Truth Warrior

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Prolegomenon: Introduction to Systematic Theology 3

The Limitations to the Study of Theology

There are certain limitations to the study of ST. For our purpose here I will make a brief mention of each, feel free to jump in and fill any gaps if I miss something.

The first limitation is ignorance, because we posses a fallen nature (or sin nature), even those who are lost and those of us who are redeemed are not sinlessly intelligent.

The Bible clearly points this out, of the lost it says, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1Cor. 2: 14) and “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” (2Cor. 4: 4),

Of the redeemed (saved) Scriptures say, “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.” (1Cor. 3:1) and “Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." (Heb. 5:11-14)

The second limitation is finiteness- we are human and finite not God Who is infinite.
God cannot be fully known, but He can be truly known.

The third limitation is revelation. Yes revelation is limited, because while the Bible tells us everything God wants us to know about Him, it does not tell us everything there is to know about Him (Deut. 29: 29; John 20: 30- 31; 21: 25;).

Finally there is the finiteness of language (see “Theology and its Language” in Christian Theology pp. 127-149 Erickson, for a fuller treatment of this)

The source of the problem of language followed by Liberals, Neo-orthodoxy, Eastern religion, etc. is called logical positivism. An example of this is provided by Jimmy Swagart who once claimed, “I don’t need to see a miracle, because the greatest miracle of all can’t be seen, but felt”.

Some of the objections to theological language are:

...language cannot convey transcendent realities,

...human language can never be wholly or infallibly true, and

...human language from primitive cultures cannot be wholly true.

The Earnest Contender does not go along with these week assertions. This is why:

...the Bible teaches that God has spoken in the precise sense of using human language to communicate with man, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;” (Heb. 1:1-2),

...God created man with linguistic abilities,

...God is a competent speaker and is in full control

...communication does not need to be scientifically precise, and

...“Primitive languages” are capable of communicating deep insightful thought.

It can be seen (or felt if you prefer, and may the force be with you) that God primarily uses human languages to communicate to us that which He wants us to know. The Bible, as stated in a previous post, is the Source. It will serve as the Book we will use throughout this study all other ideas, concepts, and feelings must bow to the supremacy of the Bible. Those who rely on any other source are in danger of heresy. We are called to, “...earnestly contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.” (Jude 3)

Our study, Prolegomenon: Introduction to Systematic Theology will continues next time with the Methods of ST.

14 Comments:

  • Do you agree with Daniel Fuller that unbelievers are perfectly qualified to interpret the Bible using the methods of exegesis? Or do you think only a regenerate person can understand the Bible?

    By Blogger Matthew Celestine, at 2/8/06 11:57 AM  

  • I think un-believers can comprehend meaning, but that they are unable to understand significance I Cor 2.

    Great Post, John! I believe the most foundational concept to following the "full innerrancy" of the scriptures is the a priori assumption that God is a "good communicator", as you've pointed out!

    John, what role do you think the "trinity" should serve in the shaping of prolegomenon, e.g. contra the typical approach of placing the trinity as separate from Theology Proper? In other words I find it highly troubling that when God's attributes are spoken of, to kick off typical systematic theologies, the trinity is not inclueded--this has consequences for how we view God. And is revealing of the fact that most Western Systematic Theologies are using a philosophical speculative grid that emphasizes God's oneness, and his monadic nature, which under-cuts who God really is in His intra-trinitarian relationship.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2/8/06 2:48 PM  

  • Excellent post.

    By Blogger Bhedr, at 2/8/06 10:47 PM  

  • Nice work, here. I agree with you that the objections of the short-comings of language are weak. God has given us the ability to clearly understand and communicate His truth.

    I do not think unbelievers have the capacity to grasp the spiritual truth of the Word of God. They may perhaps understand the historical and some poetical, but they mysteries of God are spiritually discerned.

    By Blogger Gordon, at 2/8/06 11:10 PM  

  • DF~
    I don’t think any one is “perfectly qualified” to interpret the Bible and at the same time anyone may interpret the Bible using any method of interpretation they choose. The question is, would their conclusions be accurate? Employing faulty methods of exegesis will distort the conclusion. Even the redeemed of God who love the Lord can, and we both know those who do, come up with real doozies, and whole systems of thought from a simple speculation about what might have taken place before the foundation of the earth. I also know that those who are and remain unsaved after reading verses like John 3:16-18 are going to be judged for something they understood. Otherwise and for the most part I would go along with Brother Bobby.

