations.

    Now let’s consider what happens if Calvinism was in the majority. You would hear the same thing said about Arminians being arrogant/proud. History backs this assertion up. When 95% of Protestants were Reformed, this happened. I have read enough Puritans to know and disapprove.

    Furthermore, it is not a Calvinist/Arminian issue. It is a Christian Charity and “a Christ and Him Crucified” issue. All theology is circular. It cannot help but to lead back to the cross. This is really the only way people should learn it. Is this what you mean by applied theology??? I seem to agree with iCalvinist on the problem with academics. Spurgeon taught Calvinism with just as much force as everyone else. Yet, no one would fault him with being uncharitable or with a dead ministry.

    Next, I don’t think it is a BT or ST split. I think TULIP is a horrible teaching tool in ST. TULIP requires the ideas about God’s sovereignty and regeneration to be prexistant. Otherwise, it makes no sense. BT also tends to be more christ-centric.

14. A Collection of Articles & Quotes « May 8th, 2007 at 11:17 am 14

    [...] Why I left Calvinism R. Heath McClure: ‘Well, not really … but I thought about it!’ Calvinism solved all of my theological problems.  That’s what I used to say. And, to be fair, Calvinism did solve many of the theological problems I had at the time. I was a dyed-in-the-wool, “Pre-Tribulational, Premillennial, Evanjellyfish Dispensationalist” (trinkets and all), and I needed a theological resurrection from the goofy. “Converting” to Calvinism and the Reformed Faith (RF) was a life-changing experience. I left Pre-Tribulationism for Preterism. I abandoned a pessimistic Premillennialism in favor of an optimistic Postmillennialism. I jettisoned “Easy Believism” and embraced “Election and Reprobation.” Unfortunately I traded my heart of flesh for a heart of stone.Before coming to the RF I was known as a compassionate, caring, courteous, loving, gentle Jesus freak. And that I was: a Jesus freak. I wore Christian T-shirts, wrote with “I Love Jesus” pencils, bought CCM merchandise in bulk, and, of course, had a huge holy mackerel stuck to the back of my car. I was an obnoxious Bible-Thumper.I was also someone who longed to be more like Jesus Christ.For about two years I have been wondering where that guy – the freak who loved Jesus so much – went. That’s not the only question I have been asking. Why am I so mean? Why do I look down on anyone who doesn’t see things exactly the way I do? Why do I only read books written by the “good guys?” Why am I constantly picking fights?More importantly, however, why do I not love people the way I used to?The words of Paul play in my ear like a vinyl album that’s stuck: Brethren, these things ought not to be.I agree. So, what happened?I am convinced that the RF as a system of doctrine is not the culprit. The RF should be the catalyst for a humility that the world has never seen. We are not the point, he is. We did not (could not!) save ourselves, he saved us. We cannot keep ourselves from evil. We have to depend on him, totally. The doctrine of Total Depravity should be enough to remind us of our place in this world (thanks MWS!). We believe that man is born into rank rebellion against a holy God. We confess that every last human being is mortally infected with sin.But if we find any we will kick you out. At least if the sin in question is doctrinal error.No, the RF in itself is not the problem. The problem is me. And it’s not just me. I heard George Grant say one time that every new Calvinist should be locked in a cage for the first two years of “Reformed Enlightenment.” He called those two years the “cage stage.” He is right. However, we need to learn from our (many) mistakes. It is obvious that there are some negative tendencies associated with an acceptance of Reformed theology. We need to identify such tendencies and do everything we can to help others avoid them. I know it’s fun to watch, but too many people are getting hit with friendly fire that is anything but friendly.I don’t claim to have an easy solution to this problem. However, I would like to offer some suggestions to get the conversation started. There are, in my thinking, three major tendencies to avoid when coming to a knowledge of the truth (RF). My grandfather, a fiery Baptist preacher and the most Godly man I know, likes to use alliteration when delivering a sermon. In his honor I offer the three A’s: Arrogance, Abstractionism, and Antinomianism. In my experience, which is limited, these are the tendencies to watch out for.Arrogance Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 8:1, “Knowledge puffs up.” Boy was he right. Reformed theology is right (for the most part). And when you are right and you know it, arrogance is waiting at your door. One of the things I regret the most about my “cage stage” years is the way I refused to listen to those that reared me in the faith, namely my grandfather. Because of my superior knowledge of the truth (or so I thought), I decided that he was not as equipped as Reformed folk to understand the “deep truths” of the Scriptures. I can’t tell you how many times I brushed