Theology 501-God, Scripture, Revelation And The Holy Spirit

Front 1

Definition of Systematic Theology:

Back 1

Any study that answers the question, “What does the whole Bible say to us today?” about any given
topic (--John Frame, RTS)

Front 2

Systematic Theology Emphases

Back 2

a. whole Bible
b. to us
c. today

Front 3

Meaning of “systematic”

Back 3

Carefully organized by topics
In more depth

Front 4

Meaning of “doctrine”

Back 4

What the whole Bible says about a topic

Front 5

Exegesis

Back 5

The interpretation of individual verses of Scripture
(Note: Theology informs exegesis and exegesis informs theology)

Front 6

Apologetics

Back 6

Defending the Christian faith against the objection of unbelievers

Front 7

Why study systematic theology?

Back 7

The basic reason: To obey the Great Commission
1. Matt. 28:18-20(= to learn and teach “all that Jesus commanded”
2. Summarize Scripture. Teaching requires summarizing and synthesizing Scripture (systematic theology gives answers to our questions!)

Front 8

Wrong reasons to study systematic theology

Back 8

"The Bible is poorly organized or deficient in some way."
"The Bible is not understandable or confusing."

Front 9

Other Benefits of Systematic Theology

Back 9

1. Helps us overcome sinful ideas
2. Better decisions later (e.g. jigsaw puzzle)
3. Helps us grow as Christians (Col. 1:9-10; 1 Tim. 4:6, 6:3)

Front 10

Objections to systematic theology

Back 10

1. “Conclusions too neat to be true”; “must be distorting Scripture”
Answer:
a. Where misinterpreting Scripture?
b. Truth should fit together, be consistent
2. “The choice of topics dictates the conclusion”
Answer:
a. It is right to ask questions of Scripture which were not the main concern of biblical authors
b. Alternative: “unsystematic theology”; “disorderly and random theology”
c. Any order of topics—same answers

Front 11

How should Christians study systematic theology? (= how should we study Scripture?)

Back 11

A. With prayer (Ps. 119:18; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 1:17-19; Note on meditation on Scripture: Ps. 1:2)
B. With humility (1 Pet. 5:5; Jas. 1:19-20, 3:13, 17-18; 1 Cor. 8:1)
C. With reason
D. With help from others (1 Cor. 12:28)
E. With rejoicing and praise (Deut. 6:5-6; Ps. 139:17; Rom. 11:33-36)

Front 12

Reason, Paradox and Contradiction

Back 12

1. “We are free to use our reasoning abilities to draw deductions from any passage of Scripture as
long as those deductions do not contradict the clear teaching of some other passage of Scripture”
(Isa. 55:8-9; Ps. 139:6; Rom. 11:33-34)
2. Paradox is acceptable in systematic theology (“a seemingly contradictory statement that may
nevertheless be true”); (inevitable with finite understanding)
3. Contradiction is not acceptable (Ps. 119:160)

Front 13

Causes of theological error

Back 13

A. Not: obscurity of Scripture
B. But: usually personal sins
1. Pride (1 Tim. 6:4; 2 Pet. 2:18)
2. Greed (1 Tim. 6:5; 2 Pet. 2:3, 14-15)
3. Cowardice (in face of cultural trends/pressures) (Gal. 2:12, 5:11; Luke 6:22-23)
4. Laziness, negligence in studying Scripture (then following personal leaders instead) (Ps. 1:2; Gal.
2:13; 2 Pet. 2:2)
5. Other personal sins (2 Pet. 2:13-14, 18-19; 1 Tim. 1:9-10, 19-20)

Front 14

More important / less important doctrines

Back 14

A. Does it affect other doctrines?
B. Does it affect people’s faith, Christian life?
C. P.S. Note that people can take any minor doctrine and make it “major” (split churches)

Front 15

I. Anglican (Episcopalian) Distinctives

Back 15

1. The Book of Common Prayer is used as a pattern for worship within the church.
2. A strong emphasis on historical continuity with the apostles passed on through the laying on of
hands.
3. Church government is Episcopalian in form, with clergy appointed by bishops, and there are
archbishops over the bishops.
4. The historical origin was very “Reformed” (see The 39 Articles which are the official statement of
faith), but today Anglicans would be both Reformed and Arminian, and the church is mixed with
much liberalism, especially in the United States.
B. Representative Anglican Evangelicals: J.I. Packer, John Stott

Front 16

Arminian Distinctives

Back 16

1. The free choices of human beings are not determined by God (God knows them ahead of time, but
does not cause them).
2. Christians can lose their salvation.
3. Christians should strive for “entire sanctification” or a state of being free from conscious sin,
sometimes called sinless perfection.
B. Evangelical Representatives: Asbury Seminary in Wilmore, KY, Church of the Nazarene,
Clark Pinnock, Grant Osborne

