Faith, Form, and Fashion: Classical Reformed Theology and Its Postmodern Critics

Faith, Form, and Fashion

classical reformed theology and its postmodern critics

Paul Helm

FAITH, FORM, AND FASHION

Classical Reformed Theology and Its Postmodern Critics

Copyright © 2014 Paul Helm. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Cascade Books

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

ISBN 13: 978-1-62564-591-3

EISBN 13: 978-1-63087-405-6

Cataloging-in-Publication data:

Helm, Paul.

Faith, form, and fashion : classical reformed theology and its postmodern critics / Paul Helm.

x +

278

p.; 23 cm—Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 13: 978-1-62564-591-3

1. Vanhoozer, Kevin J. 2. Franke, John R. 3. Philosophical theology. 4. Reformed Churches—Doctrines. I. Title.

BT40 H455 2014

Manufactured in the USA.

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

To

Tony and Lynn Cannon

Human beings are, necessarily, actors who cannot become something before they have first pretended to be it; and they can be divided, not into the hypocritical and the sincere, but into the sane who know that they are acting and the mad who do not.

—W. H. Auden

Nothing is more familiar or characteristic among Christians than assertion. Take away assertions, and you take away Christianity.

—Martin Luther

Preface

This book is the result of thinking about systematic theology from the point of view of an analytic philosopher. In particular, of examining certain revisionist proposals regarding the nature of Christian doctrine and theology offered by theologians with a broadly Reformed outlook. I quickly came to the conclusion that these proposals, though sufficiently unclear to prevent serious implementation, would be disastrous if carried through consistently. They embody a series of philosophical errors, mostly of a fundamental and, dare I say it, of an elementary kind, as well as some regrettable errors of fact.

This study recognizes that there is an inevitable intertwining of theology and philosophy at the systematic theological level. The ordering of theological claims, and an understanding of the claims themselves, requires the use of philosophical tools. My concern is that the great tradition of Reformed theologizing—benefitting from the catholic conciliar and creedal tradition, and from the theological brilliance of Augustine, reworked in late medievalism and refreshed by the renewed exegetical effort flowing from the Reformation—should not be rejected due to ignorance of the tradition, or by an appeal to jejune intellectual considerations that are destined to pass and no doubt shortly to be replaced by a new wave.

It is a concern to uphold this tradition, not as a museum piece, but as an essential part of the life of the church, that I hope prevents this study from being merely negatively critical.

Earlier published outings from which I have borrowed are:

Does the Authority of a Tradition Exclude the Possibility of Change? In Identity and Change in the Christian Tradition, edited by Marcel Sarot and Gijsbert van den Brink. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1999.

The Perfect Trustworthiness of God. In The Trustworthiness of God, edited by Paul Helm and Carl Trueman. Leicester, UK: Apollos, 2002.

No Easy Task: John R. Franke and the Character of Theology. In Reforming or Conforming, edited by Gary L. W. Johnson & Ronald L. Gleason. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008.

B. B. Warfield’s Path to Inerrancy: An Attempt to Correct Some Misunderstandings. Westminster Theological Journal 72/1 (2010) 23–42.

Grace Builds upon Nature: Philosophy and the Future of Theology. In Theology and the Future: Evangelical Assertions and Explorations, edited by Trevor Cairney and David Starling, London, Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2014.

Much of the material now published has been used in the course of teaching in various places, and I thank the students both for their interest and their patience. I am especially grateful to my friends Oliver Crisp and James Dolezal, among others, and especially to the ever-meticulous Mark Talbot, for helpful suggestions and encouragement of various kinds. But first and foremost I thank my wife Angela for her marvelous support during the somewhat difficult time in which this work was completed.

