Systematic Theology - Elements, Comparisons, Effects, Interrelationships, and Applications - Essay Example

A Scientific/Organised Approach to the Word of God and the World: Systematic Theology and Its Definitions, Elements, Comparisons, Effects, Interrelationships, and Applications Introduction As people try to find ways of understanding the Bible and Christian doctrines in a more “scientific” or “systematic” approach, they are conducting a form of “systematic theological inquiry.” Systematic theology is one of the branches of theology that has various definitions, though some of its core characteristics are critical reflection on the Bible (Healy, 2009, p.24), organised or scientific study of God and Christian teachings (Fiorenza, 2011, p.8), critical construction of Christian beliefs in relation to everyday needs and issues (Enns, 2008: 149), and holistic and integrative approach to studying the beliefs and actions of Christianity and their teachings (Healy, 2009, p.26). Systematic theology’s exact beginnings are uncertain although Origen’s work, On First Principles, during the third century Greek Church, is one of the earliest works on it (Fiorenza, 2011, p.7). Systematic theology has continued to develop since this time, although it also has become the product of criticisms because of its ambiguous definitions, components and directions, among other reasons (Healy, 2009, p.25). This paper describes the definitions and elements of systematic theology, compares it with other branches of theology, discusses its effects on Christian ethics, explores its interrelationship of different doctrines, and understands how it can be applied through the decision-making process of believers. Definitions and Elements of Systematic Theology Theologians do not agree on an exact definition of systematic theology because of a number of reasons, such as shifting approaches to theology across time (Williams, 2006, p.199) and differences in perceptions of the importance of “systematic” as a biblical discipline (Healy, 2009, p.25), so the paper provides its definitions to show its scope and dynamic characteristics. Before defining “systematic theology,” this paper defines “theology” first. Theology basically pertains to the “the study or science of God” (Erickson, 1998, p.22). This definition is too simplistic, however, because God’s works and His relationship with His believers are also subjects of theology (Erickson, 1998, p.22). A comprehensive definition of theology is it is a: ...discipline which strives to give a coherent statement of the doctrines of the Christian faith, based primarily on the Scriptures, placed in the context of culture in general, worded in a contemporary idiom, and related to issues of life. (Erickson, 1998, p.22) Theology is a discipline that understands God and His teachings and other aspects about Him in relation to culture and history, as well as modern life concerns. The next to be discussed are the different meanings of systematic theology. Enns (2008) uses Chafer’s definition that emphasises the process of this theology. They define systematic theology as “the collecting, scientifically arranging, comparing, exhibiting and defending of all facts from any and every source concerning God and His works” (Enns, 2008, p.149). This definition is more focused on the scientific approach to theology, particularly the Bible. Webster (2009, p.56) agrees with this definition. He describes systematic theology as “an exercise of reason in the domain of God’s saving and revelatory goodness to creatures.” “Reason” is an important aspect in organising and understanding God’s works. Healy (2009) diverges from these definitions in that he embraces systematic theology’s scope in terms of sources and applications. He states that it is the “activity of reflecting critically and constructively on the beliefs and practices of Christians and their churches, and on the Christian and non-Christian sources in relation to which such beliefs and practices arise” (Healy, 2009, p.24). He believes that systematic theology includes critical thinking and constructive analysis in organising all Christian and non-Christian works that are used in understanding God and His works. Furthermore, Healy (2009) underscores the vitality of systematic theology when he says that it is “an ongoing performance, always incomplete, and inadequate to its object” (Healy, 2009, p.26). He does not want to put any permanence on systematic theology’s output because it is a product of human interpretation. Furthermore, Healy (2009, p.26) argues that systematic theology is holistic because it: ...seeks to uncover the relations amongst the various parts of the web of beliefs and actions that constitute Christianity, and these include the history of doctrine and practice, moral issues and the like.” He notes that systematic theologians are concerned of applying reflection and critical