off his gentle (and Biblical!) admonitions just because he wasn’t “Reformed.” He would recommend books and I would sneer. He would engage me in theological conversation and I would bristle. He would rebuke me for my attitude and I would say to myself, “He doesn’t understand.” He understood far more than I did. And he still does. He reads the Bible constantly. He shares his faith with everyone (and I mean everyone, even the scary guy on the elevator). He is the most loving, caring, kind, honest, and Godly man I know. He is a consistent prayer warrior. I could go on and on, and maybe I should (future article). One more thing: He is Bible scholar. However, he is anything but arrogant. His knowledge of the Bible has made him a humble man.Let’s remind those new to the RF that they need to be thankful for the faith of their fathers (and grandfathers). And that thankfulness needs to be displayed in humility and service, even when their theology is less than perfect. Arrogance is out of place. We are saved by grace. Abstractionism Abstractions are inescapable. We must get our “abstract” theology right. Paul warns Timothy to “Watch your life and doctrine closely” (1 Tim. 4:16). We must do this. However, there is a danger in spending large amounts of time in doctrinal speculation. Systematic theologies and similar works, tend to be wooden, hard, unbending, and absolute. And yes, the truth is all of these things. However, do you want to be described as a wooden, hard, and unbending person? I used to. Not anymore. This hardness always occurs when we spend more time in “theologies” than we do in the Scriptures.The Scriptures tell a story. The Scriptures give us picture after picture of fall and redemption, of hearts of stone being turned into hearts of flesh, of dead men rising from the grave. A constant diet of Bible produces a humble and contrite spirit. Theology, when rightly undertaken, will aid in this process. Let us, however, be on guard because we love to veer to the right or to the left. And for the “Reformed,” the right (usually) means a mean spirit and a hard heart.Our faith is in Jesus Christ, not in abstractions about him.On a personal note, I would suggest that we make it a point to consume more Scripture on a given day than anything else. I have made a covenant with a good friend that I will read at least ten chapters from the Bible before anything else, on a daily basis. This has been more than a blessing. Reading about God is wonderful. Communing with God, while wrestling with his very words, is transforming.Antinomianism Jesus said that the second great commandment was to, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 22:39). This sounds easy, right? Well, it’s not. Love for the brethren must be cultivated. We must make our sinful selves do things that we are not inclined to do. We must listen to our brothers when we are too tired to listen. We must give to our brothers when we have nothing left to give. We must be willing to lay aside our wants and desires (every time if necessary) for the sake of our covenant community.And we have to learn to say, “Brother, I was wrong. Will you please forgive me?”It amazes me that so many people want to affirm “the continuing validity of God’s law in exhaustive detail” while refusing to “lay down [their] lives for the brothers” (1 John 3:16). I have heard Christians say, “God doesn’t want me to be a doormat!” Really? What did Jesus mean we he said, “Whoever would be first among you must be servant of all” (Mark 10:43)? I would suggest that we try as hard as we can to be doormats. Let’s be willing to let people walk on us, especially if in doing so will lead them one step closer to Jesus. Much more could be said. The point of the matter is this: If the Reformed Faith is to be attractive to outsiders, we need to make sure that new Calvinists avoid the “cage stage.” Let’s put off arrogance and put on a Godly humility. Let’s focus more on the real and risen Christ and not so much on highbrow abstractionism. And let’s love our neighbor as ourselves. If we do this we will keep the law and make the prophets happy.I didn’t leave Calvinism, but I thought about it.R. Heath McClure teaches first grade at Eagles Nest Classical Christian Academy in Franklin, Tennessee. He is the husband of one, father of two, and is really into the Andy Griffith Show. There is often something quite arrogant about Calvinists.  I think many people gag against the ‘know-it-all-ism’ that exudes from these (often) academic theologians who seem to have God in a nice neat little box.  Personally, I often warn people of the dangers of reformed theology, because like a kid with a new sword they end up hurting more Christians swinging this new sharp blade without any skill.  In many circles, this season can last a lifetime before their reformed theology truly helps them worship God for the grace that was shown them, accept their new identity, be transformed by the gospel and sent on mission.  I believe a major stumbling block in diving into reformed theology is that it typically begins with systematic theology.http://www.goodmanson.com/2007-02/07/gospel-theology-moving-past-systematics/   [...]

