Do We Need Systematic Theology?

---

How valuable is systematic theology? Is it merely helpful, or is it necessary? Or is it harmful?

Basically, to practice systematic theology is simply to seek to harmonize different portions of Scripture.

So systematic theology is a necessity in accurately understanding and teaching the Bible, because God has chosen to communicate truth about himself in many different ways, at different times, in different books, in different genres, in a very large book! If we want to understand the whole of God’s self-revelation, we must interpret each individual paragraph in the context of the rest of Scripture.

Of course, there are dangers in doing this, because we can become so focused on harmonizing all of Scripture that we forget to analyze specific passages in the light of the book they’re in, and in the light of the historical progress of God’s revelation (called “biblical theology”).

But the existence of dangers doesn’t eliminate the fact that systematic theology is a necessity. And by “necessity,” I don’t mean the kind of necessity present in the phrase, “You need to eat spaghetti with a fork.” That is a necessity to be civilized, but you could eat spaghetti with your fingers! But if you’re going to eat spaghetti, it is a necessity to use your mouth. There’s no other way to eat! And there’s no other way to understand and teach the Bible without reckoning with all of it.

To demonstrate my point, look at this phrase of 2 Timothy 4:1-4.

The first part of the Content of Paul’s charge to Timothy is to “preach the word,” which refers to the whole of Scripture (the OT in the original context, but the entire Bible by implication). The Ground for this command is that people will not want “sound teaching,” but rather teaching “to suit their own passions.” They will "turn away from listening to the truth, and will follow worthless rabbit trails of “myths.”

How can you preach “the word” when you preach a single sermon? Paul surely isn’t saying that Timothy should have every verse of Scripture as his text for every single sermon he preaches! You should preach every verse of Scripture in the context of the whole, that’s how! And that requires systematic theology.

Here, also, is an example of the Bible doing systematic theology on itself.

5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

Galatians 3:5-14 (ESV)

Here, Paul is teaching on a single topic—faith, and not works of the law, as the basis for justification and receiving the Spirit. To do so, he quotes twice from Genesis, twice from Deuteronomy, once from Leviticus, and once from Habakkuk. He is gathering texts on different aspects of one topic and bringing them together in one place.

Given the premise that we should take our cues from the Bible on how to study the Bible, this passage is a clear indicator that there is an important place for systematic theology.

@RolandoMH That’s a great question! Systematic and Biblical Theology are certainly different, but definitely also complementary.

Systematic theology seeks to harmonize the teaching of the whole Bible on every major topic (like theology proper, soteriology, and so on), thus doing justice to the wholeness and the unity of God’s revelation on each topic.

Biblical theology seeks to trace each major topic as it unfolds progressively throughout Scripture. It also aims to understand the Bible as one story, with one major theme, and to understand every part of it in light of that major theme. (Some suggestions for that theme include “Kingdom through Covenant” and “God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment.”)

Good expository preaching should use insights from both systematic and biblical theology. Your description of expository preaching is excellent and correct. I remember reading that one preacher (perhaps John MacArthur?) said that one of his main challenges in preaching through 1 John was preaching the difficult parts (e.g. “no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him,” 1 John 3:6) within the context of the rest of Scripture, without flattening out the specific point John was making in his letter. This is a necessary balance!

@RolandoMH said in Do We Need Systematic Theology?:

I don’t understand the difference well between systematic and biblical theology, or are they complementary?

I meant to include the following articles, that are very helpful in explaining both Systematic and Biblical Theology: 10 Things You Should Know about Biblical Theology, and 10 Things You Should Know about Systematic Theology.

@Brent-Karding said in Do We Need Systematic Theology?:

How can you preach “the word” when you preach a single sermon? Paul surely isn’t saying that Timothy should have every verse of Scripture as his text for every single sermon he preaches! You should preach every verse of Scripture in the context of the whole, that’s how! And that requires systematic theology.

This is a helpful observation @Brent-Karding.

@Andy-Hubert said in Do We Need Systematic Theology?:

Here, Paul is teaching on a single topic—faith, and not works of the law, as the basis for justification and receiving the Spirit. To do so, he quotes twice from Genesis, twice from Deuteronomy, once from Leviticus, and once from Habakkuk. He is gathering texts on different aspects of one topic and bringing them together in one place.

Very good!

@Andy-Hubert said in Do We Need Systematic Theology?:

Given the premise that we should take our cues from the Bible on how to study the Bible, this passage is a clear indicator that there is an important place for systematic theology.

That’s exactly right! And Galatians 3 isn’t an outlier; Paul does this also in Romans 10.

@Brent-Karding said in Do We Need Systematic Theology?:

Of course, there are dangers in doing this, because we can become so focused on harmonizing all of Scripture that we forget to analyze specific passages in the light of the book they’re in, and in the light of the historical progress of God’s revelation (called “biblical theology”).

