The Hebrew-English Old Testament: BHS/ESV. Stuttgart, Germany/Wheaton, IL: German Bible Society/Crossway Books, 2012. pp. 3148.

The Greek-English New Testament: N-A28/ESV. Stuttgart, Germany/Wheaton, IL: German Bible Society/Crossway Books, 2012. pp. 1674.

The Systematic Theology Study Bible. ESV. Christopher W. Morgan, Stephan J. Wellum, and Robert A. Peterson, Eds. Graham A. Cole, contributing ed., Wheaton, IL. Crossway Books, 2017. pp. 1883.

While I am generally critical of the glut of various kinds of Bibles which one can find on the shelf at your local bookstore, I must confess that the Bibles I am considering in this brief notice are a happy exception. All three Bibles enhance the regular study of the Scriptures and therefore contribute to our growth in grace and increase in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. The Hebrew-English OT and the Greek-English NT provide a large measure of convenience. While it is great to have these texts in electronic format, I am old enough to still appreciate and benefit from the tactile reality of the printed volume. These beautifully bound volumes, which resemble but are not identical with their Hebrew and Greek text counterparts, set the Hebrew and Greek texts side by side (on separate pages) with their English Standard Version translations. This is most beneficial for those who have either not kept up with their facility in the original languages or who have grown a little rusty in their use of Hebrew and Greek. They are useful, among other things, in helping to jumpstart a recovery of the use of the ancient text. These volumes also may prove useful in a group Bible study setting in which you can show folk the original text behind the English translation in an easy to use format. Finally, these two volumes may serve to get a young man who is considering whether God is calling him into the ministry and therefore going to seminary in getting used to looking at the original languages. These are all commendable uses.

The Systematic Theology Study Bible demonstrates that Systematic Theology (ST) is or ought to be directly tied to the text of Scripture. While any study Bible worth its salt will be in fact a ST study Bible of sorts, this one has the merit of being up front about its goal of grounding the traditional loci of ST (God, man, sin, revelation, etc) in the biblical text. The multitude of contributors represent a broadly Reformed perspective (with one recognizable exception) as that is reflected in such parachurch organizations as the Gospel Coalition. There are useful book introductions and the topical notes are placed in locations where the topic arises from the text. I note that the reader can read for pages without the interruption of study notes so these are not overwhelming. The Bible contains the standard ESV cross references and concludes with ST topical appendices and indices.

These volumes are tremendously useful and the pastor can use all three in the pulpit and laypeople could benefit from using the Systematic Theology Study Bible in the pew during public worship and in weekday personal and family worship as well. The use of these Bibles would go far in fulfilling the Westminster divines reminder that the Scriptures are known through the diligent and due use of all outward and ordinary means of grace (WCF 1.7).

Who says Van Til is impractical? I would argue that Van Til in all his writing always has an eye towards the church. All of his theologizing, all of his thoughts about apologetics, has a view toward the church and her ministry. A case in point is found in An Introduction to Systematic Theology:

It is sometimes contended that ministers need not be trained in systematic theology if only they know their Bibles. But “Bible-trained” instead of systematically trained preachers frequently preach error. … There are many “orthodox” preachers today whose study of Scripture has been so limited to what it says about soteriology that they could not protect the fold of God against heresies on the person of Christ. … If we carry this idea one step further, we note that a study of systematic theology will help men to preach theologically. It will help to make men proclaim the whole counsel of God. Many ministers never touch the greater part of the wealth of the revelation of God to man contained in Scripture. But systematics helps ministers to preach the whole counsel of God, and thus to make God central in their work. (pp. 22-23)

At first blush it may sound like that Van Til is prioritizing systematic theology over the Bible. There is nothing further from the truth. What Van Til is eschewing is the practice of myopic and atomistic handling of Scripture in the ministry. We might say that Van Til is saying that systematic theology properly done protects against reductionism. That is certainly what he has in view when he talks about orthodox preachers who limit their study of Scripture to soteriology.

Such a practice can be found even today in the Reformed church. Sometimes everything gets boiled down to soteriology, or one aspect of soteriology like justification. Sometimes it all gets boiled down to counseling, or evangelism, or law, or what have you. Every sermon seems to be harping on one subject. Texts are picked out which teach only that subject matter. Or, worse still, texts are made to address those subjects no matter what they are really saying.

Being trained as systematic theologians helps us to maintain balance in the ministry. With it we can be free to preach the whole counsel of God. We can maintain a balance between soteriology, the doctrine of God, the person and work of Christ, etc.

Anyone who is a frequenter to this website knows how much of a premium we place on Biblical Theology. But Vos himself was quite clear how BT and ST should relate, even as they should be distinguished. The Reformed minister would do well to heed the concerns of both Vos and Van Til. If we do we will be better equipped to serve the health and well-being of the church.

In closing, I leave the reader with this quote from Van Til later in the same volume:

It is not sufficient, then, to instruct the church in certain portions of Scripture, or to make them memorize a great deal of Scripture. In addition to this, they must possess a doctrine of Scripture as a whole. It is only if men see clearly that Scripture is what the orthodox doctrine says it in that they will, by the grace of God, be safeguarded against every wind of doctrine that so easily besets us.

