The postmodernist wants to reject the existence of brute facts by saying that all facts are interpreted by subjects who exist in a socio-cultural milieu. Therefore, we can never access “objective” truth because there are no brute facts. All our knowledge is colored by our socio-cultural situation. Van Til’s point in rejecting brute facts is not that human subjects are bound by culture and are therefore unable to interpret facts without bias, but that God is the all-knower. The self-sufficient Triune God knows all facts and pre-interprets them. Therefore we can never come to any fact without approaching it as one that is already known and has been interpreted by the all-knowing Triune God.

On page 101 of his book The Next Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity, Carl Raschke speaks of Van Til’s as a transitional theology on its way toward postmodernism. This is a terrible case of misreading a theologian – using a gross misrepresentation for one’s own doctrinal wiles. Our task as human knowers is to reinterpret the facts, thinking God’s thoughts after him on a created level. We think analogically as our knowledge is firmly planted on the one who knows all things. As such we are not hopelessly trapped within our socio-cultural context, but can escape that context because God has clearly revealed himself and that he is the reference point for all knowledge. Perhaps readers are interpreting Van Til according to their own postmodern inclinations.

There is no shortage of labeling from either side. The “union with Christ school” gets likened to Federal Vision and New Perspective(s) on Paul theology, while those who agree with Horton are often termed “Lutheran.” Though name-calling is never helpful, theological comparisons can prove useful in certain circumstances. The latest issue of Modern Reformation continues this trend. Or does it?

I realize things can get heated in the throws of theological discussion, so I offer this post as a light-hearted observation. As one might expect, Volume 18, Issue 7 includes a series on John Calvin. In the lead article, Is Calvin Still Relevant After 500 Years? It all Depends, Michael Horton describes the duplex gratia dei akin to the way he does in his Covenant and Salvation. The next article, Christ at the Center: The Legacy of the Reformed Tradition (no relation to the podcast of course!) deals in part with the issue of union with Christ – presenting a Calvin more amenable to the “union with Christ school.”

What brings out the crazy uncle is that this particular article is written by Dennis E. Tamburello, a Roman Catholic priest. As a friend of mine has said, it does seem a little odd that a Roman Catholic priest is writing for Modern Reformation. Many will shrug this off – and probably for good reason. Tamburello has written a book on Calvin and union with Christ and is a capable contributor. But then again, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not really after you!

But is all proof-texting wrong? I wonder if there hasn’t been an over reaction to the abhorrent theology of the cults and sects, and to the aberrations of sound theology in the dispensationalist and postmillennial camps of Christendom. Everyone practices proof-texting of some kind, and it is entirely right to do so. The Apostle Paul did it relentlessly. One only has to consider his method of defending justification by faith alone in Galatians 3, or his explanation of individual, eternal election in Romans 9, or his eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15. In fact, it could be argued that Paul defends every doctrine of Scripture by proof-texting from the Old Testament. The use of the OT in the NT is a systematic application of contextual proof-texting. So what is the principle that needs to be established before we can practice a biblical proof-texting? This answers to this question could fill, and have filled, volumes. It seems, however, that a very basic answer can be given based on discussions of exegesis being governed by systematic and biblical theology.

The relationship between these three theological approaches (or ‘sciences’ as they are so commonly called) has formed the basis for endless discussions in our day. In the spirit of brevity I would simply like to focus on Paul’s proof-texting in Galatians 3.:1-14. There are no less than six direct proof-texts that Paul brings forth in his defense of justification “by faith” not “by the law.” The first is a reference to the example of the justification of Abraham (Gal. 3:6) from Genesis 15:6: “just as Abraham ‘believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. ” (NOTE: Justification is not simply “table fellowship” as some have surmised because Abraham is not sitting at the table with anyone but God). The second is also from the Abraham narrative (Gal. 3:8), specifically from Gen. 12:3, and relates to the Gospel in the OT: “the Scriptures forseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith preached the Gospel to Abraham beforehand saying ‘In you all the nations shall be blessed .” The third is in the context of the requirement of the law (Gal. 3:10) given to Israel in Deuteronomy 27:26 : “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things written in the book of the law to do them .” The fourth is a declaration about the nature of faith as the instrument, or means, of righteousness (Gal 3:11), and is taken from Habakkuk 2:4: “The just shall live by faith .” The fifth is a contrasting statement about the nature of the law, as a means of life, (Gal. 3:12) from Leviticus 18:5: “The man who does them shall live by them .” The sixth, and final proof-text in this section (Gal. 3:13), is part of a verse from Deut. 21:23, describing the nature of the curse of the law and the public manifestation of the curse: “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree .”