Cold Aston,

Gloucestershire, UK

Introduction

This book is about the form of Reformed theology, about its metaphysical and epistemological character, and about its method or methods. By Reformed theology is understood a theology that endeavors to express and to be faithful to Scripture while standing in the tradition of the ecumenical creeds, the confessions of faith of the early generations of the Reformed era, and subsequent Reformed Orthodoxy. It professes that faith through successive cultures, the Enlightenment, Romanticism, Modernism, and so on. Its articulation has two aspects: the development of its intentions to be consistent with and faithful to Scripture and the creeds, and to express the nature of our knowledge of God and of ourselves that Scripture conveys.

This is a tradition of catholic Protestantism, as Oliver Crisp has argued. And as Richard Muller and others have convincingly shown, this theology was worked out with great sophistication in the era of Reformed Orthodoxy. Muller has demonstrated that within Reformed Orthodoxy there are various strands of theological thought having a basic unity, and with a somewhat eclectic attitude to philosophy, and thus to the relations between theology and philosophy. The names of French theologians such as John Calvin and Theodore Beza, of Italians such as Jerome Zanchius and Francis Turretin, English Puritans such as Stephen Charnock and John Owen, Scots such as Robert Rollock and Samuel Rutherford, and Dutch theologians such as Peter Van Maastricht and Gisbert Voetius are representative of numerous other theologians whose views are so carefully examined and collated by Muller.¹ The work of Jonathan Edwards and the Baptist theologian John Gill, were indebted to this orthodoxy. In the nineteenth century the theology of the Hodges and B. B. Warfield at Princeton, W. G. T. Shedd of Union Theological Seminary, New York, Scottish theologians such as William Cunningham and George Smeaton, and in the early years of the twentieth century, Herman Bavinck of the Free University of Amsterdam, and many others continue in this tradition. I shall refer to this tradition as Classical Reformed Theology (CRT).

To think of the identity of Reformed theology in these terms may seem somewhat arbitrary. There are other ways of cutting the cake, no doubt. But I think it is fairly clear that these other ways are more amorphous and harder to handle. For example, B. A. Gerrish discusses Reformed theological identity in broadly institutional terms, the continuous theological output of what Friedrich Schleiermacher called the Reformed school, and he allows this school to embrace profound differences in theological and philosophical outlook. The fact that Calvin and Schleiermacher each manifest an intense interest in religion is allowed to prevail over the very different conceptions each had of it.² The great advantage of taking one’s lead from the creedal and confessional tradition and its numerous exponents is that it provides a body of thinking in the considerable body of theological literature, which one can, so to speak, nail down, describe, and evaluate using the usual academic tools.

But it would be mistaken to think of CRT as monochrome. As Muller has also shown,³ CRT provides a rich as well as a somewhat diverse heritage, and an eclectic attitude towards philosophy. Yet although they occasionally differ among themselves about method, and on doctrinal detail and emphasis, theologians of this tradition exhibit a remarkable harmony in their general theological outlook. It is the parameters and presuppositions of this outlook that will concern us here, not the discussion of particular doctrines except as these exemplify that tradition is some respect. Standing to one side of this confessional tradition, though remaining under a wider umbrella of Reformed theology, are revisionist theologians such as Schleiermacher and Barth. Their thought by and large falls outside this book. Such revisionists recognize an indebtedness to the philosophy of Immanuel Kant,⁴ whereas as a general rule the intellectual currents of confessional orthodoxy flow from the medieval theologians, and more recently show some indebtedness to Thomas Reid.

Of course a tradition is always open to revision, especially one that stresses human sin and fallibility as much as the Reformed faith does. Nevertheless, any responsible revision must always be undertaken for good reason, and in an intellectually thorough manner. Apart from such a reason, Reformed theology is confessed to be a legitimate expression of the permanent Christian gospel. The mantra semper reformanda is usually taken, without any discussion, to mean that those in the Reformed tradition should be active in seeking doctrinal revision and new departures in theology. However, the phrase was originally, The church is reformed and always being reformed according to the Word of God. What it means is that the church should continually reform its life and witness by reference to the theological principles of the Reformation and, of course, of Scripture. It should be emphasized that what follows is not intended as a defense of the validity of CRT, either by historical precedent or by theological and other forms of reasoning. Rather it takes it as a given tradition, endeavoring to sketch its basic thrust and temper, and against it to measure more recent proposals to reconstruct it.