Front 17

Baptist Distinctives

Back 17

1. Church membership is voluntary.
2. Churches should be made of “believers only.” (This led to historical break with Lutheran and
Reformed groups.)
3. Baptism should be by immersion and should be administered only to those who make a personal
profession of faith.
4. Church government is “congregational” in form (churches are self-governing).
5. Both Reformed and Arminian viewpoints are common in Baptist churches.
B. Evangelical Representatives: Billy Graham, Adrian Rodgers, Paige Patterson, Charles
Stanley, John Piper

Front 18

Christian Church/ Churches of Christ Distinctives

Back 18

1. Began from desire to restore the unity and simplicity of the early church (“restorationist” movement)
2. Suspicious of creeds: only require belief in what the Bible teaches
3. Similar to Baptist churches and independent Bible churches in many ways

Front 19

Biblical Inerrancy Defined

Back 19

The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.

Front 20

Biblical Inerrancy Further Meaning

Back 20

The Bible always tells the truth concerning everything it talks about.

Front 21

Current objections to Inerrancy (Faith and Practice)

Back 21

That is only in areas of our original faith or to our ethical conduct. To instruct us in what we should believe and how we are to live.

Front 22

Characteristics of Liberalism (Summary)

Back 22

1) Summary: Liberalism is at root a man-centered religion, not a God-centered religion.
2) This can be seen in its views of the major doctrines of the Christian faith.

Front 23

Characteristics of Liberalism (Bible View)

Back 23

(1) The Bible is viewed as a merely human book. It is thought of as “a fallible human record of
religious thought and experience” (J.I. Packer). [GK 404]
(2) The Bible is not God’s words. It is not reliable. It is not without error.
(3) It is not necessary to believe the miracles and the supernatural elements in the Bible.
(4) What is supernatural in the Bible is not historical.
(5) The test of truth: The test of truth is experience.
(a) The question is what works, what helps people in this world.
(b) Doctrine is not important (Liberals in the 1920s), or doctrine concerning God cannot be
known (Liberals today).

Front 24

Worldview: Naturalism or Materialism (The natural or material world is all we can know, all can we
be sure about.)

Back 24

(1) Therefore, Liberalism is anti-supernatural in the sense that it says nobody can ever really
know when or how God acts in the world or speaks to human beings.
(2) It does not believe that Christians can know that the Bible is true or that the Christian faith is
true.

Front 25

Liberalism and God

Back 25

(1) God is a loving God who loves all people (no matter what they do). God does not have wrath
against the sins of individual people.
(2) God works mainly in cultural developments in history today. Therefore our beliefs should
adapt as the culture discovers new truths about God and the world. [GK 401, 411]
(3) All major religions serve and worship the same God.
(4) God himself cannot be known (or known with certainty). [GK 405]
(5) All of theology is simply different people’s human ideas and imaginations about God, not the
study of truths in the Bible that are revealed from God. [GK 406, 407, 408, 410, 414]

Front 26

Liberalism and Man

Back 26

(1) Man (man as male and female) is inherently good.
(2) We are not sinful creatures standing guilty before God’s wrath: that is a horrible idea.

Front 27

Liberalism and Jesus Christ

Back 27

(1) Jesus was a great moral teacher and his life is an example for us.
(2) Jesus is an example whom we should imitate, but he is not the object of our faith.
(3) He is not a Savior who died for us.
(4) He is not the divine Son of God.
(5) The idea of a “virgin birth” is preposterous and scientifically impossible.
(6) The idea that Christ will someday come back in bodily form is ridiculous.

Front 28

Liberalism and Salvation

Back 28

(1) Salvation comes through human self-improvement and human improvement of society.
(2) Salvation does not come through trusting in Christ for forgiveness of sins.
(3) The idea of “penal substitution” (that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins by dying as a
substitute in our place and bearing the wrath of God that we deserve) is a horrible idea. A
loving God would never impose such a penalty on anyone.

Front 29

Liberalism and The Church

Back 29

(1) The church is an association for human self-improvement.
(2) The church should mainly seek to renew society, not to evangelize individuals.
(3) The church should not have doctrinal boundaries for its leadership.
(4) The church is not the fellowship of redeemed, regenerated people, the “pillar and buttress of
the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) where pastors are to “hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught” and
to be able “to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it”
(Titus 1:9)

Front 30

Summary: Liberalism is not Christianity

Back 30

1) Machen’s claim in 1923 (paraphrase): While Roman Catholicism represents a distortion of the
Christian faith, theological liberalism is not Christianity at all. (p. 52)
2) Liberalism is a man-centered, anti-supernatural religion through and through.
3) Some notes on Gordon Kaufmann’s essay:
D) Note that not everyone who belongs to a “liberal” church or denomination will hold all these things. There
is much variety among the items taught by specific people. However, these are common characteristics.
1) Many people in liberal denominations are grieved at the doctrinal deviation that they see in their
churches and work and pray for change.
2) However, once a denomination is taken over by liberal leadership, it is extremely difficult to bring back.
3) When I speak of a denomination as theologically “liberal” I mean that liberals now control the
denomination and all the influential leadership positions in the denomination.

