Author: Jefferson Vann

The preceding chapter demonstrates that there is more than one way to do theology. Systematic theology is organized by categories reflecting the questions people ask about God. But chapter two was organized by chronology, tracing God’s promise of eternal life by resurrection through twelve eras of biblical history, from Genesis to Revelation. The chapter serves as a crude example of biblical theology, which can be defined as…

“a discipline within Christian theology which studies the Bible from the perspective of understanding the progressive history of God revealing God’s self to humanity following the Fall and throughout the Old Testament and New Testament. It particularly focuses on the epochs of the Old Testament in order to understand how each part of it ultimately points forward to fulfillment in the life mission of Jesus Christ.”¹

Both biblical theology and systematics are helpful ways of getting the big picture, helping people see the relationships between all the various things told and taught in scripture.

Sometimes one approach works better than others, but what matters most is the message itself, not how we package it. That is the attitude Paul had when he commented on some preachers who were preaching just to make things more difficult for him. Regardless of their reasons, he said, “the fact remains that the message about Christ is being preached, so I rejoice” (Philippians 1:18 NLT). Perhaps instead of complaining about all the different preachers, doctrines, churches, and denominations that exist, we should be thankful that God has not limited himself to just one way of getting the gospel message out to a dying world.

Unfortunately, however, some approaches to doing theology begin with presuppositions that determine beforehand what the message will ultimately be. The danger in these ways of theologizing is that they tend to bring their ideas to scripture, rather than deriving their ideas from it. Specifically, these approaches redefine scripture so that it agrees with 1) their own theological systems, 2) their own experience or preference, 3) their own problems.

Theological Systems

There are a few particular doctrinal issues that seem to polarize Christians. The question of God’s sovereignty and human freedom in election, predestination and ultimate salvation is one such issue. Usually one is inclined to answer that issue from a Calvinist perspective, emphasizing God’s sovereignty, or an Arminian perspective, emphasizing human freedom. Some seem to have found mediating positions between these two apparently opposed concepts. Perhaps they have, but most of us cannot help but take one side and defend it. Yet, even as we do that, we realize that there are many good scriptural proof-texts that speak against the position we choose to defend. That fact should warn us against using our own chosen theological system as the means of measuring the validity of a statement in scripture.

Another problem about theological systems is that they tend to define biblical terms in such a way that only those who have knowledge of the system understand how the terms are being used. For example, the terms rapture, tribulation, and millennium are all legitimate theological terms deriving from biblical texts and concepts. Yet some theologians are hesitant to use the term rapture because it has become so connected with the adjective secret due to the influence of dispensational futurist systems that to use the term would seem to imply acceptance of that position. Likewise, the term tribulation is so connected to the concept of a seven year period where the Church is supposedly absent from the world that some of us are hesitant to use the term, lest we be associated with that presupposition. The term millennium is a legitimate theological term reflecting the 1000 year period mentioned in Revelation 20. This term as well has become so connected with a view concerning Israel that using it takes a great deal of explanation if one does not hold the view that Christ will reign as king of ethnic Israel during this time. One of the dangers of theological systems is that they tend to narrowly define these biblical terms, and anyone using the terms feels obligated either to agree with the system as a whole, or oppose it. That is unfortunate since systems tend to be mostly correct, but each of them contains a blind spot or two.

Personal Experience or Preference

What people believe tends to limit and shape their experiences and choices, but their experiences and choices also have a profound effect upon their beliefs. For example, some believers are happy in churches that are more formal, liturgical – what has been called high church. People with these experiences and preferences tend to adapt theological beliefs that correspond with those preferences. For example, they will tend to hold to a stark contrast between the clergy and the laity. Their views concerning appropriate worship will lean toward the practiced rather than the spontaneous variety. Others are more comfortable in the low church structure, which is less formal, and provides more room for spontaneity. These tend to adapt theological beliefs that correspond with those preferences as well. This is a rather mild example of how one’s experiences and preferences affect his theology.

