005. IV. Systemization A Right of Theology.

IV. Systemization A Right of Theology.

Whatever is open to scientific treatment may rightfully, and with the warrant of reason, be so treated. There is no exception. On this common ground geology, physiology, and entomology rightfully take their place with astronomy, psychology, and anthropology in the list of the sciences. The denial of such right to theology would bar the entrance of science into the sphere which infinitely transcends every other in the richness of its material and the value of its truths.

1. Theology Open to Scientific Treatment.—In treating the scientific basis of theology we found in the facts all the certitude requisite to the construction of a science. The point here is that, beyond the requisite certitude, these facts are open to scientific construction. Out of the facts respecting God, as manifest in nature and revealed in Scripture, we may construct a doctrine of God. So out of the facts of Scripture we may construct a doctrine of the Trinity, and a doctrine of the person of Christ. Thus we may proceed, as theologians have often exemplified, with all the great truths of Christian theology respecting sin, atonement, justification, regeneration, and the rest. Then doctrine agrees with doctrine. The doctrines of sin, justification, and regeneration are in full scientific accord. The Christology of the Scriptures is necessary to their soteriology. The doctrine of soteriology through the atonement in Christ and the agency of the Holy Spirit requires the doctrine of the Trinity. Doctrines so related clearly admit of systemization.

2. Objections to the Systemization.—In view of the many divergences from a thoroughly evangelical theology, objections to systematic theology, and indeed to all doctrinal theology, should cause no surprise. Evangelical Christianity centers in the vital doctrines of Christian theology. Hence any departure from evangelical Christianity means opposition to its vital doctrines. Even some in evangelical association largely discount, or even decry, all doctrinal theology. This cannot be other than detrimental to the vital interests of Christianity.

One objection may be put in this form: Religion is a life, not a doctrine. This objection emphasizes the subjective form of religion. True religion is a right state of feeling and a practice springing out of such feeling. Religion is of the heart, not of the head. If the heart is right the religion is right, whatever be the doctrine. The meaning of the objection is that the cardinal doctrines of the Gospel may hinder a right state of religious feeling, but cannot be helpful to such a state. This view must be in favor with all forms of theological rationalism, and the more as the departure is the farther from a true evangelical ground. The truth in this case is that religion is both a life and a doctrine. Religion has its subjective form in an active state of the moral and religious sensibilities. We cannot else be religious. But doctrines have a necessary part in their conditioning relation to such a state of feeling. The truth of this statement is the truth of a vital connection of doctrines with the religious life. The contrary view is philosophically shallow and false to the facts of Christian history. A religious movement, with power to lift up souls into a true spiritual life, must have its inception and progress in a clear and earnest presentation of the vital doctrines of religion. The order of facts in every such movement in the history of Christianity has been, first a reformation of doctrine, and then through the truer doctrine a higher and better moral and spiritual life. Let the Lutheran reformation and the Wesleyan movement be instanced in illustration. Such has ever been, and must forever be, the chronological order of these facts, because it is the logical order. When souls move up from a sinful life or a dead formalism into a true spiritual life they must have the necessary reasons and motives for such action. The religious feelings must be quickened into practical activity. This is the necessity for doctrinal truth. Religious feelings without definite practical truths to which they respond can have little beneficial result in the moral and spiritual life, because the necessary reasons and motives for such a life are not present to the mind. When such reasons and motives are presented they must be embodied in the vital doctrines of the Gospel. Why should we repent of sin? Why believe in Christ for salvation? Why be born of the Spirit? Why be consecrated to God in a life of holy obedience and love? The true answers to these profound questions of the religious life must give the essential doctrines of Christian theology. If we should repent of sin, God must be our moral Ruler, and we his subjects, with responsible moral freedom. If we should believe in Christ for salvation, he must be the divine Son of God, incarnate in our nature, and his blood an atonement for our sins. If we must be born of the Spirit, we are a fallen race, with native depravity, and the Spirit a divine personal agent in the work of our salvation. If we should be consecrated to God in a life of holy obedience and love, it must be for reasons of duty and motives of spiritual well-being which are complete only in the distinctive doctrines of Christianity. These doctrines are not mere intellectual principles or dry abstractions, but living truths which embody all the practical forces of Christianity. The spiritual life takes a higher form under evangelical Christianity than is possible under any other form, whether ritualistic or rationalistic, because therein the great doctrines of the Gospel are apprehended in a living faith and act with their transcendent practical force upon all that enters into this life. It is surely true that any theory which discounts the value of doctrines in the Christian life is philosophically shallow.^{[66] [66]} Caird:Philosophy of Religion, pp. 165-175.

