Biblical Criticism vs. Systematic Theology: A Case for a Higher View of Both

Biblical Studies and Theological Studies have been at war for almost 300 years, both civil, each with tribes within its own borders warring for the throne of definition, method, and object, and interdisciplinary, each fighting over to whom the scepter of Scripture rightfully belongs. For liberalism indeed entered the study of Scripture with Gabler’s address in 1787, yet death reigned from Gabler to Geerhardus Vos, who showed us the types of the one who came. Yet until Vos, biblical studies was a mere glorified historical sociology, being critical of the divine nature of Scripture. In theology, from Calvin to Bavinck to Van Til, God was the principium essendi (essential foundation, as in "essense"), and therefore his revelation as the principium cognescendi (foundation of knowledge) as his revelation in Scripture and creation were the determinative organic foundation for theological studies. From Kant to Schleiermacher to Lindbeck, principia become pretentious, and articulia (articles, or confessions) become the normative sphere of theology.

Now, if principia precede our consideration, and articulia proceed from our consideration, the question we must answer is: “Is systematic theology (henceforth ST) a principium or articuli?” “Does ST come before Scripture or after Scripture?” If it is an articuli, I can criticize it to death if it so pleases my principium. But there must be a principium on the basis of which I criticize it. If I appeal to the authority of Scripture as a principium to justify my criticism of ST (as an articuli), then I must provide a rationalization for its authority that is non-systematic theological by the nature of its critical stance toward ST. On the other hand, if ST is a principium, then it is the foundation for knowledge, and escapes criticism. Principia cannot be criticized, because if one forfeits the authority of a principium, he must either be standing on another principium or has forsaken principia altogether, upon which occasion there is nothing to be critical of. Criticism is allegiance, and allegiance is submission to something.

The biblical theologian will often err by relegating ST to a confessional corner. The systematic theologian will often err by maintaining that ST (as an articuli) is the principium, even for the authority of Scripture. The former is a disregard for principia altogether, and the latter is Roman Catholicism. Where is the resolution?

Bavinck puts it perfectly when he speaks of the divisions of ST: “[T]he order that is theological and at the same time historical-genetic in character deserves preference. It, too, takes its point of departure in God and views all creatures only in relation to him. But proceeding from God, it descends to his works, in order through them again to ascend to and end in him. So in this method as well, God is beginning, middle, and end.” (1:112) For Bavinck, then, there is an ordo theologia. It begins with God as the principium essendi (“it...takes its point of departure in God and views all creatures only in relation to him”), proceeds from that to the inerrant scriptures (and therein biblical theology as redemptive history) as the principium cognescendi (“it descends to his works, in order through them again to ascend to and end in him”), and ends with ST occurring again, but as an articuli fidei. And so, ST is “from Him and through Him and to Him” (Rom. 11:36).

My hope in writing this is that students of Scripture might finally take a stand for ST. Too often, lip service to ST as a bunch of “necessary theological presuppositions,” conceived of as mere articuli only, passes for an exegete’s Christian duty, fulfilled to let the big boys do the heavy interpretive lifting. Quite the contrary, the only reason that ST as an articuli means anything is because ST as principium essendi is the foundation for Scripture as principium cognescendi. Too often, we hear the rally cry “Sola Scriptura” by those who forget that (1) “Sola Scripture” is an interpretive tradition, and (2) “Sola Scriptura” is one of five “Solas,” perhaps the most important, and most hermeneutically relevant, being “Solus Christus” (not “Solo Christo”). Scripture is not the ultimate principium. God as the principium essendi is the ultimate principium, and to honor Him, the progressive nature of the principium cognescendi must not be seen as warrant to rip it out of the hands of God himself, to separate the two.

More particularly and simply, Scripture is either inspired by God and inerrant, or not inspired and impossible to understand. The fact that some evangelical scholars today reject inerrancy blows my mind. Hear this clearly: If you see Scripture as a problem to fix, you will never fix it. There are too many possible historical reconstructions, text-critical issues, form-critical developments, source-critical contradictions, and, plainly, too many historical, literary, sociological, and ideological weeds between the reader and God, in which case either (1) God is an incompetent communicator and has not provided men the sufficient means to be learned unto salvation, or (2) God does something extra scriptura in which case we encounter God through Scripture, but not as though the words themselves are inspired (Barth, contemporary TI movement), which takes its legs out from under itself by saying “There is no principium cognescendi, only the principium essendi,” in which case interpreters are wasting their time. Bavinck rightly asserts, “The foundations of faith (principia fidei) are themselves articles of faith (articuli fidei), based not on human arguments and proofs but divine authority.” (1:109)

Regarding inerrancy, then, Scripture is either our principium cognescendi or it is not. Contemporary trends in theology like to settle into whatever word of Rom. 11:36 fits them best, whether it is “from Him” (only essendi, Barth), “through Him” (only cognescendi, rejection of inerrancy), or “to Him” (only articuli, Frei, Lindbeck), when in reality, God calls us through Christ to accept all three (John 17:13-19) and believe that Scripture is God’s holy, inspired, and therefore inerrant word given for us Solus Christus.

A Critical Review of N. T. Wright’s Article “How Can the Bible Be Authoritative?"

In order to understand what N. T. Wright says in his article How Can The Bible Be Authoritative?, everything he says, unless explicitly disjointed by Wright himself, must be read in light of the aims that he sets forth in the beginning. First, Wright proposes that he will set forth a correct understanding of what it means for the Bible to be authoritative by means of a differential analysis of the common evangelical view and his own. Second, he burdens himself with the explanation of how that authority is relevant and effective for the church and therefore the world.

