A Lesson in Systematic Theology

I have had a few ideas for blog posts running around in my mind, but it’s just a matter of getting them out. Picture part one of the last Seinfeld episode with Kramer trying to get water out of his ear.

This post is about systematic theology, or more, a lesson in systematic theology.  What may come to mind might be the large tomes such as John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, or more modern works by Wayne Grudem or Millard Erickson.

Compared to whole books on the subject, this is a short lesson in systematic theology. But since answers often lead to more questions, what is simple is also greatly complex.  But it is also glorious.

Back in 2009 while teaching an Adult Sunday School class on Reformed Theologians, I wrote the phrase “God the Son” on the board. I then asked if this was in the Bible. People either responded “Yes” or said nothing.  Ah ha, but is this phrase in the Bible?  No it is not.

In most English translations the phrase “God the Father” is in the Bible, mainly in Paul’s letters (1 Corinthians 15:24; Galatians 1:1; Philippians 2:11). In those instances, though, the definite article (“the”) is inserted for clarity. Often Paul uses, “God our Father,” and the possessive (“our”) is in the Greek text. One place where the Greek text does not require inserting “the” is 1 Corinthians 8:6: “for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist” (ESV).

The phrase is also familiar to those who regularly recite the Apostles Creed: We believe in God the Father Almighty…

Back to my original point, neither the phrase “God the Son” nor the phrase “God the Holy Spirit” is in the Bible. The closest example is in Matthew 28:19 in the Great Commission verse where Jesus commands his disciples to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

So, is “God the Son” in the Bible?  No.  Do we as Christians believe that the Bible teaches this? Yes, absolutely.  This is the difference between the explicit and the implicit teachings of the Bible. This might be an oversimplified example because one is very hard-pressed to deny the New Testament teaches that Jesus is equal with God because of explicit verses such as John 1:1 and Titus 2:13. But also implicitly Jesus is given names attributed only to God (such as “Lord”) and does things that only God can do (such as forgiving sins).

Whenever someone states, “I believe what the Bible says!” they are, in fact, saying more than that. If we adhered strictly to just what the Bible “says,” as in the words on the page, then there are many doctrines that could, on the surface, be denied.  Theology cannot be done using strictly biblical terminology, but non-biblical terminology must be used to explain the teaching of the Bible.  If anyone doubts this, just start humming “Holy, Holy, Holy.”

An ancient example comes from the Athanasian Creed, formulated in the 5^th century A.D. This is a long citation, but it is necessary to see the importance of using non-biblical terminology, as well as the use of affirmation and negation in theological language. The Latin terms in the picture give a visual form to the written words.

For there is one Person of the Father (Pater); another of the Son (Filius); and another of the Holy Spirit (Spiritus Sanctus). But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Spirit unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite.

So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God (est Deus); the Son is God; and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord.

B.B. Warfield wrote that the right for systematic theology to even exist was being challenged in his day (the late 19^th century).

“There are few phenomena in the theological world which are more striking indeed than the impatience which is exhibited on every hand with the effort to define truth and to state with precision the doctrinal presuppositions and contents of Christianity.

The basis of this impatience is often a mere latitudinarian indifferentism, which finds its expression in neglect of formulated truth and is never weary of girding at what it represents as the hair-splitting ingenuity of theologians and the unprofitableness of theological discussion.

But this indifference is at root dislike; and the easy affirmation that doctrines are useless passes very readily into the heated assertion that they are noxious. Now, the contemptuous smile gives way to the flush of anger, and instead of an unconcerned expression of the opinion that theology is a more or less amiable weakness, we have the passionate assertion that theology is killing religion.” ("The Right of Systematic Theology" in Selected Shorter Writings Vol. 2, p. 221)

Often the discipline of systematic theology is accused of being dry or having little to do with ministry or is too academic. There may be some truth to that. But that is rarely said of “secular” disciplines. What medical student has not groaned aloud at the detailed terminology of her 20-pound textbook? How thankful is the patient on the table for her doctor who mastered that textbook and listened to her teachers! Likewise, we are thankful for those who have done much of the “dirty” work—the nitty-gritty—in theology so we are the beneficiaries of an increased understanding of what God has given us so our theology leads to doxology.

That Jesus is God the Son confounds us. Some call it a paradox. But as Michael Card has sung, “For the power of paradox opens your eyes and blinds those who say they can see.”