So this study is a reconsideration of some of the central intellectual presuppositions and working methods of that tradition, but one that, I hope, recognizes the differences within it, as well as what unites it. Its outlook is emphatically not confessional in the narrow sense, seeking to defend every jot and tittle of a Confession at all costs. It is written at a time when seriously intended questions about both its theological method and content are being raised from within that general tradition. The chief aim is not only to re-present the methodological outline of such theology, but to do so in a way that demonstrates that the arguments for a radical change in the method and outlook of CRT offered by post-conservatives and post-foundationalists⁵ are weak and unconvincing. For CRT to be overturned, or relegated to the museum, the arguments for doing so will have to be considerably stronger than those currently available. So, I judge, anyone who wishes to retain the theological stance and method of CRT, and restate it in the modern culture, may do so undeterred. He or she need not be discomfited by these new proposals, or fear that what they have to say has undermined or significantly skewed that great theological tradition.

To show this involves consulting and citing theologians from the CRT. I have tried to provide a representative range of these. But the bulk of the book is my own attempt to explain and defend its theological procedure in what I hope is a fresh and up to date way, and to do this in the light of current misunderstandings of CRT by the protagonists of new proposals that are intended to supplant it. Part of this project is a thesis about the connection between manner and matter. Certain methods and results are intrinsic to CRT. This is not to say that there is one philosophical orthodoxy. But there has to be a philosophical outlook that ensures the objectivity of knowledge, for example. However, from the point of view of Reformed theology it does not matter what exactly the provenance of that outlook is provided that the philosophical tools are subordinate to the faith. As we shall see, there has in fact been a fairly eclectic approach to the sources of those philosophical tools that help to provide understanding for the faith. It is impossible to shed its theological methods and their presuppositions and to ensure the survival of Reformed theology in some other way. If you throw out the bathwater, then you throw out the baby as well.

I have chosen to focus upon the work of Kevin Vanhoozer⁶ and John Franke⁷ as exemplars of these new proposals because they are among the ablest and certainly the most prolific writers on theological method from the confessional Reformed stable. Each is often self-conscious about the fact. In his latest book Remythologizing Theology, Vanhoozer discusses not only how the theological metaphysics of theo-drama impacts upon features of classical Christian theism such as God as creator, his almightiness, his impassibility and his speech, but also upon distinctive features of Reformed theology such as the pactum salutis and the idea of effectual calling.

The revisionary proposals of such as Vanhoozer and Franke, considered together, have the following characteristics; they move away from the view of Christian theology as consisting of sets of truths. They advocate a decidedly conditional epistemology, qualified in terms of context or perspective and in Vanhoozer’s case (less so in the case of Franke), they think of theological construction in terms of the development of a kind of narrative (following Von Balthasar), as a theo-drama. In this they not only swim with a strong contemporary theological current, but also swallow a good deal of the postmodern attitude to metaphysics and epistemology. But other practitioners might easily have been chosen. For example, the Reformed theologian Michael Horton also exemplifies much of what Vanhoozer says. In his book Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama there is, as the title of the work suggests, an emphasis upon drama. "Our goal all along will be to defend the definition of theology as the church’s reflection on God’s performative action in word and deed and list own participation in the drama of redemption."⁸ And there is the desire to engage in theology in a post-foundationalist mode. The more that modern foundationalism is shaken off, the greater the openness to particular confessional theologies.⁹ Chapter 9 of Covenant and Eschatology is entitled Community Theater, Local Performances of the Divine Drama, and Horton rejects the attitude to Scripture that reckons it to be a sourcebook of timeless truths, timeless propositions, or timeless ideas.¹⁰ So, plenty of common ground here: a suspicion of theology as timeless truth, the rejection of foundationalism, and the preponderant stress on the dramatic and the performative. We might reasonably say that the theologians selected for attention here, Kevin Vanhoozer and John Franke, are representative of a wider contemporary wave. Together they exemplify, in an overlapping way, the effect of the postmodern attitude on Christian theology. It is this attitude that the book critically scrutinizes. It is hoped, though, that this scrutiny will be of interest in other traditions of the church on which post-conservatism and post-foundationalism are bearing down.

