Twenty-seven years ago my wife Dianne and I moved to Jackson, Tennessee, so I could begin a professorship at Union University. I was eager to begin teaching, and started at Union still needing to finish my dissertation. During my first semester one of my assigned courses was “Biblical Theology.” For my entire teaching career it has been one of my favorite courses to teach.
So far this month, we at Christ Over All have covered what biblical theology is, its history, why it still matters, how it relates to systematic theology, and how to use it in preaching and apologetics. In a second article this month, I will provide a contextualized bibliography of the most important sources in the development of evangelical biblical theology. But today, my task is different. I want to orient us to the current debates surrounding biblical theology, and chart a path forward.
To grasp the state of biblical theology today requires us to look back a few years. I think it is clear that perhaps one of the most important ways to “get into” the state of biblical theology today is to grasp that there is a long and ongoing discussion about the relation of biblical theology to systematic theology. That discussion is closely related to the question or issue of the resurgent interest in, and advocacy of, “classical theism.” And that issue is closely related, or bound up with, the resurgent interest in Thomas Aquinas, and the call by some Evangelicals to essentially embrace Thomism (or a form of Thomism). We will try and briefly navigate these conceptually overlapping issues.
Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology
There has been a debate or discussion in Evangelical circles for a number of years related to the relationship between biblical theology and systematic theology. I will cursorily summarize three key exchanges and then offer three points of evaluative reflection.
John Frame, Richard A. Muller, and David Wells
First, in the 1990s there was a series of point/counter-point type of exchanges between John Frame, Richard A. Muller, and David Wells. Frame had reviewed Muller’s The Study of Theology: From Biblical Interpretation to Contemporary Formulation (Zondervan, 1991). Muller then responded in the same year in the same journal with “The Study of Theology Revisited: A Response to John Frame.” This generated a response from Frame where he defends something “close to Biblicism.” David Wells responds to Frame’s “biblicism” article in the same issue of Westminster Theological Journal. Muller then responded again, outlining his understanding of the nature of theology. Finally, in the same issue of Westminster Theological Journal, Frame wrote a reply to Muller and David Wells. Briefly put, Frame was arguing for something like “biblicism,” while Muller and Wells were arguing for something like a historically-rooted version of classical theism.
Carl Trueman and Graeme Goldsworthy
Next, a similar debate occurred in 2002 between Carl Trueman and Graeme Goldsworthy. The lines of division are not perhaps the exact same, but they are similar. In his inimitable style, Professor Trueman suggests that the “biblical-theological/redemptive historical movement from Moore College” (i.e., the general conservative Evangelical stream of biblical theology) was a welcome development in 20th century Evangelical theology. However, we now see a kind of crisis in Evangelical systematic theology, and it seems that the discipline and tools of biblical theology are of only some use in navigating this current crisis.
The triumph of biblical theology may be leading Evangelicals to give short shrift to the historical/dogmatic tradition, which is always in need of explication, and of being applied in new situations. Perhaps the economic emphases in biblical theology are not especially helpful in hammering out the necessary ontological work of systematic theology. Trueman wants to encourage his fellow “rebels” to do more than biblical theology; he wants them to return to the creedal tradition of the church, securing ontology not simply the economy.
In a subsequent issue of Themelios, Graeme Goldsworthy responded. Goldsworthy is happy to grant that there might be a crisis in systematic theology, but he asserts that biblical theology is not to blame for that. Goldsworthy also argues—contra Truman—that biblical theology, properly practiced most certainly does not entail a rejection of ontological considerations. Goldsworthy argues for the “interdependence of ontology and economy.”
In an interesting move, Goldsworthy is quite happy (and eager) to note that biblical theology already presumes a kind of dogmatic starting point—the canon of Scripture as God’s inspired Word. As Goldsworthy notes, “The very idea of doing biblical theology can only proceed from having first formulated dogmatic constructs, however tentatively.” Goldsworthy argues that attention to the economy (especially the Son’s incarnation and earthly life, death, and resurrection) and to reflection upon the economy all drive the process of systematic theology in general and “ontology” in particular.
Goldsworthy approvingly quotes the former Moore Theological College principal, Peter Jensen: “Without biblical theology, doctrine is arbitrary, but without doctrine, biblical theology is ineffective.” Goldsworthy argues, “We cannot formulate dogma without biblical theology, but we cannot do biblical theology without dogmatic constructs.” As Goldsworthy sees it, systematic theology needs biblical theology: “Systematic theology is plainly impossible without biblical theology.” Indeed, “Biblical theology is necessary to prevent this de-historicizing of the gospel by anchoring the person and work of Christ into the continuum of redemptive history that provides the ‘story-line’ of the whole Bible.” And finally, from Goldsworthy, “You will never be a good biblical theologian if you are not also striving to be a good systematic and historical theologian, and you will never be a good systematic theologian if you ignore biblical and historical theology.”