thinking in analysing and resolving contemporary issues and moral dilemmas. Despite some differences, Healy (2009) and other scholars mentioned who defined systematic theology in this paper agree that systematic theology is a branch of theology that uses reason, criticism, reflection, and organisation in making sense of the Bible and related teachings and in applying them, when needed, in daily life. As for the elements of systematic theology, they are composed of the “requirements” that guide its practice. Enns (2008) discusses seven elements. The first element is “inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.” Systematic theology, like other theologies, believes in “inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture” (Enns, 2008, p.151). St. Augustine explains that the “divine authority” lies in Christ (Fiorenza, 2011, p.8). Knowledge that is invisible to humanity is made visible through the life and teachings of Christ (Fiorenza, 2011, p.8). The second element of systematic theology is applying suitable hermeneutical principles. Hermeneutics refers to theories about interpretation (Fiorenza, 2011, p.32). The right hermeneutical principles for systematic theology enforce objectivity and reduce the impact of biases or prejudice in interpreting Scripture (Enns, 2008, p.151). Rationality through objectivity is essential to systematic theology. The third element of systematic theology is the scientific or systematic approach. The scientific approach uses logic in drawing conclusions from Scripture (Enns, 2008, p.151). Scientific rationality and its methods, however, is not perfect in the sense that it is also a product of power structures and relations (Fiorenza, 2011, p.53). Theologians must be careful in treating scientific methods as sanitised of human weaknesses and aspire to use objectivity without reinforcing oppression that may come from dominant scientific methodologies. The fourth element of systematic theology is objectivity. Theology must be more based on inductive than deductive reasoning because the former is based on using evidence in proving assertions about God and His teachings (Enns, 2008, p.152). Furthermore, objectivity comes from an open mind, even a sense of “tabula rasa” where theologians do not begin from biased perceptions but on what the Scripture has to say (Enns, 2008, p.152). They should emphasise what the Scripture is and not what it “should” be (Enns, 2008, p.152). Objectivity relies on openness and rational analysis. The fifth element of systematic theology is “progressive revelation” (Enns, 2008, p.152). Progressive revelation believes that both the Old and New Testaments are important as Christian canons. Nonetheless, in terms of progressive understanding, “the New Testament has priority over the Old Testament” (Enns, 2008, p.152). Historical revelation is a narrative where the latter revelations are more essential in understanding the Bible as a whole. The sixth element of systematic theology is “illumination” systematic theology is (Enns, 2008, p.152). Using proper hermeneutics and scientific methods cannot, by themselves, reveal the meaning of the Word of God. “Illumination” means that the Holy Spirit guides people in finding Divine Truth. The Bible says: “For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 2:11). The Holy Spirit is what will guide people in finding suitable conclusions from God’s works and words. The seventh element of systematic theology is acknowledging that people have limitations as human beings (Enns, 2008, p.152). Humans cannot fully understand everything about God (Enns, 2008, p.152). They should be content with their limited knowledge. In other words, systematic or any other theology does not offer and promise absolute understanding of God, His works, and His means and ends. These seven elements of systematic theology demonstrate its methods, principles, and constraints. Comparison of Systematic Theology with Other Classes of Theology There are different ways of organising theologies into classes, but for the purposes of this paper, systematic theology will be compared with biblical theology, historical theology, and dogmatic theology. Historical theology studies the historical development of theology (Enns, 2008, p.150). It focuses on examining what theologians believed and taught as the church developed (Ryrie, 1999, p.14). Its primary sources are the traditions and historical statements of the Church and other theologians (Ryrie, 1999, p.14). The development of historical ideas about the Church and God is an important aspect that affects other theology branches because they directly shaped changing theological principles and beliefs. Systematic theology is similar with historical theology in studying traditions and Church documents and statements as part of theology, but it has differences in terms of overall directions and applications. Systematic theology