I don’t understand the difference well between systematic and biblical theology, or are they complementary? I remember that in expository preaching is really important to consider the context of the passage, book and the Bible with all pointing to Christ, with the care to not miss what is in the context.

Yes, we do.

I think the more difficult question is what should come before the other?

And if we get the order wrong, what are the ramifications/implications?

@Ryan-Robinson Those are indeed difficult questions, and good questions. I was reading an interview on Andy Naselli’s blog here, which contains the following image under point #6, which is taken from Chapter 2 of Scripture and Truth, edited by Carson and Woodbridge (free PDF of Chapter 2 here). My thoughts below are a condensation of part of Naselli’s interview.

Exegesis is on the far left, which is what should control biblical theology and systematic theology. In other words, what do we teach as the big point and the main story of the Bible, and what do we teach in the organized categories of systematic theology? What we teach must be based on careful, sound study of the text of Scripture.

But the arrows pointing back to the left are important as well. My exegesis of a particular passage should be controlled by what other Scriptures say on that topic, as well as on an accurate understanding of the storyline of Scripture (not forgetting exegetically-based historical theology as well).

But based on my definitions of both biblical and systematic theology in an earlier post, I would say that neither biblical theology nor systematic theology are more foundational. (I’m not 100% confident on that assertion, though, and I’m open for feedback and correction on that!)

What I’m sure of is that both must be dependent on exegesis, and our exegetical findings in biblical and systematic theology should, in turn, control further exegesis.

This may go beyond the point of the images @Brent-Karding shared, but the image reminded me of these recent thoughts I was pondering.

That is, it seems to me that there ought to be a progression of focus for a believer as he/she grows in maturity and familiarity of the Scriptures as a whole. The healthy progression goes like this:

1. Historical theology. When someone is first exposed to the gospel and begins opening the Bible, the question of what the consistent, orthodox teaching of the Church has been is really important. It is so important because a person is most vulnerable to slipping into heresy when he/she is most ignorant of the Bible. Knowing the historical teaching of the Church and the historic debunking of heresies can be a good guard against this as he/she becomes familiar with the Scriptures.

2. Systematic theology. But, of course, there is not consensus in the Church on every theological topic. So, at some point, a maturing Christian is going to need to tackle some theological questions which go beyond the foundations. The best way to do so is by seeking to find all passages related to such questions, gathering them together, and weigh them one by one, ready to believe whatever is discovered as the biblical answer.

3. Biblical theology. And yet, the Bible is not a simple catechism of questions and answers. Thus, a Christian who already possesses a sound theology will, if he/she is spiritually healthy, still be hungry for more. And few things can delight the redeemed soul and expand his/her joy in God than seeing his glory in the revelation of the mystery written throughout biblical history until it, at last, floods our vision with light in the face of Jesus Christ!

@Brent-Karding The image strongly represents my thoughts on the topic. I practically flatten Biblical Theology and exegesis. I think that just a matter of perspective.

However, I would say that this image puts biblical theology before Systematic. Which again, already showing my cards, I say To me, this has enormous ramifications.

You said, “My exegesis of a particular passage should be controlled by what other Scriptures say on that topic, as well as on an accurate understanding of the storyline of Scripture (not forgetting exegetically-based historical theology as well).”

This statement made me pause. I’d love to hear more thoughts on what that looks like.

I immediately thought, well, you control one (or more) passage by another passage that you might like more because of your system rather than letting the author communicate what the author was conveying. I think you can understand where I am coming from on that possibly being a slippery slope of dogmatism over exegetical honesty.

Anyways, lots there! Appreciate the discussion!

@Andy-Hubert I think that is fair.

I think the normal progression today is 2 then 1 then (maybe) 3. And my experience is that many stop at 1 & 2 since 3 often gets more messy and less of an ability to be black and white…and often eschatology comes up…

I mean, you live in Israel. How does the Mosaic Covenant relate to the New Covenant for Gentiles? What about for Jews?

@Andy-Hubert said in Do We Need Systematic Theology?:

And few things can delight the redeemed soul and expand his/her joy in God than seeing his glory in the revelation of the mystery written throughout biblical history until it, at last, floods our vision with light in the face of Jesus Christ!

Yes indeed!
Even if the language used is English. And I don’t like to Arc using Filipino translation of the Bible because some of the words used in the translation can mislead me into wrong implications. So I prefer English, though my English grammar is poor. #fighting

@Ryan-Robinson said in Do We Need Systematic Theology?:

You said, “My exegesis of a particular passage should be controlled by what other Scriptures say on that topic, as well as on an accurate understanding of the storyline of Scripture (not forgetting exegetically-based historical theology as well).”
This statement made me pause. I’d love to hear more thoughts on what that looks like.
I immediately thought, well, you control one (or more) passage by another passage that you might like more because of your system rather than letting the author communicate what the author was conveying. I think you can understand where I am coming from on that possibly being a slippery slope of dogmatism over exegetical honesty.