A more extreme example can be found in the teachings of gay theology. Those inclined toward homosexual behavior have been with us for ages, within and outside the church. But in the past few decades homosexuals have demanded recognition as equals, both in the political realm, and in the church. Traditionally, the church has regarded homosexual behavior as willful sin, and excluded homosexuals from fellowship on that basis. Yet proponents of gay theology defend homosexual acts as proper, and gay marriage as an alternative lifestyle that God recognizes and blesses.² These new theological positions are forcing the church to grapple with the issue of whether homosexuality is a sin that warrants exclusion. Some churches seem to be taking their cue from the politicians, and promoting tolerance as the supreme virtue. Others are taking a hard-line approach, and preaching against homosexuality. Still others are desperately searching for balance. Unfortunately, with issues like gay theology, balance is an illusion.

Personal Problems

As stated above, experiences have a profound effect upon a person’s beliefs. This is especially so if the experiences have been negative. This accounts for the fact that some do theology from the standpoint of the oppressed, and focus on their oppressors as the target of their theologizing. Examples of this kind of theologizing include Black Liberation Theology, the various kinds of leftist liberation theologies, and radical feminist theologies. These various movements share a number of traits in common:

1. They identify with a marginalized group within society. For example, Anthony B. Pinn formulated his biblical research on suffering specifically because of the suffering felt in the African-American community. He did this because he “was and continue to be anxious to speak a liberating word to black sufferers.”³ To be fair, the process of contextualization requires a certain amount of identification with those to whom we proclaim the biblical message, but this kind of identification tends to present the marginalized as the focus of the message itself.

2. They focus on the sins and shortcomings of another group, which they target as the oppressors. They do not tend to focus on the sins and failings of the marginalized group. Thus Tatman complains that “if I tried to join a conversation at the Vatican about mass, my words would go unheard … because I am a feminist lesbian.”⁴ It is the theological and social conservatives that take on the role of tyrannical oppressors, denying Tatman the right to engage in theological discussion because of her marginalized status as a feminist lesbian.

3. If they appeal to scripture, it is usually apart from its original context, and select only those passages which foster their point of view. Thus the New Testament is a story of political struggle against unjust economic oppressors. This can be seen is Nadeau’s description of The Filipino liberation theology movement as tracing “their history back to the earliest resistance movements against the Spanish and late American colonization of the Philippines, and to the time of Jesus Christ and the early church that stood defiantly against social injustices.”⁵ Thus any social injustice revealed in the New Testament becomes an argument for a post-capitalist restructuring.

4. They adopt and redefine traditional theological terms like atonement, redemption, sin, and reconciliation to serve a socio-political purpose, rather than a traditionally theological one. Thus Hanway writes his A Theology of Gay and lesbian Inclusion to “equip you, Christian warrior of the Gospel of peace, to stand against those who use the Bible to resist change – even that change of which our Lord would approve.”⁶ But when we evangelical Christians reject homosexuality we are not using the Bible to resist change, we are defending the Bible’s right to define human social limits because God knows what is right and wrong. The true Gospel of peace was written to homosexuals as well as thieves and liars – and it speaks of a peace with God that is obtained only through repentance of sin, not acceptance of it.

Evangelical Christians recognize the importance of turning from sin and responding to God’s free grace. That is why we cannot afford to be sidetracked on issues that draw people’s attention away from their personal relationship with God, which begins with conversion. The important thing in our theologizing is not that it stays contemporary, but that it stays focused on God and his unchanging message.

Sitting on death row in a Roman jail, Paul penned one last letter to his spiritual son and fellow missionary, Timothy. He told him about what God purposed before the ages began and revealed through Jesus Christ, who brought life and immortality¹ to light through the gospel message that had been Paul’s focus since the Damascus road (2 Timothy 1:9-11). For Paul, this message was worth living for, and worth dying for. It was the promise of a resurrection to a permanent life. It was hope beyond the grave. The real reason for this temporary life is the chance it gives us to attain to that permanent one.