The discussion that follows does not have for its conclusion that post-foundationalism as a method of doing theology ought to be rejected. That’s not the argument. Rather, the argument is that Vanhoozer and Franke are not consistent proponents of the main spine of Christian theology, but in trying to combine it with other positions they run into inconsistency. In the case of Vanhoozer his treatment of what he calls propositonalist theology is skewed to the point of caricature. As we shall see, properly understood both Scripture and Classic Reformed theology are consistent with the speech act emphasis on language that he favors. And so his critique of propositionalism is largely beside the point.

The chapters of the book contain a number of fresh discussions of the logical, metaphysical, and epistemological matters that undergird CRT and that bring into relief the weakness of the new proposals. Taken together they present a cumulative case that endeavors to show the weaknesses of the current postmodern and post-foundationalist proposals that preoccupy the Reformed segment of worldwide Christian theology. This case offers, I realize, a negative thesis, but it may be put positively: a Christian theologian who is attracted by the post-foundationalist turn in theology, either by its methods or by its theological conclusions, will find in those claims and conclusions no good reason to depart from the doctrinal pattern of CRT, though the responsibility remains on any systematic theologian to restate Christian doctrine in a contemporary manner as the cultural context warrants this.

Those who engage in issues of theological method must also become seriously engaged in philosophical questions and issues. This is because it is impossible to do systematic theology without having a view about the nature of divine and human reality, and about the sources of knowledge of God and of ourselves, and so to interact with the culture. Part of the problem with the proposals exemplified by John Franke and Kevin Vanhoozer is that they have not allowed themselves to be sufficiently philosophical. Key issues have been glossed over or left unclear, for the conceptual and philosophical side of things has not been sufficiently penetrating or sustained.

Each chapter of what follows sets out a distinctive argument or set of arguments. The first two chapters are intended to articulate and to defend the ontological and epistemological character of CRT, with particular stress being laid on its systematic character. This sets the stage for the critique. The arguments of the later chapters engage with the innovative proposals on a number of fronts. The aim is to show that the proposals, considered as offering appealing alternative methods, are almost without exception unconvincing, and in some respects confused. If this thesis is cogent then it follows that those who wish to share the theological outlook of CRT have good reason to reject the innovative proposals.

Chapter 1 sets out the parameters of classical Reformed theology, and particularly what is understood by its being systematic theology. The next chapter has to do with the epistemological bases of the theology, particularly with the issues of metaphysical realism, objectivity and certainty, and the relation between nature and grace. These two chapters set the scene. The next three chapters are, broadly speaking, concerned with what has been referred to as the narrative turn in theology. The post-foundationalists appeal to a general phenomenon that has had a considerable impact on how theology is currently understood and practiced. Here I shall have in mind Vanhoozer’s idea of theo-drama and the theological proposals that he has recently drawn from it in his latest book, centering on the idea of God as a communicative agent. We shall look at the theological consequences of privileging narrative over systematic connectedness, and we shall provide an assessment of some of the arguments that are offered for making such a shift. So in chapter 3 we shall examine the logic of narrative, and the relation between being and doing. Which, in theology, comes first, logically speaking: the study of reports of activity, human and divine, or the study of the being and character of God and of humankind? In the next chapters, 4 and 5, we examine one source of unease that revisionists have with classical theology, that it is propositionalist and rationalist and timeless. Broadly speaking these three chapters have to do with the metaphysical framework in which classic systematic reflection of the Christian faith does and should take place.

