Quick Thoughts on the Inter-relationship of Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology

Someone asked a question about thoughts of Biblical Theology versus Systematic Theology. I don’t see the two should be against one another but rather both are important, though sometimes some see one is more important than the other in such a way that one is neglected or looked down upon.

Before going further, what is systematic theology and Biblical Theology?

Systematic Theology (I shall use the acronym ST) as defined by popular Systematic Theologian Wayne Grudem is Theology that “focuses on the collection and summary of all biblical passages on a subject, and attempts to summarize the teachings of Scripture in brief, understandable, and carefully formulated statements” (Source).

Biblical Theology (I shall use the acronym BT) as defined by Biblical Theologian Geerhardus Vos “is that branch of Exegetical Theology which deals with the process of the self-revelation of God deposited in the Bible” (Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 13).

Biblical Theology is not a term to say right theology that is from the Bible (hopefully one’s Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology is based upon truths from the Bible). Rather Biblical is focus on the process and progress of how God revealed Himself and other truths while Systematic Theology often focus on the finished and completed revelation of God in the Bible and tries to organize these truths logically.

Here’s my thought:

Good question. You captured how sadly many in academia can pit BT against ST. I think both can be in harmony. Some thoughts:

1. When I teach ST over the years I structure my teaching on doctrines with BT framework of a doctrine being developed in more details from Genesis to Revelation (or OT to NT). I do this as it’s better model than “proof texting” verses in isolation to prove a doctrine. From the world of BT we know Scripture has progressive revelation so I employ what is called antecedent theology of how any given passage is building up from previous passages in redemptive history and plus prior antecedent theology Leans one to interpret doctrine biblically with what came prior. I think especially teaching overseas many appreciate seeing how the Bible organically teach doctrines that we believe is biblical in the field of ST to the degree that a systematican employs BT. For example see my God’s attribute: The Omnipotence of God Part 1 and God’s attribute: The Omnipotence of God Part 2.

2. Yet ST isn’t reduced to BT. After showing a doctrine is taught and unfolded from the Old Testament to the New Testament questions arises, some of which concerning potential problems. This is where ST is the space to discuss about the Biblical data in a way that deals with the questions of how a doctrine works. As I have linked above how the doctrine of God’s omnipotence is taught in both the Old and the New Testament, see my God’s attribute: The Omnipotence of God Part 3 of how I tackle questions about what God cannot do, potential objections to the doctrine of God’s omnipotence and also applications.

3. As we retrieve doctrines from the Word the question will arise what is the relationship of one doctrine with other doctrines. I’m going to use an analogy that those from BT would appreciate (since I know BT guys that look down on ST guys): just as BT talk about inter-textuality of a passage in relations to a passage (NT use of the OT, OT use of the OT) so also we can discuss the inter-relationship of doctrines. Fitting doctrines together and seeing how the inter-relationship of doctrines to support, presupposes, fortify or clarify and nuanced other doctrines is important and if ST is involved with this then there is a role of ST. As an example there is the doctrine of Perichoresis. See my outline God’s attribute: Perichoresis in which I look not only at the biblical data to establish this doctrine but also other doctrines help make the case for Perichoresis.

4. Both my BT and ST are also tools not only for retrieving biblical doctrines and applications but also shapes and informs my apologetics methodology. Sometimes unbelievers attack with misinterpretation of Scripture and sound BT helps correct misinterpretation. But most attacks isn’t exegetical in nature but with wrong “theologizing” and here ST with awareness and critique of how doctrines relate to other doctrines will pay great dividends in one’s apologetics. Presuppositional Apologetics stresses rightly that one’s doctrine of God will shape what kind of apologetics’ methodology that one employ in defense of the true God and here Systematic Theology impact also one’s theological method. See for example my “VAN TILLIAN TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY: IT’S ORTHODOX STATUS AND APPLICATION TO THE ONE AND THE MANY.”

4. Also pitting BT against ST seems rather unfortunate if we realize how many specialize fields are mutually reinforcing outside of BT and ST. Here I think Frame’s perspectivalism left a big impression on me. It isn’t only BT and ST that is important but one can have better BT and ST with contributions from other fields and specialization. BT will benefit from the NT/OT studies department, and Canonical Approach, etc, while ST can benefit from those doing Analytic Theology, Historical Theology, etc. I am noting how interrelated many disciplines are and how we need each other so that when we look at BT vs ST it seems like a false dichotomy that it is.