Reading the Bible with this in mind helps us understand its purpose as well. If you just read the Bible as a group of stories and sayings in which people and nations happen to bump up against God, you are missing this central point – the one Jesus brought to light. It is the message within the message, and it can be summarized thus: God has zeroed in on a few temporary mortal beings all over this planet (and throughout time) and has promised by his grace to change them into immortal beings.²

If you have ever been reading a newspaper or magazine and run across the name of someone you know, you probably got more interested in the article rather quickly. That explains why Christians can read the Bible many times during their lifetimes, and still be enthralled by it. It is not just a bunch of old stories and laws. It is the story of how our God reached down into the fabric of time and space and granted us a precious inheritance – the gift of eternal life.

I. From A Great Beginning to A Disastrous End (Genesis 1-7) 4175-2519 B.C..³

God starts out his story with two perfect places: a heaven filled with glorious spirit beings, and an earth filled with good creatures of all kinds, under the dominion of two human beings, who rule the planet as God’s representatives. Soon disaster strikes. Some of those glorious spirit beings rebel against God, siding with Satan, and refusing to honor God as their creator. Satan takes an unauthorized trip to earth to spread his rebellion there, convincing Adam and Eve to trust their own judgment rather than God’s commandment. God had warned his creatures not to sin, because it would change their nature (making them mortal), and destiny (causing them to eventually die).⁴ The next few centuries tell the consequences of sin in the world, eventually making it a world so corrupt and violent that God had to destroy it with a flood. The symbol of the believer’s inheritance that stands out in this period is the tree of life. Although humanity lost access to it through sin, Christ gained it back for us on another tree – the cross of calvary.

II. From A Family Saved to A Civilization Cursed (Genesis 8-11). 2519-2086 B.C.

One symbol of eternal life in this era is the Ark, through which God chooses by his grace to preserve the lives of the animals and Noah’s family. He could have destroyed everyone and recreated, but he wants to redeem, not destroy. When the following civilization at Babel seeks to build a monument to its own power in unity, God scatters them by confusing their language. This resulted in the linguistic and ethnic nations that cover our globe today. God wanted this scattering to occur because the civilization he plans to resurrect will be multinational and multicultural.

III. From God’s Man to God’s Plan (Genesis 12-46) 2086-1871 B.C.

In the previous era, God had cursed all humanity in order to spread his promise to all the earth. In this era God blesses and calls one man, to be the channel through which that promise would come. The lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph reveal that God wants to protect them and provide for them because from their lineage an even greater man of promise would come. One symbol of eternal life in this era is the ordeal of Abraham on Mount Moriah. Here God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, but out of compassion provides a substitute instead.

IV. From a Suffering Nation to a Suffering Deliverer (Genesis 47- Exodus 14) 1871-1441 B.C.

The concept of the substitute sines through in this era as well, not only in the passover lamb, whose blood had to be prominently placed outside the homes of the Israelites⁵, but also in Moses himself. He had to choose to suffer as an Israelite rather than deny his people and destiny. This prince of Egypt became a suffering servant, and a type of the Messiah as a Suffering Servant who is to come. And, like that Messiah to come, much of Moses’ suffering was at the hands of the Israelites themselves.

V. From Egypt to Canaan (Exodus 15- Joshua 3) 1441 – 1401 B.C.

This era is marked by two similar miracles – the crossing of the Red Sea as the Israelites leave Egypt, and the crossing of the Jordon River into Canaan 40 years later.

Perhaps one of the clearest “hints” God gives during this era of his future plans of an inheritance of eternal life is the water he supplied for the nation from a rock. Moses was told to do this once, and God provided the water that his people needed to live. But later, when God told Moses to speak to a rock, he struck it again. God was not pleased, and Moses lost the chance to enter into Canaan himself. By striking the rock twice, Moses disrupted the hidden message that God had provided. That rock was a symbol of Christ, who would be struck (crucified) to provide life for his people.

Most of the time in between the two crossings was spent by the Israelites wandering in the wilderness, trying to survive their freedom. God gave them all they could ask for: his presence, his provision, his priests to intercede for them, and his prophet to tell them what he wanted. But for most of them, God’s grace was not enough. The road to Canaan was littered with the bleached bones of those who had been delivered without being changed. But the next generation – the one that grew up in this environment – was prepared for the next stage of God’s plan for his people: the conquest.

