|
Articles
> Systematic
Theology > Introduction
to Systematic Theology > Part III: Objections
to Systematic Theology
Part III: Objections to Systematic Theology
I. Introduction
a. Purpose: There are people who might object to systematic
theology or the construction of a theological system. This is
a survey of possible objections.
b. Objective: Demonstrate that the objection is either internally
problematic or problematic in light of what Scripture teaches.
II. Skepticism
a. Objection stated: "We can not know any true Christian
doctrine."
b. Responses
i. Christians can know things about God and Jesus Christ
1. Otherwise, why would the Scripture say, "Grace
and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God
and of Jesus our Lord" (2Peter 1:2)?
2. The Bible recognizes that there are things that are not
known by the Christian but there are also spiritual truths
that can be known because they are revealed by God:
"The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but
the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever,
that we may follow all the words of this law." (Deuteronomy
29:29)
SUMMARY: Systematic Theology is possible because God
reveals Himself in the Bible.
ii. The epistemic tension within skepticism
1. Does the skeptic know that true Christian doctrine can not
be known?
a. If so, how does he know that?
i. Did he know it because it is somehow illogical to know
God?
1. How does he know that logic as he knows it would apply
in the realm of theology, which for the skeptic is an
unknowable realm? (Endnote 1)
ii. If he does not know, then his objection is meaningless.
1. This would amount to the skeptic saying that he does not
know if Christian doctrine can be known or not. If he does not
know, he does not know.
SUMMARY: Skepticism knows too much or too little for its
own good.
III. Post-Modernism's Anti-'System'
a. Objection stated: There is not and/or we should not
develop a system of theology.
b. System defined: A group of doctrines that are interconnected
and/or interdependent. In other words, the set of doctrines share
a relationship.
c. Fragmentation as a key characteristics of Post-Modernism
i. There is a philosophical undercurrent that is popular with
the mainstream culture which believes there is no unity or continuity
of ideas. (Endnote 2)
ii. Those who engage in Post-Modern philosophy or theology
are thus highly susceptible to embrace the contradicting or
the irrational.
1. For a response to this, see the portion below on Irrationalism.
iii. Often, this type of objection cast suspicion on all theological
systems (as defined above) as being nothing more than man-made.
d. Response
i. The teaching about God is Systematic in God's mind and not
Man-made
1. God knows everything about himself and everything else
a. "God, therefore, has a 'systematic' knowledge
of himself and of the world, since He knows His own plan
exhaustively and since the world perfectly conforms to that
plan." (Endnote 3)
i. See Job 37:16, 1John 3:20
b. Note: This is the foundation of Systematic Theology:
All doctrines exist in the mind of God, and we would expect
doctrines to 'fit':
i. These doctrines are internally coherent and not contradictory
1. All knowledge (including the laws of logic) is in
Christ (Colossians 2:3) and He is not a God of disorder
(1Corinthians 14:33)
ii. These thoughts have a relation of dependence with
one another
1. Example: Doctrine of Justification presupposes the
Justness of God, Christ propitiation of His righteousness
presupposes Original Sin (Roman 5:15), etc
IV. Irrationalism
a. Objection stated: Christianity must embrace the irrational
since it is in essence irrational and we must therefore reject
systematic theology.
b. Response
i. Christianity is not irrational
1. In Christ "are hidden all the treasures of wisdom
and knowledge. I tell you this so that no one may deceive
you by fine-sounding arguments." (Colossians 2:3-4)
2. Christians are not to embrace the irrational since it
is foolish but seek wisdom instead.
a. "Wise men store up knowledge, but the mouth
of a fool invites ruin." (Proverbs 10:14)
ii. Irrational theologies is self-refuting
1. If it is irrational, there is no need for the opposition
to refute these types of theology. They are self-refuting.
a. Just pinpoint how their theologies internally negate
one another. (Endnote 4)
2. If it is irrational, then there is no point to accept
their theology anyways or to talk to this fool.
a. "Do not speak to a fool, for he will scorn the
wisdom of your words." (Proverbs 23:9)
3. If it is alright to be irrational, and there is an attempt
on their part to show systematic theology is irrational, they
failed in rationally trying to make a case to reject rational
systematic theology.
a. In essence, it's an inconsistent, self-refuting, double
standard affair.
V. Pragmatism
a. Objection stated: Systematic Theology is not useful
or practical.
b. Response
i. Christianity is doctrinal
1. "Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere
in them because if you do, you will save both yourself and
your hearers." (1Timothy 4:16)
ii. Doctrines have value by itself even without practical usefulness
a. "Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though
it cost all you have, get understanding." (Proverbs
4:7)
b. "Buy the truth and do not sell it; get wisdom,
discipline and understanding" (Proverbs 23:23)
iii. Christianity's doctrines leads to practical living
1. Ideas have consequences
a. What you believe about reality will impact how you
live in reality.
i. Example: Belief in global warming v.s contrary belief,
AIDS is spread by talking vs. AIDS is spread by blood, etc
2. Likewise, doctrines have consequences in daily life
a. For example: Be self-controlled since the end is near
(1Peter 4:7); Do not be sexually immoral because of God's
omnipresence (Proverbs 5:20-21)
iv. Pragmatism Problem (Endnote 5)
1. How does one know what is useful?
a. Discussion of this is a discussion of values
i. Who's value shall we use, the Bible's, the culture's,
etc?
1. Not to answer these questions or to be agnostic
about values would be very impractical in daily living
VI. Pride
a. Objection stated: Systematic Theology leads to pride.
b. Sin of intellectual elitism is real.
i. "Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up"
(1Chorinthians 8:1b)
c. Systematic Theology itself is not to be blamed, but the sinner
is.
i. Analogy: You can not blame your robbery of a classmate
on him just because he's rich.
d. Pride: How we should not study theology
i. Repent, lest you be disgrace
1. "When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with
humility comes wisdom." (Proverbs 11:3)
ii. In session five, we will cover how Christians ought to
study theology with their character.
Endnotes
- For a more thorough presenetation about the
problem of the skeptic's argument in relation to his finite basis
for logic, consult with my mp3 audio lecture, "Finite Logic
& The Fallacy Of Generalization". This is an example
of Presuppositional Apologetics applied.
- For a popular Christian discussion on this topic
of the Age of Fragmentation, consult the following work:
Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? (Wheaton, Crossway
Books)
- John Frame, "The Problem of Theological
Paradox" in Foundations Of Christian Scholarship (Vallecito,
Ross House Books), 300.
- An example
of this in action.
- A good work refuting Pragmaticism is:
Greg Bahnsen, "Pragmatism, Prejudice, and Presuppositionalism"
in Foundations Of Christian Scholarship (Vallecito, Ross
House Books).
|
