Prolegomenon: Introduction to Systematic Theology 2

The Materials of Systematic Theology

First I want to discuss the source of ST. When discussing the source of ST it may be helpful to state in no uncertain terms what the Earnest Contender does not consider being sources for ST. Putting it a little stronger, exposing false sources of ST.

Some of the false sources of ST include:

Natural Revelation (science) which has to do with all of nature (see Rom 1: 18- 23), it is not general revelation which has to do with providence (Matt. 5: 44- 45). This is not the purpose of ST (i.e. the aim is different). Nature and science can be interpreted by the Bible, BUT I don’t interpret the Bible by nature or science and I don’t recommend it either.

Rationalism makes the mind the authority over the Bible. We do need to use our minds in a proper way. It is proper and needful to think rationally, but not to replace revelation with our reason. We can and should ask God to open our understanding and it is all together appropriate to ask Him to help us in our thinking.

There are three proper uses of the mind and/or understanding, they are: to receive revelation, to apply revelation in our total being, and to communicate revelation to others. With this in mind we can see that reason must be the servant to revelation NOT the other way around because the mind is finite not infinite, the mind is impacted by sin revelation is not. Revelation doesn't minimize the incomprehensibility of God.

Mysticism is totally subjective and holds “...to the attainment of religious knowledge by direct communication from God, it goes beyond the mind and Scripture.” (Mystic Enthusiasts, Strong p. 32)

Experience is a good teacher but not a good interpreter.

Freeman said, “The man with the doctrine is at the mercy of the man with the experience.” This is especially true in my experience opening the Bible with charismatic friends. We are to arm our selves with the truth not experience (Eph. 6:14).

History of doctrine, or in other words tradition. Watch out for this one, the Earnest Contender Issues this warning to us here because, Romanism says, “Theology... accepts as the sources of its knowledge Holy Writ and Tradition.” (Ludwig). Neo-Evangelicals too, are concerned with what the intelligencia (scholarly opinion) are saying. Fundamentalist even (or perhaps especially) need to beware so that tradition and or history does not become a source of authority.

"Why?" you ask!

Tradition tends to deny:

...the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture,

...the priesthood of the believer, and

...the autonomy of the local church

"Tradition is a wonderful servant, but a horrible master." (Pettigrew, and perhaps others)

Religious encounter, or Neo-orthodoxy says man is in time, God is not, but we can have encounters with God. This is not a good source for ST either because it relies on a very subjective basis.

The Question then remains, “What is the true source of systematic theology?”

Scripture is the source of ST. (2Tim. 3:16)

There is a systematic method at deriving at ST; Exegesis to Biblical Th. to Historical Th. to Systematic Th. to Practical Th. and each discipline affects the other.

To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Isaiah 8: 20

Next in our study of Prolegomenon: Introduction to Systematic Theology, we will explore the limitations to the study of Theology.