Unfortunately many Fundamentalist ministers are, to a large extent, themselves to blame for this deflection of the membership of the churches into all manner of false doctrines. With all the good intentions that they have, they all too commonly teach Scripture in a piecemeal fashion. And, in particular, many of them occupy themselves to such an extent with the more obscure passages of Scripture that they cultivate in their hearers a wrong sense of proportion. It is not uncommon to find an ardent and well-meaning youth, of less than twenty, interested greatly in the details of the “signs of the times,” while he has no reasonable knowledge of the main doctrines of Scripture, to say nothing of the catechisms of the church, in which the system of doctrine of the Scripture is set forth. (p. 240)

Geerhardus Vos wisely observed that “on the line of historical progress there is at several points already a beginning of correlation among elements of truth in which the beginnings of the systematizing process can be discerned.”[i] In other words, within the text of Scripture itself there appears a logical ordering of the facts of revelation. The impulse that leads to dogmatic or systematic theology is not exclusively post-canonical, but is found already with the inspired authors of Scripture themselves.

One text where the instinct for logical systematization reveals itself is 2 Thessalonians 2:13–14. Indeed, James Denney spoke of these verses as “a system of theology in miniature.”[ii] This is something of an overstatement, to be sure, for Paul’s interest here is concerned with the way in which salvation is applied. Yet the remark usefully highlights the unmistakeable nature of Paul’s impulse towards dogmatic theology. These statements naturally draw strong interest for the content of what Paul affirms here. My purpose here is more narrowly formal, however, limited to exploring the systematizing instinct in this passage, quoted from the NKJV:

But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thess. 2:13-14).

Paul has in mind the source, process, and culmination of salvation. Salvation takes its rise from God’s choice, is carried on through sanctification and belief (to which the Thessalonians were introduced by the gospel call), and reaches its goal in glory. It is quite clear, then, that the materials of the doctrine of salvation are being coherently correlated. There is thus an indication on the surface of this text of what could be called Paul’s “proto-dogmatics.”

Though it is apparent on the surface, it is far from superficial. Here Paul’s thought reflects a Trinitarian organizing principle. He speaks of God, the Spirit, and the Lord Jesus Christ, each of whom are particularly associated with an aspect of the Thessalonians’ salvation. Thus it is God (meaning especially the Father, as is usual in Paul) who has chosen them for salvation; that salvation is enjoyed through sanctification by the Spirit; and it culminates in obtaining the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This organizing principle is quite significant, for it shows that different loci in Paul’s dogmatics, to speak anachronistically, are inter-connected. Paul’s theology proper is basic for his conception of soteriology. It is quite likely the case that it was through God’s saving acts that Paul came to understand the nature of God,[iii] but that understanding of God then structured the way he spoke of salvation. Paul’s soteriology (and indeed, all of his doctrine) is profoundly theocentric and Trinitarian.

Yet this is no way created a rigid pattern capable of no versatility. On the contrary, one of the striking things about this short passage is precisely the place accorded to Christ. His saving work is not explicitly mentioned, but presupposed. Here Paul does not speak of Christ as the believer’s righteousness, or of Christ delivering us from wrath, or as dying for our sins, as he does in other texts. In this passage, Christ is rather held out as the goal which salvation ultimately reaches. The Thessalonians were chosen by the Father, sanctified by the Spirit, and called by the Gospel for the great end of obtaining the glory of Jesus Christ. The expression of Paul’s dogmatic impulse, then, reveals flexibility as well as form.

Notice, moreover, the perspective from which soteriology is viewed. Paul can explain the aspects of salvation from the standpoint of what the Thessalonians are experiencing. God’s choice of them for salvation has come to expression in the Spirit’s work and their belief of the truth. Those realities entered their lives through the calling received by means of the gospel (which in practical terms refers to the proclamation of the gospel message). Whereas in Romans 8:29–30 Paul would lay down the golden chain of an ordo salutis proceeding in a logical order of means and ends, here his materials are treated somewhat differently. Again, the dogmatic impulse is not a straitjacket, but allows appropriate variety.

Finally, it should be noticed that Paul’s dogmatic impulse does not reflect a tendency to improper abstraction or merely theoretical concerns. Paul begins his miniature system of applied soteriology expressing his obligation to give thanks to the Lord. The materials of dogmatic theology led him to praise. There is no sense here that one could divorce ideas about God and his work from worship of him. Furthermore, the soteriology is followed up with a strikingly appropriate exhortation in v.15: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” The doctrine of salvation undergirds and leads to the call for steadfastness. From this, as well as from the contextual contrast between Thessalonian believers and followers of the “lawless one” (v.8), it is clear that Paul expected doctrine to provide comfort also to believers. To be taught and developed properly, the enterprise of systematic theology should be undertaken for the strengthening of believers and out of love to the church.

It is true that Scripture itself does not offer us a systematic theology. But in 2 Thessalonians 2:13–14 and similar passages one sees the inevitable necessity of a coherent dogmatics, as well as many desiderata for the execution of the dogmatic task. Scripture does not give us a systematic theology, per se: but Scripture drives us to logically systematize the materials it gives, in a worshipful spirit, out of love, unto edification, and carrying out in practice the implications of the truths we coherently confess.