It is objected to the systemization of theology that it is valueless. In the logical order of the facts the formation of the doctrines severally must precede their construction in a system. Hence it is objected that the systemization can add nothing of value to these doctrines. It might here suffice to answer that if nothing is thus added neither is any thing abstracted; so that these doctrines suffer no detriment by their systemization. Hence the objection can have no special pertinence as against the systemization of theology, and really means opposition to all doctrinal theology. If, however, we have the doctrines, and must have the doctrines if we would have the life of Christianity, there can be no valid objection against their systemization. That systemization adds nothing of value is just the contrary of the truth. This question, however, has a more appropriate place.

One more objection we may notice. Doctrinal theology, and especially systematic theology, engenders bigotry. Neither by necessity nor even by any natural tendency is a system of theology which embodies the cardinal truths of Christianity the source of bigotry. When these doctrines are embraced in a living faith there must be a profound sense of their importance, and they may be, and should be, held with tenacity and maintained with earnestness. This is but a proper and dutiful contention for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3).Such contention, however, is not bigotry. It is no blind zeal for things indifferent or of little moment, but a living attachment to the vital truths of Christianity for the weightiest reasons. In the forms of rationalism from which our Lord is almost entirely dismissed little Christian truth remains which any one should hold tenaciously or for which he should contend earnestly; but there is a bigotry of negation, and the self-styled liberalist is often most illiberal. As it respects bigotry or the spirit of a true magnanimity, evangelical theology has no concession to make to a vaunting liberalism.

3. Reasons for the Systemization.—There are many reasons. A few may be briefly stated. A scientific treatment or systemization of theology is a mental requirement. As by a mental tendency we are impelled to a study of the qualities of things, so by a tendency equally strong we are led to a study of their relations. This is inevitable in all profounder study. These relations are as real and interesting for thought as the things in their several individualities. The most thorough study of the facts of geology, natural history, astronomy, psychology, or ethics can neither satisfy nor limit the researches of thought. A law of the mind compels a comparison and classification of these facts in the order of their relations, and a generalization in the laws which unite and interpret them. There is the same mental requirement in the study of theology. The results justify the systemization. The beneficial results in science and philosophy are manifest. It is only through the inception of scientific thought, in however crude a form, that things begin to pass out of their isolated individualities into classes. In the extent of this result the knowledge of one is the knowledge of many. As classifications are broadened and grounded in deeper principles knowledge advances. The more comprehensive the generalizations the fuller is the knowledge. This is the only method of advancement from the merest rudiments of knowledge up to the highest attainments of science and philosophy. Theology must not be denied this method through which other spheres of study have profited so much. It has the same right as others. It is only through a scientific treatment of doctrines that the highest attainments in theology are possible. The scientific method is thus of value in theology, just as in other spheres of knowledge. The great doctrines of religion are most intimately related and must be in scientific accord. Their scientific agreement can be found only as they are brought into systematic relations. Each doctrine is the clearer as it is seen in the light of its harmony with other doctrines. With such relations of these doctrines, it is only through their systemization that we can reach the highest knowledge of theological truth.

V. Method of Systemization.

There is nothing in theology determinative of a oneness of method in the systemization of its doctrines. Hence variations of method naturally arise from different casts of mind. Some regard one truth as the more central and determining, while in the view of others, not less scientific or exact, some other truth should hold the ruling place. Such truth, whatever it may be, determines the method of systemization.

1. Various Methods in Use.—We have no occasion for even the naming of all these methods, much less for their review. Seven are given in the following very compact statement: “(a) The analytic method of Calixtus begins with the assumed end of all things, blessedness, and then passes to the means by which it is secured, (b) The trinitarian method of Leydecker and Martensen regards Christian doctrine as a manifestation successively of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, (c) The federal method of Cocceius, Witsius, and Boston treats theology under the two covenants, (d) The anthropological method of Chalmers and Rothe. The former begins with the disease of man andpasses to the remedy; the latter divides his dogmatic into the consciousness of sin and the consciousness of redemption, (e) The Christological method of Hase, Thomasius, and Andrew Fuller treats of God, man, and sin as presuppositions of the person and work of Christ. Mention may also be made of (f) The historical method, followed by Ursinus, and adopted in Jonathan Edwards’s History of Redemption ; and (g) The allegorical method of Dannhauer, in which man is described as a wanderer, life as a road, the Holy Spirit as a light, the Church as a candlestick, God as the end, and heaven as the home.”^[67] Only representative names are given with these several methods. Other names might be added and other methods given. Some would vary the above analysis and classification. While Edwards treats redemption in the order of its biblical history, his theological method is clearly Christological. That of Dannhauer is just as clearly anthropological.