VI. From Conquest to Kingdom (Joshua 4 – 2 Chronicles 10, Job, Psalms – Song of Solomon) 1401 – 926 B.C.

The next 475 years see the emergence and development of Israel as a nation – even as a superpower. In spite of the fact that God is clearly for his nation, they constantly fail him. They struggle internally, failing to keep their covenant with God that had been mediated by Moses, as is evidenced by internal violence, corruption, and idolatry. They also struggle against the surrounding nations, who seek to oppress and control them. One symbol of the believer’s inheritance of eternal life which appears in this era is David himself. David is not the sinless Messiah promised, but he is a symbol pointing to his greater son, who will be. David expressed belief in his own resurrection and predicted the resurrection of the Messiah when he said “because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay” (Psalm 16:10, Acts 2:29-32). One of the catalysts that moved this nation into political and social greatness is their belief in a God who would not allow their death to be permanent. He would remember, and resurrect.

VII.From Division to Disaster (1 Kings 12-22; 2 Kings 1-17; 2 Chronicles 11-32; Obadiah; Jonah; Amos; Hosea; Joel; Isaiah; Micah) 926-722 B.C.

God could no longer tolerate the idolatry and violence in Israel, so he caused the nation to divide into two: Israel in the north, and Judah in the south. He appealed to both nations through prophets, but neither nation would listen. God eventually sent the Assyrians to conquer the northern kingdom (Israel), but continued to protect Judah, appealing to them to repent, or suffer the same fate as their brothers. This is a very important era, because it reveals that God has plans that go beyond the establishment of a single nation among mortals. He wants to bring eternal life, through a resurrection, to all nations. We see this in the messages of warning, and the appeals for repentance to Israel, Judah, Assyria, Edom, Babylon, etc. that come from God’s prophets. The prophet Jonah, whom God sent to the Ninevites, symbolizes God’s resurrection to come when he is swallowed by a whale, the regurgitated three days later (1:17; 2:10). The prophet Joel predicted a day when Jews will lead people to call on the name of the LORD and be saved (2:29-32). This was fulfilled 8 ½ centuries later, at Pentecost (Acts 2:16-21).

VIII. From Disaster to Disintegration (2 Kings 18-25; 2 Chronicles 32-36; Isaiah (cont.); Zephaniah; Nahum; Habakkuk; Jeremiah) 722-586 B.C.

As previously mentioned, God continued to protect Judah, appealing to them to repent, or suffer the same fate as their brothers. This era is a monument to God’s patience, because most of the time Judah proved no more faithful than Israel had. Many in Judah were convinced that – in spite of what happened to their brothers up north – God would never allow them to be overrun, taken captive, or driven into exile by their enemies. The prophets, however, took the coming disintegration of Judah as a given, and began to predict not only the fall of Jerusalem, but a time of restoration and return to the land afterward (Zephaniah 3:11-20). By emphasizing the fall of Judah, and then its restoration, the prophets were hinting at God’s plan for a resurrection unto eternal life for believers. The period ends with Babylonian armies swarming in from the north, destroying Jerusalem, and taking the survivors captive.

IX. From Death to Resurrection (Jeremiah (cont.); Lamentations; Daniel; Ezekiel) 586–538 B.C.

The prophets during the Babylonian captivity witnessed the death of their nation at the hands of the Babylonian empire, and had to admit that it was God’s will. Yet they also believed that that was not the end of the story. The miracles in the lives of Daniel and the other Jews in captivity, and the fulfilled predictions showed that God was still in control, not only of his people, but also of the other nations and their destiny. The prophets appealed to God to remember his people, and to bring them back to the land that he had promised eternally to their ancestor Abraham. God intended to do just that – and even more. The prophets would foretell the restoration in language that clearly portrayed the belief in a physical resurrection (Jeremiah 50:17-20; Daniel 12:1-3; Ezekiel 37:1-14).