For Further Reading

Those interested in more about the need and place for systematic theology can consult, in addition to the various introductory sections to systematic or dogmatic theologies, two articles by B.B. Warfield, both found in Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol 2 (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1973):

• “The Right of Systematic Theology” (pp. 219–279)
• “The Indispensableness of Systematic Theology to the Preacher” (280–288)

[i] Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1948), 16.

[ii] James Denney, The Epistles to the Thessalonians (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1892), 342.

[iii] Cf. the general argument to this effect by B.B. Warfield, “The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity” in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. 2: Biblical Doctrines (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 133–172, esp. 143–147.

But, while we believe in the centrality and primacy of Christ in all the church’s mission and theology, there is a sense (an all-important sense) in which we do not mean to speak of the centrality of Christ. Van Til points this up in his An Introduction to Systematic Theology:

Again, there is much in the Scriptures about Christ. After the entrance of sin into the world, Christ is the only way through whom God can be known. He is not only the one through whom we can more fully than otherwise know the Father; it is through him alone that we can come to the Father. Furthermore, Christ is God, so that when we know him we know God. In spite of all this it should always be remembered that Christ’s work is a means to an end. Even if we think of the fact that Christ is the second person of the Trinity, we ought still to remember that it is the full Godhead with whom we ultimately have to do and about whom, in the last analysis, we wish to know. Hence, theology is primarily God centered rather than Christ centered. (p. 16)

I think this is absolutely correct, and is a word of exhortation that theologians—especially today—need to heed. Especially in light of some contemporary attempts to find a new prolegomena and new starting point for doing systematic theology. Usually, these theologies purport to begin with the works of God—whether that be election, creation, the incarnation, or the Gospel, or even eschatology. But theology in general, and systematic theology in particular, must not begin with the works of God.

The intentions of those who want to begin somewhere upon the field of history and the works of God therein are admirable and understandable. Regular listeners of Christ the Center have heard us say time and again how important eschatology is, even invoking Vos’ great maxim: eschatology precedes soteriology. Listeners have heard us harp on the idea that pastoral and preaching imperatives must always be grounded in the indicative of the Gospel. So, why is theology not to be Christ-centered, or Gospel-centered, or grounded in eschatology?

Here Van Til’s answer is as helpful as it is simple: “Christ’s work is a means to an end.” We cannot confuse the absolute, necessary triune being of God with redemptive history. We need to understand both God’s necessary nature AND his works in redemptive history. But the two are not equally primal or important.

That is because God existed—as triune—before he elected, created, or was incarnate. God is necessary, we are not. With all reverence and fear we must even say that not even Jesus Christ—understood as the God-man—is necessary. The God-man is not necessary because creation and sin and redemption were not necessary. The God-man presupposes all those things. Likewise, God did not have to decree to do anything outside of himself (ad extra), he was perfectly content in himself (ad intra). Why was he content? He was content because, without even a thought about us, he is and enjoyed perfect love in the perichoretic relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If he never chose to elect or create or become incarnate he would have been perfectly content in and with himself. Everything he does ad extra is contingent and unnecessary. That means every work of God is always and only to the greater end of his own self-glorification. It is all to serve the triune God.

Therefore, we begin with God himself. He, as triune, is the ground of everything. He is the ground of election, creation, the incarnation, the Gospel, and eschatology. Without the self-contained ontological Trinity there can be no intelligible understanding of anything: not election, not creation, not the Gospel, not eschatology, nothing! So once again from An Introduction to Systematic Theology:

God, as self-sufficient, as the One in whom the One and the Many are equally ultimate, is the One in whom the persons of the Trinity are interchangeably exhaustive, is the presupposition for the intelligent use of words with respect to anything in this universe, whether it be the trees of the garden or the angels in heaven. (p. 180)

Since the triune God is the ground of all things, systematic theology (especially, but not just systematic theology) must begin here, and nowhere else. All true theology, then, has no one and no thing other than God himself at its center.

Finally, why this contemporary desire to begin with God’s acts? It is almost assumed today that to speak about the Trinity is to do speculative theology. It is too often presupposed (and orthodox theologians have allowed the presupposition to go unchallenged!) that talk about the existence, being, and nature of God is philosophical and not properly theological. It is true that in the history of theology the doctrine of God has been treated that way (i.e., as an object of philosophical/speculative study). But that method must be challenged. And Van Til does that for us here. No, beginning with the Trinity is not—and must not be—speculative. Why? Because the triune God of Scripture has directly revealed to us something of his eternal and everlasting nature. While he is eternal and we are not, and therefore we can never comprehend him, we can nevertheless know him truly (albeit in a limited and imperfect way). And we can know him truly, though not comprehensively, as the self-contained ontological Trinity. It is here—and nowhere else—where Van Til will begin his theology and his apologetic approach.

Panel

• Dr. William Dennison
• Jeff Waddington
• Jim Cassidy
• Camden Bucey

Bibliography

Participants: Bill Dennison, Camden Bucey, Jeff Waddington, Jim Cassidy