15. A Collection of Articles & Quotes « May 12th, 2007 at 5:45 pm 15

    [...] Let’s remind those new to the RF that they need to be thankful for the faith of their fathers (and grandfathers). And that thankfulness needs to be displayed in humility and service, even when their theology is less than perfect. Arrogance is out of place. We are saved by grace. Abstractionism Abstractions are inescapable. We must get our “abstract” theology right. Paul warns Timothy to “Watch your life and doctrine closely” (1 Tim. 4:16). We must do this. However, there is a danger in spending large amounts of time in doctrinal speculation. Systematic theologies and similar works, tend to be wooden, hard, unbending, and absolute. And yes, the truth is all of these things. However, do you want to be described as a wooden, hard, and unbending person? I used to. Not anymore. This hardness always occurs when we spend more time in “theologies” than we do in the Scriptures. The Scriptures tell a story. The Scriptures give us picture after picture of fall and redemption, of hearts of stone being turned into hearts of flesh, of dead men rising from the grave. A constant diet of Bible produces a humble and contrite spirit. Theology, when rightly undertaken, will aid in this process. Let us, however, be on guard because we love to veer to the right or to the left. And for the “Reformed,” the right (usually) means a mean spirit and a hard heart. Our faith is in Jesus Christ, not in abstractions about him. On a personal note, I would suggest that we make it a point to consume more Scripture on a given day than anything else. I have made a covenant with a good friend that I will read at least ten chapters from the Bible before anything else, on a daily basis. This has been more than a blessing. Reading about God is wonderful. Communing with God, while wrestling with his very words, is transforming. Antinomianism Jesus said that the second great commandment was to, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 22:39). This sounds easy, right? Well, it’s not. Love for the brethren must be cultivated. We must make our sinful selves do things that we are not inclined to do. We must listen to our brothers when we are too tired to listen. We must give to our brothers when we have nothing left to give. We must be willing to lay aside our wants and desires (every time if necessary) for the sake of our covenant community. And we have to learn to say, “Brother, I was wrong. Will you please forgive me?” It amazes me that so many people want to affirm “the continuing validity of God’s law in exhaustive detail” while refusing to “lay down [their] lives for the brothers” (1 John 3:16). I have heard Christians say, “God doesn’t want me to be a doormat!” Really? What did Jesus mean we he said, “Whoever would be first among you must be servant of all” (Mark 10:43)? I would suggest that we try as hard as we can to be doormats. Let’s be willing to let people walk on us, especially if in doing so will lead them one step closer to Jesus. Much more could be said. The point of the matter is this: If the Reformed Faith is to be attractive to outsiders, we need to make sure that new Calvinists avoid the “cage stage.” Let’s put off arrogance and put on a Godly humility. Let’s focus more on the real and risen Christ and not so much on highbrow abstractionism. And let’s love our neighbor as ourselves. If we do this we will keep the law and make the prophets happy. I didn’t leave Calvinism, but I thought about it. R. Heath McClure teaches first grade at Eagles Nest Classical Christian Academy in Franklin, Tennessee. He is the husband of one, father of two, and is really into the Andy Griffith Show. There is often something quite arrogant about Calvinists.  I think many people gag against the ‘know-it-all-ism’ that exudes from these (often) academic theologians who seem to have God in a nice neat little box.  Personally, I often warn people of the dangers of reformed theology, because like a kid with a new sword they end up hurting more Christians swinging this new sharp blade without any skill.  In many circles, this season can last a lifetime before their reformed theology truly helps them worship God for the grace that was shown them, accept their new identity, be transformed by the gospel and sent on mission.  I believe a major stumbling block in diving into reformed theology is that it typically begins with systematic theology. http://www.goodmanson.com/2007-02/07/gospel-theology-moving-past-systematics/ [...]