^[67]Strong:Systematic Theology, p. 27. The aim of such methods is a unity of systematic theology which is really unattainable. There is no one principle, as mostly these methods assume, in which all the doctrines unite—no one doctrine out of which all the others may be developed. This may readily be shown. In one theory blessedness is the assumed end of all things. How can we roach this view? Only through the idea of God. Hence this idea is first in order, and the deeper truth. Further, neither the doctrine of sin nor the doctrine of redemption can be deduced from the notion of blessedness as the end of existence. The anthropological method is quite as fruitless. There is no attainment of a Christian doctrine of sin without a Christian doctrine of God. Hence the latter cannot be deduced from the former. Nor can the Christian doctrine of atonement be deduced simply from the fact of sin. No deeper unity is reached through the Christological method. To the names above given with this method we may add that of Henry B. Smith as one of the latest to adopt it. With this Christological center his leading divisions are: 1. The antecedents of redemption; 2. The Redeemer and his work; 3. The consequents of redemption.^[68] Antecedents and consequents are very different terms, and mean very different relations to Christ: the former, a relation simply in the order of time, the latter a relation in the order of effects, or at least in the order of logic. With this wide difference between the two classes of truths in their relation to Christ, the unity of systematic theology thus attempted is surely not attained. In the subdivisions the fruitlessness of the method, as it respects this unity, is manifest. There is nothing peculiar to this method, but all proceeds in the usual natural or logical order of the doctrinal topics. There is a profound sense in which the doctrine of Christ is the central truth of Christian theology ; but it is still true that other doctrines, such as the doctrine of God and the doctrine of the Trinity, must precede this doctrine, because we cannot else reach a true doctrine of the person and work of Christ. Hence the system of doctrines cannot be developed from a purely Christological source. This is really admitted by Nitzsch, though his own method is substantially the Christological: “It cannot, therefore, be doubted that the idea of a Redeemer, or the dogma of Christ, is the primary, fundamental, and inclusive dogma of Christian doctrine, as such; only the series of Christian dogmas cannot be developed in one and the same direction from the doctrine of the Redeemer; for the mere progressive development of the dogma of Christ looks back, in all its elements, upon other truths which, indeed, though not independent of Christ, of his being and state, still, at the same time, are acknowledged as suppositions of his personal being and work by means of a regressive development.”^[69] We have thus glanced at some of these methods to show their insufficiency for the deeper unity of systematic theology at which they aim. What is thus true of some is true of all.

^[68]Introduction to Christian Theology, p. 225.

^[69]System of Christian Doctrine, p. 124.

2. True Method in the Logical Order.—The method of treatment should conform to the nature of the subject. The deductive method is applicable to mathematics, but not to chemistry or psychology. Nor is it applicable to Christian theology, and for the reason already pointed out—that there is no one principle or doctrine from which the others may be deduced. In theology the work of systemization is constructive, and must proceed in a synthetic mode. In a true systemization each doctrine must be scientifically constructed, and the several doctrines must be brought into complete scientific accordance. No higher unity of systematic theology is attainable. The synthetic method will fully answer for this attainment. By the logical order of doctrines we here mean the order in which they arise for thought, and for the most intelligible treatment. In this view the logical order is little different from the natural order. Each truth, except the first, must take its place in such relation to preceding truths as shall set it in the clearest light. God is the ground-truth in religion, and therefore the first in order. Every other truth, if it would be the more clearly seen, must be viewed in the light of this first truth. For a like reason anthropology must precede Christology, and Christology must precede soteriology. This is what we here mean by the logical order.

3. Subjects as Given in the Logical Order.—Only a very summary statement is here required.

Theism: The existence of a personal God, Creator, Preserver, and Euler of all things.

Theology: The attributes of God; the Trinity; creation and providence—in the fuller light of revelation.

Anthropology: The origin of man; his primitive state and apostasy; the consequent state of the race.

Christology: The incarnation of the Son; the person of the Christ.

Soteriology: The atonement in Christ; the salvation in Christ.

Ecclesiology: The Church; the ministry; the sacraments; means of grace.

Eschatology: The intermediate state; the second advent; the resurrection; the judgment; the final destinies.

Apologetics is not of the nature of a Christian doctrine, and may properly be omitted from the system, as it often is. Any sufficient reason for its inclusion might properly require a treatment of all questions of canonicity, textual integrity, higher criticism, genuineness, and authenticity which in anywise concern the truth of a divine original of the Scriptures. Apologetics would thus become a disproportionate magnitude in a system of doctrines.

Neither is ethics, especially theoretical or philosophical ethics, of the nature of a Christian doctrine. It is true that the grounds and motives of Christian duty lie in Christian doctrine. The requirements of such duty should not be omitted, nor can they, in any proper treatment of soteriology. But it is not a requirement of systematic theology that ethics should form a distinct part.^[70]

^[70] On the method of systematic theology—Nitzsch:System of Christian Doctrine, Introduction, iv; Crooks and Hurst:Theological Encyclopedia and Methodology, pp. 420-424; Shedd:Dogmatic Theology, vol. i, chap, i; Dorner:System of Christian Doctrine, vol. i, pp. 168-184; Van Oosterzee:Christian Dogmatics, Introduction; Rabiger:Theological Encyclopedia, vol. ii, Third Division.