is different from historical theology because the latter studies and ends with the teachings of the past, while the former applies historical theology through improving theologians’ critical thinking and self-awareness. Every theologian studies the Bible using personal perspectives that are product of his/her cultural and historical milieu (Erickson, 1998, p.27). Historical theology shows how theologians in the past also brought their specific perspectives in making theological interpretations and conclusions (Erickson, 1998, p.27). Historical theology helps systematic theologians to become more critical of their own perspectives and to be more open to new ways of thinking. Furthermore, systematic theology can include historical theology, but it is not limited to the latter (Ryrie, 1999, p.15). Systematic theology focuses on the “total structure of biblical doctrine” (Ryrie, 1999, p.15). One example is that it connects historical theology with potential ways of understanding present ways of analysing the Scriptures. Apart from historical theology, another class is biblical theology that emphasises a progressive and systematic way of studying the Bible which shares similarities with systematic theology. Biblical theology is used in different ways throughout history, although technically, it pertains to systematically understanding the historically-formed development of God’s revelation through the Bible (Ryrie, 1999, p.14). Four characteristics of Biblical theology is the organised presentation of its results, careful analysis of the lives of the Bible’s writers (including their social and historical conditions) and the circumstances of their readers, dependence on the Bible as its primary source, and the study of the progressive sequence of God’s self-revelation in the Scriptures (Ryrie, 1999, p.15). Systematic theology is similar to biblical theology because of its organised approach to studying the Bible. It is different from the latter because it correlates biblical theology’s findings with one another to understand the Bible as a whole (Ryrie, 1999, p.15). Apart from biblical theology, dogmatic theology has its similarities with systematic theology because of the study of creeds or dogmas and testing them for consistency and reasonableness. Dogmatic theology concentrates on studying dogmas, which refer to statements of faith (Enns, 2008, p.150). Dogmatic theology and systematic theology are the same because they also use creeds as part of its secondary sources (Enns, 2008, p.152). Both theologies agree that these creeds essentially enlighten modern theologians in understanding how Christians perceived and interpreted the Bible and God throughout the centuries (Enns, 2008, p.152). Furthermore, these theologies are the same in being concerned of the validity of these creeds. They help theologians and Christians make sense of these creeds and their resilience in modern times. Systematic Theology’s Effects on Christian Ethics Systematic theology affects Christian ethics by helping people apply theology to everyday lives through systematic and reflective thinking. Systematic theology imparts a scientific or organised approach to ethics that can help Christians determine the morality of their actions. For instance, it aspires to use the Biblical doctrines to facilitate greater understanding of God’s words and appreciation for His love and plan for humanity. Interrelationship of Different Doctrines in Systematic Theology Systematic theology shows the following interrelationships of different doctrines. Application of Systematic Theology in Believers’ Decision-Making Process Systematic theology is applicable to the decision-making process. Conclusion Word Count Reference List Bible. New International Version. BibleGateway. [online]. Available at: . Enns, P.P., 2008. The Moody handbook of theology. Illinois: Moody Publishers. Erickson, M.J., 1998. Christian theology. 2nd ed. Michigan: Baker Books. Fiorenza, F.S., 2011. Systematic theology: Roman Catholic perspectives. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Healy, N.M., 2009. What is systematic theology? International Journal of Systematic Theology, 11(1), 24-39. Schwobel, C., 1996. Rational theology in trinitarian perspective: Wolfhart Pannenberg's Systematic Theology. Journal of Theological Studies, 47(2), pp.498-527. Ryrie, C.C., 1999. Basic theology: a popular systematic guide to understanding biblical truth. Minnesota: Moody Publishers. Webster, J., 2009. Principles of systematic theology. International Journal of Systematic Theology, 11(1), pp.56-71. Williams, M., 2006. Systematic theology as a biblical discipline. In: R.A. Peterson and S.M. Lucas, eds. All for Jesus: a celebration of the 50th anniversary of Covenant Theological Seminary. Tain, Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 2006. pp.197-234. [online]. Available at: [Accessed on 11 August 2014]. Read More