Classical Theism and Thomism
Third, in recent years there has been a resurgence of interest in both “classical theism,” as well as Thomism.[1] While these realities are currently “hot topics,” they seem to me to have a kind of genealogical connection to what we have just covered. But especially in terms of Thomism and Evangelicals, we might look back a few years to Arvin Vos’s[2] Aquinas, Calvin, and Contemporary Protestant Thought: A Critique of Protestant Views on the Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Eerdmans, 1985), but more recently David Van Drunen and David Sytsma, Aquinas Among the Protestants (Wiley-Blackwell, 2017). And yet even more recently, we might think of a 2022 issue of Matthew Barrett’s Credo: “What Can Protestants Learn from Thomas Aquinas?” Crossway has even announced a five-volume series, “Thomas Aquinas for Protestants,” under the editorship of Matthew Barrett and Craig Carter.
1. Thomism is shorthand for the theology of Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1225–1274).
2. No relation to Geerhardus Vos, though both are Dutch.
Equally, we should not ignore the important book by James Dolezal, All That is in God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Classical Christian Theism (Reformation Heritage Books, 2017). In this volume, Dolezal claims to detect a dangerous trend (“theistic mutualism”) in the ranks of Evangelical theologians. Dolezal defines “theistic mutalism” as “the belief that any meaningful relationship between God and man must involve God in a transaction wherein He receives some determination of being from His creatures.”[3] Dolezal considers a wide array of Evangelical theologians, biblical scholars, and philosophers to be “theistic mutualists”: John Frame, Bruce Ware, D.A. Carson, J.I. Packer, Donald Macleod, Ronald Nash, and others. The answer to this challenge is a kind of reappropriation of Thomism. But it is worth noting that Dolezal, like Trueman, sees serious problems (or deficiencies) with a reliance on biblical theology. Dolezal writes, “The contemplative approach to theology has been somewhat obscured in recent history by the rise of biblical theology as a specialized method of theological inquiry.”[4] And he continues:
3. James E. Dolezal, All That is in God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Classical Christian Theism (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2017), 34.
4. Dolezal, All That is in God, xv.
5. Dolezal, All That is in God, xv.
These two approaches [“contemplative theology” and “biblical theology”] to Christian doctrine need not be in conflict. I readily affirm that biblical theology has been a profound catalyst for improving and enriching our understanding of the progress of redemption.[5]
A nice gesture, but then:
But it seems to me that biblical theology, with its unique focus on historical development and progress, is not best suited for the study of theology proper.[6]
6. Dolezal, All That is in God, xv.
Now we are getting to the heart of the matter:
The reason for this is because God is not a historical individual, and neither does His intrinsic activity undergo development or change. This places God beyond the proper focus of biblical theology.[7]
7. Dolezal, All That is in God, xv.
Steven Duby has also articulated something similar to what Dolezal is arguing. When he summarizes his book, God in Himself: Scripture, Metaphysics, and the Task of Christian Theology, Duby writes:
This study has attempted to set forth a rationale for the pursuit of theologia in the strict sense of the word: knowledge of God in himself without primary reference to the economy.[8]
8. Steven J. Duby, God in Himself: Scripture, Metaphysics, and the Task of Christian Theology. Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019), 293.
Along similar lines, we might point to two recent articles by Michael Allen—a two-part essay, simply entitled, “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology.”[9] Peter Nesbitt, in another Christ Over All essay, addresses Allen’s argument, so I will be brief. Allen, who is himself sympathetic to the resurgent interest in “classical theism” (and especially over against his former colleague, John Frame), is suggesting—somewhat like Trueman, that the rise of biblical theology met a need at the time, but it may be time for Evangelicals to shift focus a bit. In short, Evangelicals must always give proper emphasis to the importance and place of Christian dogmatics. There are many helpful points in Allen’s essays, but one must ask the question: Are we really at a place where we need to move on from biblical theology?
9. Part 1 is hyperlinked first, and part 2 is hyperlinked second.
Where Are We At?
I have offered a very brief genealogical sketch to try and illustrate that there is an ongoing discussion (most nicely put) or intramural skirmish (more realistically put) between two very general camps: Those who are more-or-less in the “biblical theology camp,” and those who are more-or-less in the “systematic theology/classical theism” camp. This schema is no doubt too simplistic. I am generalizing to try and get a hold of where we—as Evangelicals—are.