Then, in the second half of the examination of the new proposals, chapters 7 to 9, we shall consider certain epistemological issues, particularly the confusion between the identification of and the identity of God, the place of induction and deduction in theological reasoning, the much-publicized issue of foundationalism, and the character of the knowledge and beliefs about God and ourselves that it is possible to have. Chapter 10 is a short conclusion.

1. See Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics.

2. See for example, Gerrish, The Old Protestantism and the New: Essays on the Reformation Heritage, especially chapter 12, and his Continuing the Reformation: Essays on Modern Religious Thought, Part Three.

3. For example, Muller, "Ad fontes argumentorum: The Sources of Reformed Theology in the Seventeenth Century."

4. Several of the essays collected together in McCormack, Orthodox and Modern: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth, clearly show Barth’s indebtedness to the epistemology of Immanuel Kant.

5. See Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine, 278f. for Vanhoozer’s post-conservative approach, and 291f. for his post-foundationalist outlook.

6. Besides Vanhoozer’s The Drama of Doctrine, see, for example, his Remythologizing Theology,

7. Franke, The Character of Theology: A Postconservative Evangelical Approach.

8. Horton, Covenant and Eschatology, 4

9. Ibid.

10. See ibid., 30, 125, 240 respectively. Horton has more recently undertaken a systematic theology of a more conventional kind: The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way.

Classic Reformed Theology

1

The Form of Theology

This chapter is devoted to outlining some of the essential features, the intellectual structures of Classical Reformed Theology (CRT). We shall not be chiefly concerned with the literary shape that a particular theologian chooses to give to his theology, though it might be worth saying a word or two about this to begin with.

Literary Shape

In his Institutes, John Calvin, one main fountain-head of Reformed theology, wrote what amounts to his systematic theology (though it has strong occasional elements in it), structuring it by the overarching claim that true wisdom consists in the knowledge of God and of ourselves. He announces this theme in the opening words of the book, and it controls the discussion of at least the first three books. It is only through Jesus Christ that we are brought to know God and ourselves. By contrast, others have preferred to follow the loci method. That is, they have constructed their work in the form of a series of discrete doctrinal topics, sometimes in a straightforwardly didactic way, sometimes in more polemical terms. And so Francis Turretin develops the loci method by elencthus, by questioning and answering. This method, both topical and catechetical, in which Christian theology is developed doctrine by doctrine, has come down to us as the dominant organizing principle. Instances of it can be found in Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology, in William Shedd’s nineteenth-century Dogmatic Theology, and in the early twentieth century in such as Herman Bavinck and in the journal articles of B. B. Warfield, whose work has had a number of popular imitators, such as Louis Berkhof. Yet others, such as the Puritan John Owen, have systematized by considering Christian theology from a variety of complementary standpoints, such as the Holy Spirit, justification, and so on. Calvin’s own approach has rather dropped out of fashion; the only example I know of is the Southern Presbyterian Robert Breckinridge’s work The Knowledge of God,¹¹ though no doubt there are others. Others have structured Christian theology in terms of the concept of the covenant and developed covenant theology. Herman Witsius in his Economy of the Covenants is a prime example.¹² We shall consider the relation between systematic theology and covenant theology shortly.

Each approach has strengths and weaknesses. Having one main theme or concept, such as Calvin’s Institutes, provides a synoptic or unifying approach that binds together the various doctrinal discussions. In addition, Calvin writes in the first or second person, the knowledge of God and of ourselves, adopting a more immediately personal style. Calvin is also able, through this structure, to link together doctrines that are linked in reality. So he discusses justification and sanctification together, treating them as two distinct but inseparable gifts, through his brilliant idea of Christ’s two-fold grace. But the price he pays for this approach (despite his praiseworthy concern for order) is the toleration of a kind of disorderliness. For example, though he deals with the fall of mankind at the beginning of Book II, he has in fact already introduced some effects or results of the fall before that, in his treatment of the perversion of the natural knowledge of God. This knowledge with which we are endowed, he says in Book I, chapter 4, is stifled and corrupted as a result of the fall. So the structure of the work is not that of a set of topics or steps, but more like a symphony, in which an initial theme is introduced and elaborated, and developed further as the work progresses. The old idea of systematic theology as a body of divinity underlines this organic character. And so the theme of the knowledge of God and of ourselves, introduced in the very first lines of Book I of the work, returns at the beginning of Book II, and again elsewhere.