X. From Cyrus to Christ (Ezra – Esther; Haggai – Malachi) 538- 4 B.C.

A decree by the Persian king Cyrus allowed the Jews scattered throughout his empire to return to their homeland, and rebuild their cultures and communities. The Jews who returned vowed never again to offend God by practicing the idolatry that characterized the nations around them. They were characterized by a commitment to their God and their land, and an expectation of a coming Messiah who would forever rid them from foreign domination. While God was restoring Israel as a nation, he was also protecting them from their enemies. Behind the stories in Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther where God intervenes to protect his people from extermination is the fact that Israel must survive because Christ must come from that nation. More is at stake here than simply the survival of a nation. God is protecting the one through whom he will bring life and immortality to light.

XI. From Christ to the Church (Matthew -John; Acts 1) 4 B.C. – 30 AD.

At first Jesus’ ministry appears to be no more than a taking over the Jewish revival began by John the Baptist. His disciples are Jews, the people he targets are Jews, and he is proven to fulfill the prophecies pertaining to the Jewish Messiah. But before long, it becomes quite evident that the salvation Jesus is offering is deliverance from sin for the whole world (John 3:16). Jesus died on a Roman cross, after being condemned to death by Jewish leaders. But that death was not the end of Jesus of Nazareth. After three days in the tomb, he was raised to life. But his was more than a resurrection. It was a resurrection unto eternal life. After showing himself to believers, he ascended with a promise to empower them to take his promise of eternal life to the nation.

XII. From Promise to Fulfillment (Acts 2- Revelation) 30 A.D. – ?

The Holy Spirit, in which the Church was immersed at Pentecost, was that empowerment. He leads the Church in following God’s call, like Abraham did – by faith (Romans 4:12-13). He helps believers accept Jesus as their deliverer (Galatians 3:9). He leads them to apply the death of Christ as their atoning sacrifice (Hebrews 9:14). Once the have crossed over, he is God’s presence, provision, and priesthood enabling them to get through the wilderness of this life (Galatians 3:2; Ephesians 1:13; Romans 8:27). He teaches believers how to live victorious Christian lives (Revelation 2:7).

After death, believers will remain asleep until Jesus Christ resurrects them at his second coming. Jesus will literally reign with resurrected believers as his agents, restoring this earth to its intended glory, removing the evidence of Satan’s rebellion, and destroying all Christ’s enemies (1 Corinthians 15:24-26; Revelation 20:6).⁶ The New Testament urges everyone to accept God’s offer of eternal life through Christ: “The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life” (Revelation 22:17 NIV).

Christianity is a lifestyle as well as a profession. The apostles in the New Testament modeled that lifestyle, and encouraged their readers to follow their examples. They believed that people could be won to Christ because of the sheer attraction of a righteous life lived in the backdrop of a sinful world. But these same apostles insisted that to reflect true Christianity, their readers had to do more than just “walk the walk.” They also had to “talk the talk.” They had to know what they believed, and be able to communicate that faith to the watching (and listening) world.

Peter made this clear when he encouraged his readers to “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Pet. 3:15 NIV). Behind this instruction is the assumption that Christianity is not only a lifestyle that can be lived, and a religion that can be chosen, but it is also a worldview that can be explained. The apostles did not ask their followers to believe some incredible and illogical philosophy that required a leap of faith and a commitment to that which they could never hope to understand. They expected every convert to accept their teachings based on the correspondence of those teachings to the scriptures upon which those teachings were based and the convert’s own experience.1

Since the Christian worldview is based on the unchanging truth of the Bible and backed up by real experiences, the doctrines that proceed from that worldview should be explainable and defensible. The true Christian should know what she believes, why she believes it, and why she does not believe the opposite. She should never hide behind ignorance pretending to be toleration. This is when she might have sincere convictions, but is hesitant to challenge others who disagree with her, because she fears she might not be able to prove her case.

