Systematic Theology in Christian Thought

From the Mecca of Mormonism Salt Lake This is HOTM Where we are learning together how to walk in the age of fulfillment Im yer host Shawn Show 16s The Problem with Systematic Theology Taped Sunday January 17th 2021 Aired Monday January 18th 2021

This is a V.I.S. show – VERY IMPORTANT SHOW. It really is.

Over the course of Christian history, we as a body of believers have held the idea of systematic theology is of value to the faith. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, systematic theology is defined as “a form of theology in which the aim is to arrange religious truths in a self-consistent whole.” Many believers personally find great value in the idea of taking the entire Bible and systematizing it and usually they are people who are scientifically minded – like engineers or mathematicians and for them, systematic religion makes a great deal of sense? And since most of our greatest minds are logically based, the rest of us tend to just throw our hats in the ring and agree to their totalistic assessments of the faith.

Examining the Minds Behind Systematic Theology

You will notice that the biggest debaters on topics are typically minded this way, right. Because of their abilities to categorized and systematize we think that they must be right in their assessment of all this Christian. This might be true when it comes to philosophy, or aeronautics, or physics; that systematic understanding gets planes off the ground, but can we take the Word of God which is known by the Spirit of God and systematize it into some lock-step formula? I suggest not and I want to explain why. But I am standing up to some formidable minds that have put forth systematic theology to the world. They include:

1. Augustine (354–430).
2. Melanchthon, Philipp (1543)
3. Calvin, John (1559)
4. Barth, Karl (1956–1975)
5. Cornelius Van Til (/1974)
6. Chafer, Lewis Sperry (1948).
7. Thiessen, Henry C. (1949).
8. Fruchtenbaum, Arnold (1989)
9. Grudem, Wayne (1995).
10. Tillich, Paul.
11. Geisler, Norman L. (2002–2004)

The Issue of Divergent Theological Systems

Can we consider these men brothers in the faith? Of course. Can we believe that their views were honest and well intended? I certainly can. Did they do something wrong – no, I think they certainly have contributed beneficially to the pot of Christian thought. But right off the bat we notice something, don’t we? I just named off a dozen or so systematic theologians and you would think that if their respective systems could be trusted and are without fault there would only be one.

I mean if the faith can be rightly systematized, why are there new systems? Why new volumes of information and new views? Weren’t Augustine’s views best – I mean he was closest to the establishment of the faith? Why did Calvin have to come along and enhance what Augustine said and did? And then why Grudem, or Tillich or Geisler?

So, the first issue I have with systematic theology is that it is in the domain of a certain type of thinker – yes, they are smart, but does that qualify them to systematize the faith into a body of doctrines that must be admitted into a believers life? If not, why do it?

And the second issue I have as mentioned is we keep getting new and improved or various takes! Now neither of these issues are hills to die on, but my third issue with systematic theology certainly is.

See, when these so-called scholars take a word in scripture, then a sentence, then a verse, then a chapter, then a book, then a testament, then the Bible as a whole, and they posit systems that others may use down the road this does more to stupefy Christians than to contribute to their growth. Take Calvin and his systematized doctrines of the faith. That system has been taken and is now used as the basis of instruction in many Christian Universities around the world.

But the danger of this fact lies in the notion that passing a system along to others to embrace – whether it be Mormonism, or Calvinism or any systematized body of doctrines – does not build faith and a living knowledge of God, it merely installs a ready-made, “I refuse to change my mind software” into the heads and hearts of everyone who receives it as truth. I suggest that this was NEVER God’s intention of the scripture for those who are His. Never.

The reason I can say this is because we have epistemological models for knowing and understanding things and the proposition of a system is only one of them – and yet it is received by many as the ONLY

Understanding Systematic Theology and Propositional Knowledge

See, what is considered normal or acceptable in each of these systems is based on propositions. And propositions are only one of our ways by which human beings know and understand things. Propositions are created by someone’s “special conclusions” that they want the world to receive and believe, right! For instance, the Calvinist concludes (from systematizing the entire Bible) that God directs EVERYTHING under the sun, and he therefore proposes to the world as a PROPOSITION in his “system of religion” that there is no free will.

Once all my conclusions are established in a body of set propositions, and they are then passed down to others, those propositions are seen by some, many or most, as facts – instead of as refutable propositions for people to mull over, challenge, and even reject!

The scripture says there is one God. (this is true)

I see the scripture as describing God manifested in three. (that’s true too!)

God then is three in One. (Ahhhh?)

We should call this the Trinity. (Ohhh!)

The Trinity is the correct conclusion as the result of my systematic theology! (yes, it is, yes it is!)

Then, the Trinity is an irrefutable proposition! (if you're smart enough)

Then, the Trinity is a fact. (yeah!)