Others, such as Turretin and Hodge and Bavinck and Berkhof, favor a topical or loci method. This is a step-by-step approach, in which each topic is penetratingly discussed. In Turretin, each topic is framed in terms of the controversies of his day. The obvious advantages of this approach are thoroughness and clarity. But the separation of topics can sometimes create misleading impressions. Take again the relation of justification and sanctification. In Turretin’s and Hodge’s treatments, these topics are deliberately separated, and this works against what needs to be said about the connectedness of the two. For while justification and sanctification are two distinct elements in God’s saving purposes that are conceptually very different, they are nonetheless inseparably connected, as Calvin makes clear. Separating their treatment may suggest that they are only accidentally connected, even though efforts may be made to mitigate this impression.

Covenant Theology was developed within the Reformed community in the early years of the seventeenth century, by theologians such as Ursinus, Olevianus, Robert Rollock, John Preston, and John Ball. At least in Holland this development gave rise to a certain tension as it was seen to be less scholastic and exact than the dominant Reformed Orthodoxy, and not organized topically and controversially (i.e., in terms of the several doctrines of the Christian faith, and the analysis of doctrinal errors and their resolution). By contrast, the basic organizing principle of covenant theology is that of the unfolding economy of salvation, through a succession of developing covenants established between the Lord and his people. Such theology has a redemptive historical character. Though at first the scholastic and the covenant approaches were regarded as exclusive alternatives, hence the controversy, they were, in works such as that of Herman Witsius’ The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man, regarded as complementary. Creation, fall, and redemption, and particularly the historical unfolding of the one covenant of grace, is clearly set within the framework of systematic theology, employing its conceptuality. Witsius’s work was organized in terms of four topics: the Covenant of Works, the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Grace, and the fourth on Covenant Ordinancies. Yet he treats each topic analytically, and draws with evident happiness on the expository resources produced by systematicians during the previous 150 years.¹³

This is the theology of the history of redemption, or, as might be said currently, narrative theology within a systematic theological framework. In the body of this book I shall be arguing that a careful balance between theological narrative set within a systematic framework is exactly right. The mix of these two elements is obviously a matter of judgment; nevertheless each is indispensable, because central to the Christian faith are the actions and words of God, the eternally triune Lord and creator, in human history. One reason for writing this book is to show the perils and dangers of current attempts to theologize without that framework of systematic theology in place. So is it to be biblical theology at the expense of systematic theology, or the reverse? The unoriginal answer that I shall give and defend is it is to be both, but with logical priority being given to systematic theological reasoning.

Intellectual Structure

So there will be gains and losses in any way of organizing a work of systematic theology. But this is not our chief concern, either in this chapter or in the book. Rather we are concerned in the first place not with the literary character but the intellectual structure of Christian systematic theology, with the appropriate manner in which Christian theological conclusions are to be drawn from both general and special revelation. Christian systematic theology builds on the work of exegetical theology, biblical theology in one sense of a phrase that has come to have other senses as well, as we shall see in due course. Exegetical theology informs the systematic theologian what a biblical passage means, or might plausibly mean, taking into account its scope and context, its situation in the canon, the genre of the work, and so on. The systematic theologian takes these results and links them to other biblical data concerned with the same or contrasting themes, employing them to contribute to the development or refining of the results, and then linking it with other themes.