It would be easy to slide away from exegetical honesty if you simply prioritize a passage that you like better than the one you’re working on; that’s a fair point. But we shouldn’t jump headlong into the other ditch of interpreting each passage as a discrete unit, unconnected to the rest of Scripture.

I’ve been reading Carl Trueman’s book on historical method and fallacies called Histories and Fallacies: Problems Faced in the Writing of History, and he made a point that made me pause and think of our current discussion of systematic theology. He talks about the “explanatory schemes” that historians necessarily have in their minds as they interpret history; however, they “need to be aware” of these, and remember that such schemes are “hypotheses that are themselves open to correction or modification in light of the evidence” (97).

This is how we should view the conclusions of systematic theology, I think: we should have an overall framework for the doctrine of God, of salvation, and so on, while remembering that our framework must be open to correction according to the exegesis of a particular passage.

All that being said, when we do interpret an individual passage, there are (at least) two guidelines to keep in mind with relation to systematic theology:

1. You interpret an obscure passage in the light of a clear passage.

Some passages of Scripture are clearer than others - that’s reality! We must use what is clearly taught as a flashlight as we peer into the dark corners of obscure passages.
It is even easier when a doctrine is clearly taught in multiple passages, and a difficult passage is a single one; then, as Sam Storms says, we should “interpret the singular and obscure in the light of the plural and explicit” (Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative, Kindle ed., loc. 2311).

This assumes, of course, that there are no contradictions in Scripture.

2. You prioritize the immediate context over the entire biblical context.

This came to my mind when thinking about what John MacArthur said about preaching through 1 John; he found it difficult to balance not softening the edges of John’s black-and-white statements (by interpreting them in the light of other Scriptures and thus blunting their edge) with accurately interpreting them in the light of other revelation.

I think what would help in this is to prioritize the immediate context of a verse over the entire biblical context. Using 1 John as an example, we could show that John is not saying that a Christian never sins in 3:6 by referring back to 1:10. What we shouldn’t do is emphasize that Christians really do sin a lot; that would destroy John’s point in 3:6 that habitual sinning is a mark of unbelief, and work against his goal of keeping believers from sinning (2:1).

Paul implies a systematic theology in 2 Timothy 3:15-17.

2 Timothy 3:15–17 (NKJV)
15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The “Holy Scriptures… are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” This is the main point of Scripture. This is the central teaching that acts as the organizing principle for the rest of the system.

"All Scripture… is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

This is the breakdown of the central point.

• The main point: Salvation by faith in Jesus Christ.

• Doctrine: Formative teachings that give definition to the themes related to the main point (Jesus, Salvation, Faith, also implied themes such as God, the Holy Spirit, Humanity, Sin, the Church, etc.). The term “doctrine” can be understood as teaching in general that unfolds into “reproof… correction… instruction in righteousness.”

• Reproof: ἐλεγμόν, Convincing evidence. This points to the apologetic function of the Scriptures. To defended the “doctrine,” or worldview of Scripture against hostile systems of belief and thought.

• Correction: The ability of the Scriptures to establish Orthodoxy. The Scriptures set a straight line by which all false teaching can be tested and corrected.

• Instruction in righteousness: Systematic theology naturally segues into pastoral theology. Godly character and conduct is the result and goal of Scripture. The Scriptures give practical instruction to this end.

"So that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped…"

The Scriptures have a maturing, equipping effect on the man of God, then through Him on those he leads (cf. Ephesian 4:11-16). This implied systematic theology forms the basis of the preaching ministry of the man of God (2 Timothy 4:1-5).

@Anthonycburrell said in Do We Need Systematic Theology?:

The “Holy Scriptures… are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” This is the main point of Scripture. This is the central teaching that acts as the organizing principle for the rest of the system.

I like this point, although I need to give more thought and study of other passages of Scripture before I wholeheartedly agree that this is “the main point of Scripture.” God’s kingdom is another good summary of the main point of the Bible. But definitely this is a distilled description of what the Scriptures are meant to do: produce faith in Christ Jesus, to bring about salvation—including not just justification but also sanctification, I would say, as verse 17 says.

@Brent-Karding I’m understanding salvation by faith in Jesus Christ in light of other Scriptures that amplify the plan of salvation. For example the goal and result of God’s saving work through Jesus Christ is the praise of the glory of God’s grace, all things being brought under the headship of Christ, and God having a people that stand holy and blameless before Him in love (Ephesians 1). I believe that the term “main point” comprehends but does not exhaust. Therefore, I believe that it is fair to say that the main point of Scripture is salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

@Anthonycburrell said in Do We Need Systematic Theology?:

I believe that the term “main point” comprehends but does not exhaust. Therefore, I believe that it is fair to say that the main point of Scripture is salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

That description of a “main point” is fair enough, and I agree with your definition thus described! Your description of the goal of God’s work of salvation being God’s glory is spot-on.

Your point helps emphasize that God didn’t give us a book merely to educate us, or fascinate us, but to save us.