A Christian generation who values tolerance above truth is like a rescue worker who throws out a life preserver, but then fails to hold firmly to it. Those who are drowning and need assistance will (of course) grab on to the chance for life. But as they continue floating out to sea, they realize that the assistance was only pretense. We are living in such a generation. We should not be surprised when the lost decide to try some other solution rather than grasp our ungrounded traditions. The problem is not with Christianity itself, but in our generation’s weak grasp of it.

The purpose of the following pages is to help today’s Christians get a firm grip on the faith they profess. A Christian should not only be able to affirm the statement of faith of his church, but he should also be able to explain it.2

If someone opposes him, he should feel confident enough in his position to engage in healthy debate. This confidence should come from his familiarity with the issues of the debate, not from debating skills or dominant personality.One of the tools which has helped Christians of past generations keep their grip on their faith is systematic theology. Systematic theology is the discipline that formulates comprehensive answers to the questions we all have about God, and those ultimate issues that he (and the rest of the universe) cares about.3 It comes with its own language: a set of categories and terms which help systematic theologians compare each others’ ideas. The categories and terms serve as a grid to help us evaluate the accuracy of our individual answers.

The primary categories used in this book are often called the loci of systematic theology. Each locus serves as a heading under which several major questions are posited, and then answered. The following chart represents how those loci will serve as the kind of scaffolding upon which this book will be built.

Locus: Content

Prolegomena: This category answers questions about the task of systematic theology itself, other kinds of theology, and the ground rules for doing systematic theology.

Bibliology: This category answers questions about how God has revealed himself, especially about the nature of his written revelation: the Bible.

Theology Proper: This category answers questions about who (or what) God is, what he is like, and how he compares to the rest of the universe.

Anthropology: This category answers questions about who humanity is, the things that unify us (like our nature and destiny) and the things that make us unique (like race, gender, social and economic status).

Hamartiology: This category answers questions about the moral flaws within the fabric of humanity and their effect upon the universe. These questions include the origin, consequences and remedies for what the Bible often calls “sin.”

Christology: This category answers questions about who Jesus Christ is, what he taught, and the relationship he has to believers and unbelievers.

Pneumatology: This category answers questions about who and what the Holy Spirit is, what he does, and how the world and the Church is affected by his presence.

Angelology: This category answers questions about the other spirit beings who populate the universe, including Satan and the demons, as well as the elect angels who have remained loyal to God.

Soteriology: This category answers questions about what God has done to rid the universe of the sin problem, and what he is doing now in the lives of believers to get them ready for the sinless universe he plans.

Ecclesiology: This category answers questions about who and what the Church is, how the Church differs from the world, and our role within it.

Eschatology: This category answers questions about our destiny as believers, the return of Christ, and the ultimate fate of the lost.

The apostles encouraged their readers to have an answer available when questioned about their faith. Today believers have the same need: to be able to explain their faith in terms that match the questions people ask of them. In Peter’s day, some of those questions came from government or religious officials who attacked and persecuted Christians. We may experience
those kind of questions as well.4 But our hope is that most of the questions come from people who are interested in our faith because they are interested in us. Either way, the questions should not be ignored. They are our opportunities to testify of our relationship with Christ through faith.

One way to form adequate responses to the world’s questions is to compare our answers to those of other believers. This is one of the major reasons for systematic theology as a discipline. By studying the theological systems of others, I can ensure that my own system is not lacking any vital component, and that it is both biblically accurate and experientially relevant.

There is no good thing in this world that does not have its opponents. Systematic theology has certainly had its share. The evolutionary atheist, for example, regards all religious talk as irrelevant, and a bi-product of primitive minds. He sees any attempt at a comprehensive theology as a waste of time, and a deterrent to what really matters in life – true intellectual and social progress.5

The industrial pragmatist agrees, not because theology is primitive, but because she sees it as a distraction from what really matters in life (which can be anything from self-actualization to cold hard cash).

