The Dangers of Theology Without Biblical Studies

 

One of my first exposures to theology was through what is called ''Sysmstatic Theology.'' This discipline of theology breaks down theology by topic. For example, theologians who specialize in this field may write individual chapters in a book on Baptism, the Lord's Table, Church government, gifts of the Holy Spirit, etc. In many ways, Systematic Theology is like a helpful chart, as it can be a guide for people across various doctrines. It is also a useful tool for seeing how Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and others agree and disagree with one another in various different fields of thought. 

I enjoy Systematic Theology. While I personally find it less interesting than historical theology, another discipline of theology that concerns the history of Christian doctrine, I find value in both. I don't have a problem with Systematic Theology. In many ways, Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica was one of the standards of Systematic Theology before any modern Evangelical wrote about it. 

Nowadays, there are various systematic theologies written by Norman Geisler, Michael F. Bird, and others. While giving a basic overview of theology, though, I have many reservations about Symstic Theology---if this is the only discipline that a Christian tries to use in learning theology. 

Take Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology. Popular in Evangelical Baptist circles, many Calvinists love this volume as it contrasts various denominational thoughts on key theological issues. Grudem, who writes plainly for all to understand, deserves credit for including the role of Koine Greek in his volume. Before I proceed, I hope that the reader understands that I am not against Grudem's work.  

I don't take issue with Systematic Theology either. In fact, I think learning it is very beneficial. But here is my qualm. 

Many Evangelicals are exposed to systematic theology but not to biblical studies. Of course, Wayne Grudem, D. A. Carson, and John Piper all studied Biblical Studies, so again, my issue is not with them. However, many of their readers have never been exposed to Biblical Studies. 

In learning Stysmtatc Theology, many Evangelicals see a contrast of various different Christian convictions across Christendom, ranging from topics of Baptism to Eschatology. In many ways, Systematic Theology is a good introduction to theology---but that is just it; it is just an introduction. 

Through reading Wayne Grudem's volume, some Evangelicals have become convinced that they are theologians. They most certainly are not. 

First of all, not only does a good theologian read from a variety of sources, including from those he may not agree with, but Sysmstic Theology is just one part of Theological Studies. There is also historical theology, philosophical theology, applied theology, practical theology, biblical theology, apologetics theology, etc. All areas of theology emphasize different aspects of Christian truth, which is why every pastor, elder, and priest should seek some understanding of all of them. 

Secondly, one of the dangers of a Systematic theology volume, regardless of the author's orthodoxy, is that covering major topics only in one chapter or so often means oversimplifications of those theological concepts. In general, entire books have been written on baptism, for instance, meaning that those reading Systematic Theology often only cover the surface. 

And then there is Biblical Studies. Those studying Biblical Studies at the master's or doctorate level are not simply interested in one perspective of theology and why others are supposedly wrong. They study Scripture not simply according to Wayne Grudem, John Macarthur, or John Calvin but seek to understand the Old and New Testaments as they would have been understood in the ancient world. Students of Biblical Studies understand that people in different eras of history didn't always mean the same belief or concept by using a particular phrase as would people centuries later. Students of Biblical Studies understand that much of Scripture cannot be understood unless the modern reader understands the ancient Jewish world. 

Through reading Josperhus, Philo, Eusebius, and other Jewish and early Christian writings, students of Biblical Studies are confronted by the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures as understood by those who lived at the time of Christ and the Apostles (and even by some who knew the apostles). 

However, many who read Wayne Grudem's work never expose themselves to Judaism. In fact, I believe that they are threatened by the idea of studying Judaism. If they do, they fear it may undermine Reformed Baptist theology. 

It makes sense. 

By downplaying Biblical Studies, Calvinist Evangelicals can ignore the study of early Christianity and Judaism---and interpret Scripture according to modern eyes rather than how it was understood in the first-century world. In short, the New Testament ends up being interrupted through post-Reformation thought rather than among those who lived at the time of its composition. 

The hermeneutics of many Reformed Baptists and, to a lesser extent, Presbyterians are dangerous. For many of them, little historical knowledge is needed to understand the New Testament, which leads them to rely on their authority in interpreting the New Testament (which the Apostle Peter condemned in 2 Peter 1: 2--21). They interpret the New Testament in the same way that modern liberals interpret the Constitution by claiming that they can understand it with no knowledge of the historical context in which it was written. 

Finally, I realize that there is value in Systematic Theology. However, I also realize that those who only study theology according to this discipline of Theological Studies will never be exposed to the beauty of Biblical Studies and how important it is for modern people to grasp an understanding of the Bible as a first-century Jew would have understood it.