Then, all true Christians must embrace the Trinity as a fact. (That means you, sucka)

Then, you are not a Christian if you question or do not receive the Trinity as a Christian fact.

Then, you are going to hell forever.

Then, God hates you.

Then, I hate you.

And finally, you should die for not accepting the Trinity as a Christian fact.

See, systematic theology, while it sounds like it’s a blessing to believers, is actually the antithesis to a blessing because it tells people “what to think and believe” rather than allowing them to work through the information and to decide for themselves by FAITH what they will believe. And the process of deciding and challenging and living the faith are really important parts of developing our own personal understanding of God.

The Misuse of Propositional Knowledge

Anyone can pass down a concocted system of beliefs and demand they be believed by children, teens, and then adults. But God has so constructed human beings so that there are several moving parts of knowing, not just one. Systemized religion takes just one part of KNOWING – propositions – and makes it king. But propositions are not even the best way to know something.

Where is the real faith when a set of propositions are set out as absolute truth? A child is taught the propositions (instead of being taught how to think and what they might consider) and when they become teens they reiterate the propositions to others as fact and then become adult dogmatists who will not hear anything else – and condemn everyone who does not agree with their set of propositions! That’s not faith – that is embracing a man-made system. And most organized religions are guilty of promoting this approach to their people. They do it through “Mission Statements and Statements of Faith” they do it by posting doctrinal demands and practices, they do it by gathering into cliques of beliefs calling themselves of Paul or Apollos.

When the rubber meets the road, systematic theology is just a form of mind control that uses Propositional Propaganda while omitting the other avenues to knowledge.

Different Forms of Knowledge

Like I said, there are four kinds or types or ways of knowing something – they all begin with the letter P:

We have talked about Propositional knowing. There is also Participatory knowing, knowing through Perspective, and then Procedural knowledge. We borrowed all that from the ancient Greeks who had at least four different ways of talking about truth and knowledge and they labeled them: episteme, techne, noesis, and gnosis.

Episteme knowing is based on Propositions or what we assume to be statements of fact. “Water flows downhill.” This is what systematic theology presents to us, but instead of facts, they are merely propositions that reflect the conclusions a person or group of persons have agreed upon. This is book knowledge.

Techne is the Greek word to describe our Participatory knowledge. It is more the kind of pragmatic truth some philosophers discuss, where knowing happens through competence and self-mastery and skill acquisition. Think about it this way. A twelve-year-old has read a lot about baseball but has never played. He has only Propositional knowledge of the game. When he finally gets a glove and bat and takes a swing, he will quickly see that all of his PROPOSITIONAL knowledge means little and he will…

The Distinction Between Different Forms of Knowledge

also begin to rapidly advance his understanding of the game.

This is why Jesus said in Matthew 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Systematic Theologies tell a person that no matter what they experience, the Propositions of the System must prevail. If you want to belong and remain part of that particular flock. But participatory knowledge goes a long long way to challenge the systematic propositions men want us to embrace.

Then there is the Greek term, noesis, which has to do with awareness and perception, a type of truth that we say is “perspectival” in nature, which is context-specific, like the kind of knowing involved in what its like to swim in rough seas verses in a swimming pool. It incorporates “perspective” that is not only gained through Participation but due to comparison and other factors.

Different Types of Knowledge

Pespectival knowledge is another factor Propositional knowledge may lack. Finally, there is gnosis, which is knowing by sharing in a fundamental identity with something, which is a knowing by becoming – and which can include imitation and which allows for a great deal of internalization at the highest levels.

In this way, we know what it is like to be a cancer parent, not by mastering any skill, nor by knowing propositions, nor even by just having the perspective of a patient verse a healthy individual because we are around them, but by actually having cancer and being treated for it.

Integration of Knowledge in Faith

When it comes to the faith, it is meant to be understood and known by and through all four perspectives combined which work in and together with one another:

Propositional,
Participatory,
Perspectival
and Procedural.

You will note that in three of the four areas the application is subjectively interpreted not objectively demanded.

We assimilate and understand through participation, perception, and procedure as singular entities, and only the Propositional knowledge involves the Objective standards of others!

And yet we continue to have outsiders – systematic theologians, apologists, pastors, Bishops, prophets and priests dictating to us what must be embraced as fact, all the while ignoring that the content of their conclusional propositions only account for 25% of what we should consider when assessing things as truth.

Systems force people into abandoning the subjectively understood concepts in the faith and to live by DOGMAS delivered to us by men. But God wants all of us to also participate in things (to know), and perceive things ourselves (to know), and get involved in procedures (to know), and then and only then should we accept the Propositions of people outside ourselves.

These principles are central to the faith because we have allowed the loudest dogmatists to impose their Propositions on the rest of the world as truths.

Write your questions and comments below and we will address them on our Tuesday night long shows – here on Heart of the Matter.