It is important to note why this is done. It is not because the results of exegetical theology, the unfolding of the meaning of a biblical passage, are in any way imperfect or second-rate. It is to form an estimate of what a particular passage, in its particularity, contributes to the biblical revelation as a whole, and to the overall theme of that revelation under consideration, the doctrine of God, the work of Christ, the image of God in mankind, or whatever it may be. Parallel points arise about the relationship between systematic theology and historical theology. Doctrinal exactness has usually occurred when it has been possible to say what the doctrine implies, and also what it does not imply. It often takes the pressure of controversy to bring out the negative as well as the positive implications of a doctrine. That is why, once he has relied upon the exegetical theologian, the systematizer also has an eye to historical theology, for it is in discussion of some issue, even in historical controversy, that doctrines frequently receive their shape. For example, the controversies over Christology are in view in the Chalcedonian definition, and disputes over merit made possible the protest that justification is not by faith, but by faith only.

But what’s the point of such systematic endeavors? There is a sense in which systematic theology provides its own justification. Our pragmatic age, in which what we do can only be justified by its immediate payoff, is likely to be irritated by such an answer. Systematic theology is an end in itself, attempting to display in an orderly and connected way the whole counsel of God as revealed in Scripture. It shows, when every allowance has been made for the historically situated and occasional character of the books of Scripture, what is the overall teaching of Scripture about the nature of God and man, of the person and work of Christ, and so on. It is foolish to suppose that such a program disdains the original literature of the Bible. Systematic theology is not an endeavor to improve on that literature, but to do something else, to set forth the overall teaching of Scripture on who God is and what he has done and said. This enables the church to set out the character of the faith in terms that contrast it at the most general level with non-Christian and sub-Christian theologies, as well as to form a corrective to the way in which the prevailing culture may distort or enhance its teaching.

But while systemic theology may be pursued as an end in itself, this does not mean that it is merely academic. The goal of scientia legitimately leads to that of sapientia. And doctrine leads to application. B. B. Warfield expresses the relation between systematics and its biblical foundations in the following terms:

Systematic Theology is not founded on the direct and primary results of the exegetical process; it is founded on the final and complete results of exegesis as exhibited in Biblical Theology. Not exegesis itself, then, but Biblical Theology, provides the material for Systematics. 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 concatenation of the scattered theological data furnished by the exegetic process; it is the combination of the already concatenated data given to it by Biblical Theology. It uses the individual data furnished by exegesis, in a word, not crudely, not independently for itself, but only after these data have been worked up into Biblical Theology and have received from it their final coloring and subtlest shades of meaning—in other words, only in their true sense, and after Exegetics has said its last word upon them.¹⁴

This procedure is first exegetical, providing a biblical theology, as Warfield calls it. By this he means the practice of exegesis, conveying the most exact sense of the original passages that it is possible currently to give. Since for Warfield these passages are God’s word, the result is biblical theology. So his meaning is somewhat narrower in aim, and preparatory to biblical theology in its more recent meaning, which conveys in some sense the historical story or unfolding of God’s acts. Then follows systematic theological construction, based upon inference from the biblical data.

So, intellectual structure, rather than mere organizational structure, is to be our chief concern. The elements of such a structure are drawn from general revelation, but especially from Scripture as the supreme theological authority for Christians, utilizing the fruits of exegetical theology. In this sequence the systematic theologian also takes into account the way in which these concepts have emerged from and have been shaped by and (because of their firm basis in Scripture) sharpened by the clashes of theological controversy.

System

What is systematic about systematic theology? Such theology is not a free-standing, merely speculative discipline, but depends both upon the fruits of exegetical theology, and of historical theology, in the ways just discussed. It seeks to exhibit two main features. One is establishing, or endeavoring to establish, a doctrine’s faithfulness to Scripture, and the logical consistency of a doctrine, both internally and in its connection with other doctrines, and its place in the system of thought.

The second is to bring out the positive relationship between doctrines, the way in which they connect up with and enhance each other. This is a stronger requirement than mere logical consistency, important though such consistency is. These endeavors are warranted by the underlying conviction that Scripture is the one word of God. We may take each of these features in turn.

No doubt it is possible to offer a theological argument for the importance of logic, from the character of God whose word is necessarily veracious. But coming rather closer to home, logic is basic to all thought and speech. Take a