Helm's reflections
There has been a reaction against Systematic Theology in recent years, almost as if Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology are rivals, opposed in some way. You must choose! It's the one or the other!
Paul Helm is posting a series at Helm's Deep (is he?) about systematic theology. http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2007/04/new-development-analysis.html
There's a Biblical continuity between:
John 11:25 - 26 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"
and:
Philippians 2:6 - 11 Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
and:
the Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed and Chalcedon
and:
Westminster/London etc, the Institutes, Berkhof et al.
It is this procedure of definition. Helm compares systematicians to grammarians. I think that's helpful. Maybe even lexicographers. They attempt to answer the question "but what does that mean, the resurrection and the life? What can that mean? What can't that mean?".
Imagine if a student of English said "I don't need a dictionary or a grammar. I have my compendium of English poetry." That would be as blinkered as the student who said "Poetry! What's that got to do with English? Who needs poetry and stuff when you have a good dictionary and a grammar?"
Of course, those who compile dictionaries do not do so in the thin atmosphere inside their heads. They work with newspapers, novels, broadcasts and the written and the spoken word. Even with poems. In this way by analysing usage they arrive at definitions.
And those who compile systematic theologies do not (certainly must not) so do in the thin atmosphere of academic debate and reflection, but in the analysis of the written Word.
Paul Helm is posting a series at Helm's Deep (is he?) about systematic theology. http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2007/04/new-development-analysis.html
There's a Biblical continuity between:
John 11:25 - 26 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"
and:
Philippians 2:6 - 11 Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
and:
the Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed and Chalcedon
and:
Westminster/London etc, the Institutes, Berkhof et al.
It is this procedure of definition. Helm compares systematicians to grammarians. I think that's helpful. Maybe even lexicographers. They attempt to answer the question "but what does that mean, the resurrection and the life? What can that mean? What can't that mean?".
Imagine if a student of English said "I don't need a dictionary or a grammar. I have my compendium of English poetry." That would be as blinkered as the student who said "Poetry! What's that got to do with English? Who needs poetry and stuff when you have a good dictionary and a grammar?"
Of course, those who compile dictionaries do not do so in the thin atmosphere inside their heads. They work with newspapers, novels, broadcasts and the written and the spoken word. Even with poems. In this way by analysing usage they arrive at definitions.
And those who compile systematic theologies do not (certainly must not) so do in the thin atmosphere of academic debate and reflection, but in the analysis of the written Word.
Comments