The religious mystic also takes sides against systematic theology, because he seeks an experience of the divine which cannot and should not be explained. He thinks that explanations only get in the way of what really matters in life – the magical encounter.6

Curiously enough, some of the most ardent attacks against systematic theology come from Bible believing, church-going evangelicals. Some churches have been hesitant to hire trained pastors, fearing that a study of systematic theology at college and seminary would ruin them, making them incapable of just teaching the plain truth from the Bible. These same people would never dare go “under the knife,” allowing an untrained surgeon to operate on them, yet they think that
professional training of any sort is harmful for the preacher. They have more in common with the religious mystic than they would care to admit.

There is some truth in each one of these objections to the task of systematic theology. Some of the doctrines we have defended through the centuries are the products of human prejudice and tradition, rather that divine revelation.7 A good systematic theology has to dig deeply into the theological assertions of the past to make sure that their source is God’s word. Often the Church has been satisfied with its profession simply because it protected the status quo. We owe Darwin, Marx and Stalin and the like an apology for giving them good reasons to side against us. It is not that evolutionary atheism is right – but the traditional Church was not entirely right either.

The industrial pragmatist steps up to the plate with her own agenda, and convicts the systematic theologians of the sin of irrelevance because they don’t play her game. Life is a chance to work hard and make your own way in life, and all these theologians want to do is fuss over the meanings of the words in some obscure ancient documents. But, to be fair, she has a point as well. There is more to life than the constant pursuit of knowledge – even religious knowledge. Jesus criticized the Jewish leaders because they had their noses in the good book, but failed to look up when the Holy One himself walked by. He told them “You search the Scriptures because you believe they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me!” (John 5:39 NLT). The last thing systematic theology should do is keep us from living life, and in that regard the industrial pragmatist is right. But living life consists of so much more than getting on top, or dying with the most money.

The religious mystic is not concerned with explaining things. He just wants a relationship with the spirit world that works – that gets the job done. In that respect he also is a pragmatist. His beef with systematic theologians is that we are always trying explain what everybody knows is a mystery. If God were knowable, he would not be God. Systematic theologians present a God who can be contained within the confines of a creed, or a doctrine. To the religious mystic, that is
ridiculous. They are partly right. Most of our definitions of God are nowhere near accurate.8 Yet since God has revealed himself and given us the capacity to explain what we experience, it is not impossible to explain that experience. In fact, it is the only way for us to compare the various experiences that human beings have had, and claimed to be divine.

Last at bat is the Bible-believing evangelical Christian who is hesitant to listen to a professionally trained pastor. Perhaps he thinks the Holy Spirit refuses to work through a preacher who picks up a book now and then. Maybe he feels it is safer for his teacher to just open the Bible, point his finger at a passage, and then let the Spirit take over. He does not need to be confused by anyone else’s views on the good book. He should just let God work through him.

It is interesting that the authors of the Bible itself did not have that attitude. If anyone would have been justified with this attitude it would be those authors of the Bible whom the Holy Spirit personally moved to speak and write God’s word. Yet these authors were constantly quoting each other, and showing through logical argument and correlation that their words were true. The biblical authors were the first systematic theologians, and we do well to follow their example.9

Doing systematic theology well requires both the writer and the readers to have a common expectation when some key terms are used, so some preliminary definitions are in order. Here are a few terms that are going to be used throughout this book, and how those terms will be used:

A text is a passage of scripture that will be referred to as a means of making or supporting an argument. Some texts will be considered normative, which means that those texts are the ones anyone should use to prove his point as it relates to the question at hand. For example, John 10:10 is a normative text for Christology, since it describes Christ’s role as the Good Shepherd. It is not, however, a normative text for Angelology, since it cannot be proven from the context that Jesus was referring to Satan. The context is the larger passage, and the background of the text, each of which helps the reader understand the purpose of the text originally.

A doctrine is a group of interrelated assertions that are made in conjunction with a particular question. One doctrine can be used as evidence for another, as long as both doctrines are independently attested to by the texts of scripture. Doctrines themselves are the result of human effort, and are never considered inspired or authoritative in the same sense as the texts of scripture are.10 In this book, every doctrine is related to a higher category, or locus. As
previously mentioned, the loci serve as headings under which several major questions are posited, and then answered.