    Bobby, I like the way you think!

    I understand that there is differing of opinions about where every thing fits in any system of thought. I don’t know where Affective Theology places the tri-unity of the Godhead, but I can see why this is important in Theology Proper and that is where I include it in this study of ST. BTW we will draw from both the OT and the NT and build the concept of the unity and tri-unity and only a Trinity of our Lord, as opposed to using a philosophical speculative grid.

    Brian thanks for reading.

    GC, thanks for your comments. I see your point.

    By Blogger J. Wendell, at 3/8/06 7:04 AM  

  • John, thanks for the answer. Daniel Fuller says that unbelievers can use correct methods of exegesis and come to right conclusions on any part of the Bible. He argues that the Bible does not contain any layer of meaning that only a 'spiritual' person can perceive. Presumably Phil Johnson agrees with this, as he praises Fuller's material on hermeneutics.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Matthew Celestine, at 3/8/06 11:51 AM  

  • "The Bible, as stated in a previous post, is the Source."

    I like this.

    As I am want to say: Everything you need to know about God is found in the Word of God, nothing you need to know about God is not found in the Word of God and anything you think you know about God that is not in the Word of God, you just made up.

    By Blogger Joe, at 3/8/06 5:50 PM  

  • Good point PGA D,
    Thanks for reading and for your contribution here… and there (ABF).

    DF~
    I agree that “…the Bible does not contain any layer of meaning that only a 'spiritual' person can perceive.” That is a good point. Thanks for that insight since I admit I am not familiar with Daniel Fuller (I don’t think).

    Joe,
    Just when I was going to argue that, one through observing creation can know that there is God, but then I remembered… that too is in the Book, John 1: (esp. note vv 1-5)

    Thanks for your observation brother.

    By Blogger J. Wendell, at 4/8/06 5:37 AM  

  • Actually, I was not sure whether or not I agreed with that view. If you agree with it,perhaps it is correct.

    Daniel Fuller is or was a professor at Fuller Seminary. He has some bad points, rejecting Inerrancy, supporting women preaching and attacking Dispensationalism.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Matthew Celestine, at 4/8/06 9:01 AM  

  • Careful Matthew,

    I only said I agree that "…the Bible does not contain any layer of meaning that only a 'spiritual' person can perceive.”

    I do not support the notion that any spiritual truth can be perceived apart from the work of the Holy Ghost, namely His work of illumination.

    Further I stated that, "...I would go along with Brother Bobby."

    Now about Fuller:
    -A professor at Fuller Seminary,
    -Has some bad points,
    -Rejecting Inerrancy,
    -Supporting women preaching, and
    -Attacking Dispensationalism.

    On these points (#2 being an exception), Dr. Fuller and I would part ways, I believe he has parted from the teaching of the Scriptures to a certain extent to hold these positions.

    A reader sent me this link in an e-mail. I found it very interesting coming from what seems to be a "Covenantal" source.

    Every Blessing in Christ to you too,
    Brother John

    By Blogger J. Wendell, at 5/8/06 6:20 AM  

  • Yes, I had heard that he his teaching on justification was wrong.

    By Blogger Matthew Celestine, at 5/8/06 7:42 AM  

  • Michael/John

    Also Dan Fuller's view of justification is quite odd and the scariest as he doesn't seem to distinguish between gospel and law.

    Sadly his views may have actually affected Piper a bit. However how much I am not certain. For covenant theologians I think Michael Horton and John Robbins really keep biblical justification in tack in their views on covenant theology. A great insight into this is on John Robbins website. I think you would both like this from the covenant theology camp being a bit more agreements with him than others. I think Horton and Robbins are more historic calvinistic covenant theologians.

    I guess you all could say the same thing with me struggling through these issues overemphasis on one biblical truth over the other. Justification is truly the place which the church stands or falls....May God have mercy

    By Blogger Shawn, at 5/8/06 3:03 PM  

  • Trinity Foundation

    http://www.trinityfoundation.org/

    By Blogger Shawn, at 5/8/06 3:04 PM  

  • Hi Shawn,

    Although I am not an eccuminist, I do like Steve Brown and we pre' much agree when it comes to justification. I sometime refer to him as one of my favorite Covenant Theologians click here for his website.

    This is another one of my favorite CT although we often disagree a bit.

    Shawn, thanks for the web adress.

    In His care,
    brother John

    By Blogger J. Wendell, at 6/8/06 7:07 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

 

Who Links Here