I find myself in an interesting position. I have over a quarter of century teaching theology, and I have taught what is generally called “classical theism.” I have utilized the works of Richard Muller, Paul Helm, Gerald Bray from our own era. I have utilized Frances Turretin and others from the Protestant Scholastics. I have utilized Muller’s superb Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms—both when teaching theology at the seminary level, and when teaching Latin at the undergraduate level. At the same time, I have utilized the works of John Murray, Cornelius Van Til, Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., John Frame, Vern Poythress, and particularly Graeme Goldsworthy. These are my people, and I will always be indebted to them.
There is a lot that might be said about the “state of biblical theology today.” Let me simply offer a few general summative thoughts about the current state of biblical theology today, focusing my attention on the current (but also ongoing and reaching back a number of years) discussion related to the relationship of biblical theology to systematic theology (and classical theism).
1. I hope that biblical theology never loses its purchase and place in Evangelical Theology.
When I read someone like John Murray or Graeme Goldsworthy, the great value is that it appears I am trying to work to theological conclusions that inextricably flow from, and are grounded in, the biblical text. I understand that my systematic theology/classical theism friends will immediately thrust up their hands and say, “Me too!” Granted. My point is this. Having been in this world for over thirty years (if we go back to Ph.D. days), it is completely possible and virtually likely that, depending on one’s context, one could do a Ph.D. in theology at a prestigious school, and do very little meaningful work in the biblical text. One of the reasons I will be eternally grateful for stumbling upon Goldsworthy’s According to Plan many years ago is that I was forced to reckon with the centrality of the Bible. And this leads to my next point.
2. The importance of attending to the structure of the biblical canon should never be abandoned.
Again, my systematic theology and classical theism friends (and they are my friends) are raising their hands. Fair. My point is this, biblical theology nourishes the theological endeavor by keeping front and center that it is not just “abstract” notions with which we are concerned, but that it is necessary to attend to what we have in front of us—the biblical canon. Vos was clear that both biblical theology and systematic theology are “biblical.” The difference is that biblical theology is more of a “line” and systematic theology is more of a “circle.” That is, both biblical theology and systematic theology “transform” the biblical material. They do something with it. As Vos sees it, “In Biblical Theology this principle is one of historical, in Systematic Theology it is one of logical construction.” [10] When I hear certain persons warning that attention to the economy is not very helpful for “contemplative theology,” I get nervous. If “true” or “contemplative” theology is not nourished by close attention to attending to what God has done in history, I am concerned.
10. Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2014), 25.
3. The best way to relate biblical and systematic theology will continue to be an essential issue.
I do not see this issue going away anytime soon, and it should not. Perhaps those of us who teach in both of these areas can be of help. We shall see. At best these disciplines should be friends. And most persons in this discussion—if I understand them—would essentially agree. For these two disciplines to mutually reinforce each other, Goldsworthy (cheekily?) suggests the imagery of “perichoresis,” a term he borrows from systematic theology. Indeed, it will require theologians who have some expertise or capability in both fields. And I believe the best of Evangelical theology will always be flipping back in one’s Bible to think, re-think, and re-think again whether one’s theological construction or suggestion really flows from the biblical text.
Affirming a Bible-in-hand type of systematic contemplation, I think Michael Allen may have overshot things just a bit. For in one sense, I think the world of biblical theology is just getting started. Let me offer an example.
I have spent some 30 years reading Augustine, writing on Augustine, and teaching Augustine. It would have been quite easy to—early on—simply decide to be an Augustine scholar and not really be too concerned with the minutiae of the actual biblical text. But if one is a true theologian, and is reading Augustine, one must always be asking: “Did Augustine get things right here?” “Why is Augustine one of the patron saints of Roman Catholicism?” “Was Warfield right when he said that the Reformation was the victory of Augustine’s doctrine of grace, while Roman Catholicism is the victory of Augustine’s doctrine of the church?” These questions drive the historical and systematic theologian back to the Bible.
In short: the Evangelical theologian must always be doing the hard work of re-thinking and re-working one’s theological constructions according to Scripture. He or she will always be aware that even the greatest of our theological heroes could be woefully and tragically mistaken. And thus, in keeping with the Reformation, we will semper reformanda—always be reforming.
Conclusion
There is much more that could be said, but I hope biblical theology continues to develop and strive and blossom—and I hope systematic theology does the same. We must practice biblical theology and systematic theology in such a way that these two streams interpenetrate one another again,[11] so that both continue to grow and thrive. May God bring it about.
11. Again, think Goldsworthy’s image of “perichoresis.”