This book is entitled An Advent Christian Systematic Theology. The title reflects the fact that the author is part of an Evangelical Protestant denomination which has doctrinal positions and distinctives. As would be expected, some of the chapters in this book deal directly with those doctrines which have been developed and promoted by that tradition. Most of the chapters, however, deal with doctrines that Advent Christians share in common with the wider Evangelical community. All Evangelicals should appreciate most of what is said in this book, but it is asking too much for even most Advent Christians to adhere to all of its positions.

_______________________

1 This was also the approach the apostles took when sharing their faith with unbelievers. When on trial before the Roman governor Festus, Paul appealed to him by saying “What I am saying is true and reasonable” (Acts 26:25).

2 Charles Hodge said that the task of the believer who does systematic theology “is to take (scriptural) facts, determine their relation to each other and to other cognate truths, as well as to vindicate them and show their harmony and consistency. Systematic Theology. Online: http://www.dabar.org/Theology/HodgeVI/Int_C01.htm.

3 John H. Leith insists that “Christian theology must … be written in dialog with culture and with an awareness of living religions.” Basic Christian Doctrine. (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 18.

4 A recent trend that comes close to this is the publishing of books that deny that Jesus was who the church says he was. These books include fiction, like the popular Dan Brown’s Davinci Code.(NY: Doubleday, 2003) and lesser known nonfiction works like Barry Wilson, How Jesus Became Christian. (NY: MacMillan, 2008), which argues that Paul reinterpreted the Jewish
sayings of Jesus according to his own mystical vision, inventing Christianity.

5 So the science fiction author Robert A Heinlein seems to imply when he argues that theology is “searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn’t there.” “Theology Quotes” Online: http://en.thinkexist.com/ quotations/theology.html.

6 Acts 8 tells the story of a Samaritan named Simon who wanted to purchase the experience of laying hands on the people and them receiving the Holy Spirit. Peter rebuked him. His name became synonymous with trying to purchase a position of ecclesiastical leadership (Simony). He is also a good example of the religious mystic, who is more interested in “show” than in “know.”

7 So Leith argues that the “first task of theology is always to maintain the integrity of the faith itself.” 18. Thus Protestants are hesitant to adopt the Catholic practice of judging every scripture or new teaching by what they call the analogy of faith, that is, “in the context of the one, whole, and indivisible faith of the church.” Gerald O. Collins and Edward Farrugia, A Concise Dictionary of Theology. (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2000), 8. Protestants see this as backward thinking. The theology of the church – any church – should be judged by the scriptures, not the other way around.

8 Romans 11:33-34 “O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” (RSV). The Adventist revivalist H. L. Hastings pointed out that the Bible does contain many mysteries, and these cannot be fully understood even
by Christians. But he also shows that the Bible contains many duties which are not as hard to understand. He asserts that “the duties of the Christian may be performed, while many of the mysteries are but dimly seen.” Fireside Readings. (Boston [by author], 1896), 15.

9 Warren Wiersbe illustrates this when he explains that the “Gospel writers recorded the historical facts of our Lord’s suffering and death. It remained for the writers of the New Testament Epistles to explain the theological meaning of this event.” The Bible Exposition Commentary. (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1996), Mt 27:27. W. MacDonald and A Farstad state that
Romans is “as close to a systematic presentation of Christian theology as will be found in God’s word” because it addressed the issues that the Roman Church faced by integrating the teachings of Christ and the Old Testament in his answers. Believer’s Bible Commentary. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), Ro 1:1.

10 This is why Michael Scott Horton in “Theology Quotes” insists that “Theology, not morality, is the first business on the church’s agenda of reform, and the church, not society, is the first target of divine criticism.” Thomas S. Warren II has pointed out that many within the church are simply pressured into adhering to a particular doctrinal position having never “studied the issue at all.” Dead Men Talking. (New York: iUniverse, Inc., 2005) 42. We trust those pastors, teachers and family members to give us right information. But if they are deceived, that trust is misplaced. It is better to put our ultimate trust in God himself, and search his word for truth.