Front 31

Why should Christian organizations draw boundaries at all?

Back 31

Definitions: – What kinds of organizations? All kinds;
– Boundaries = doctrinal statements that are enforced by an organization
1. False teaching harms the church
Acts 20:29: I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30
and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after
them. (Also 1 Tim. 6:3; 2 Tim 2:16; 2 Pet 2:1; 1 Tim 4:1)
2. If false teaching is not stopped, it spreads and does more damage (1 Cor 5:6; 2 Tim 2:17; Acts 20:29)
–> if one false teacher is allowed in an organization, others cannot be stopped
–> Acts 20:29-30:the longer the wolves stay, the more damage they will do
–> many leaders of false teaching have been genuine believers who were deceived by some wrong
idea

Front 32

Why should Christian organizations draw boundaries at all?

Back 32

3. If false teaching is not stopped, we will waste time and energy in endless controversies rather than doing
valuable kingdom work (2 Tim 2:23; Titus 3:9)
4. Jesus and the NT authors hold church leaders responsible for silencing false teaching
Revelation 2:20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a
prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food
sacrificed to idols. (Also Titus 1:10; Rev 2:14)
5. Objection: doctrinal boundaries don’t do any good because they are never enforced
Answer: they don’t solve every problem, but they do
a. Prevent some from joining; b. Give some people opportunity to admit honest differences; c. Give
leaders a standard for choosing new leaders or disciplining those who do not agree

Front 33

Why should evangelical organizations draw new boundaries?

Back 33

“New” =/=> make an organization fundamentally different from what it was at the beginning
“New” => stating publicly for the first time what the vast majority of members have assumed to be true
from the beginning
not to make an organization different from what it was at beginning
but to keep an organization from becoming different from what it was at beginning
1. False teaching changes, so old boundaries do not protect against new problems
NT examples:
Nicene Creed (325/ 381 AD):
Chalcedonian Creed (451 AD):
Reformation (1517 -)
20th century:
Recent years:

Front 34

When should evangelical organizations draw new boundaries?

Back 34

1. After a false teaching has become a significant problem
2. Before the teaching does great harm, and before it has a large following entrenched in the congregation
3. But who has the authority to make these changes?
a. Protestants do not have a Pope!
b. No church councils today
c. Hundreds of thousands of churches & organizations gradually coming to a consensus over an issue.

Front 35

For what doctrinal and ethical matters should evangelical organizations draw new boundaries? Some

Back 35

questions to ask: (Weigh these, don’t just count them)
1. CERTAINTY: How sure are we that the teaching is wrong?
2. EFFECT ON OTHER DOCTRINES: Will this teaching likely lead to significant erosion in other doctrines?
3. EFFECT ON PERSONAL AND CHURCH LIFE: Will this teaching bring significant harm to people’s
Christian lives, or to the work of the church?
4. HISTORICAL PRECEDENT: Is this teaching contrary to what the vast majority of the Bible-believing church
has held throughout history?
5. PERCEPTION OF IMPORTANCE AMONG GOD’S PEOPLE: Is there increasing consensus among the
leaders and the members that this matter is important enough that the teaching should be explicitly denied in
the doctrinal statement?
6. PURPOSES OF THE ORGANIZATION: Is the teaching a significant threat to the nature and purposes of
the organization?
7. MOTIVATIONS OF ADVOCATES: Does it seem that the advocates of this teaching hold it because of a
fundamental refusal to be subject to the authority of God’s Word, rather than because of sincerely-held
differences of interpretation based on accepted hermeneutical standards? Gal 2:4; 6:12; Phil 3:19; 2 Cor
11:13; 2 Pet. 2:1-3
8. METHODS OF ADVOCATES: Do the advocates of this teaching frequently manifest arrogance, deception,
unrighteous anger, slander, and falsehood rather than humility, openness to correction and reason, kindness,
and absolute truthfulness? (Jas. 3:17-18)
9. WRONG QUESTIONS: Are the advocates my friends, are they nice people, will we lose money or members
if we exclude them, will the academic community criticize us as being too narrow-minded, will someone take
us to court? (All grounded in fear of man, not fear of God and trust in God.)