The first major problem Wright addresses is the narrative format in which the majority of the Bible was written and challenges what he sees as the common protestant practice of reading a biblical narrative and transposing that into a creed, rule, or whatever else might fall into the category that he calls “timeless truth.”[1] He says that using the Bible for the purpose of attaining these higher unchangeable truths is to deal with truth, which does not, as he puts it, have “anything to do with space-time reality.”[2] His critique of a theology that classifies itself as “timeless” is justified, but its relevance to his critique of evangelicalism may be less so, as Bruce Demarest writes for the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, “Some mistakenly view systematic theology as a deposit of divine truths that is timeless.”[3] (Emphasis added)

Wright’s misunderstanding of how the Bible relates to contemporary Christian theology is clearly seen in his critique thereof. He unwarrantedly caricatures truths that are pervasive throughout all of time as truths that are completely unrelated thereto. He offers a paradigm that relies on a false dichotomy between narrative portions of scripture and the immutability of God’s nature in his attributes. It is just as plausible, and even more so if we as Christians are going to be consistent within our worldview, that a God who wants to reveal his unchanging attributes to the world tells his people about himself through interaction and self-revelation as the narrative formula Wright proposes. To restrict a theologian from understanding God in his own culturally conditioned categories is just as presuppositionally conditioned as Wright accuses evangelicals of being.[4] Furthermore, Wright further does recognize is that theological formulae of narrative and proposition have always been simultaneously contemporaneous from the beginning of Christian history, as Irenaeus and Justin Martyr display, respectively.[5]

Wright then seeks to redefine what “authority” means in the term “biblical authority” to fit his understanding of the relationship between the scriptural narrative and theology. He says that the Bible gets its authority from God, and presents his point by means of a metaphor of a five act Shakespearean play missing its last act. This presents a scenario for actors to familiarize themselves with the roles in the first four acts and, as best as they can, improvise in the last act. This metaphor is hardly worth analysis since it, seemingly in Wright’s mind, is, again, based on a false understanding of theology, for he says, “That is how God brought his theology to bear on Israel: not by revealing timeless truths, but by delegating his authority to obedient men through whose words he brought judgment and salvation to Israel and the world.” (Emphasis added)

Wright attempts to offer some exegetical insight to support his thesis, but it can hardly be taken seriously, because in the beginning of his article, he says, “One might even say, in one (admittedly limited) sense, that there is not a biblical doctrine of the authority of the Bible,”[6] and later says, “There, then, is perhaps a more complex model of biblical authority…I believe it is a view which is substantially compatible with the Bible’s own view.”[7] Although he puts disclaimers on both of these statements, his presupposition concerning what the Bible has to say about its own authority remains ambiguous, and his methodology therefore indeterminable.

Wright’s main thesis in the second half of his article is that we as the people of God should immerse ourselves in the story of God instead of using it as the world would use it to oppress, control, or categorize. He articulates this with the metaphor of the note played on the piano, which has a fundamental note and harmonic overtones, neither of which should be privileged over the other. The implication is that some people only want to hear the fundamental note like historical critical scholars, and some pietists only want to understand how it is applicable for today. He again offers his narrative drama as a means of fully engaging the two ends of the spectrum, but does not support his hermeneutical paradigm with anything other than rich metaphors and cheap rhetoric. So I must critique him again by saying that his paradigm is for no reason more plausible than, when understood correctly, evangelical systematic theology is for understanding who God is and who we are as his people through his word. His evidence simply is not there.

Two things should be said in conclusion. Throughout this article, Wright is not virtuous in his presentation of evangelicalism. He talks about rabid fundamentalists waving Bibles around and evangelicals accusing God of giving them the wrong kind of book. He cites no authors, theologians, scholars, or pastors to construct his false animation of what evangelicalism does or looks like. Secondly, Wright does bring to light an important question in the world of biblical scholarship, being: How can a collection of narratives with 2-3000 year old historical referents be used to support any kind of theological indicative or imperative statement today? I believe he partially answers that question, but more importantly, I believe that he ultimately does answer the two original questions he set out asking, namely, “What does it mean that the Bible is authoritative?” and “How can we participate in that story?”

For those struggling with the concept of the authority of Scripture or interested in gaining a deeper understanding of the Reformed position, I have posted the first section of Richard Gaffin’s Book God’s Word in Servant Form in which he outlines the deeper bibliological themes of Abraham Kuyper’s view on Scripture, and therein explains how the Bible is propositionally authoritative (even on itself) and narratively redemptive.

Wright’s article can be found here:

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

Gaffin’s article can be found here:

http://greekexegesis.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/20gaffin_godswordinservantform1.pdf

---

[1] N. T. Wright, “How Can The Bible Be Authoritative?” (accessed February 7, 2009): available from http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

[2] Ibid.

[3] Bruce Demarest, “Systematic Theology”

[4] What Wright embarrassingly does not acknowledge is the historical fact that the contemporary anti-propositional “Narrative Theology” movement is a product of the failed Biblical Theology movement of the 1960s, not a neo-Hebraism. For further study, consult Why Narrative? Readings in Narrative Theology ed. Stanley Hauerwas and L. Gregory Jones, (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1997).

[5] Bryan Litfin, Getting to Know the Church Fathers, (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2007), 10. Also displayed in the multigeneric nature of the Johannine corpus.

[6] Wright, Authoritative.

[7] Ibid.