It would be impossible, in this short post, to deal adequately with all the intricacies and exegetical issues surrounding each of these OT verses in their NT context. But the issue of context (i.e. specifically theological context) is the major issue that must be discussed. Paul does not proof-text at random, with no coherent relationship to a theological grid or system. Paul draws from the Old Testament revelation in order to support the biblical-theological and systematic theological truths he is setting forth. The Biblical theology (the progressive revelation of redemption) of the passage, from Abraham to Moses to Christ, is clearly the larger context of the passage. Paul is interested in defending the reception of the blessings of Abraham (i.e. justification and the reception of the Spirit) to Gentiles, as well as Jews, in their relationship to the Person and work of Christ. The entirety of the passage deals with the contrast between faith and works, law and Gospel, blessing and cursing.

The first two OT quotes are meant to root the concept of “justification by faith alone” in the first clear manifestation of the Gospel. There is one Gospel and one way of salvation. This was true of the first Jew, Abraham. The law had not yet been given, and Abraham was already justified. How was he justified? Paul reaches back to Gen. 15:6 to prove that it was by faith , not by what he did. Paul makes it clear that Abraham had the “Gospel” preached to him, when he alludes to Gen. 12:3. As he unfolds the relationship between the law and the Gospel, Paul now enters in on a discussion of the nature of the Law. The Judaizers were trying to get Gentile and Jewish converts to believe that it was necessary for them to keep the law, in addition to having faith in Christ, so that they may be accepted by God and ultimately saved. The final three OT proof-texts deal with the demands of the law and the penalty for failing to meet those demands.

Now, it could be argued that the OT texts that Paul appealed to in Galatians 3 could, each on their own, be pulled to defend any of the truths of the overall context of Galatians 3:1-14. Their meanings are not dependent on the further revelation of Galatians 3. It certainly helps us get a better grasp of their meaning as we see them woven together in their redemptive historical context. But, the truth and theological meaning of each verse is embedded within the particular verses. Here is the conclusion: Proof-texting is not only not illegitimate, it is actually supported and demanded by Scripture. The more important question concerns the biblical-theological and systematic moorings of the verses themselves. What is the meaning of the verse in its original context? What is the meaning of the verse in light of previous revelation? How does this verse relate to Gen.3:15 for instance? How does this verse relate to what we know about God, Christ, sin, salvation/judgment from the rest of the Scriptures? In short, everyone practices proof-texting (or at least everyone should).; but, is the proof-texting you are practicing accurate in relationship to the biblical and systematic theological truths of the Bible. The problem with the proof-texting of the cults and sects, as well as those with faulty eschatology and ecclesiology in Christian circles, is that their biblical-theological and systematic foundations are missing or wrong. If they were accurate it would be very beneficial to “proof-text” all day long. While these are not always easy issues to grapple with, we should not be ashamed of quoting particular verses to prove a particular doctrine. The problem is not in proof-texting, it is in the theology with which each group or individual approaches particular verses. Every word of God is inspired, as well as every verse. In John 10:35 our Lord quotes one word of Scripture (‘gods’), from Psalm 82, thus showing that every word is inspired and useful for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. Certainly He does so with the proper theological support. But would we rebuke our Lord for proof-wording? Praise God that He has given us the example of His Son, together with the NT prophets and apostles, to follow. We must defend the truth “line by line and precept upon precept,” but we must make sure that our line and precepts are governed by the theological truths of the whole of Scripture. We must be “workman that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”

First, this assumes that our culture is non or anti-doctrinal. It is not, it just thinks it is. You need to reveal this to those who oppose you as you seek to engage this culture. Touch the ethics of this culture and you will quickly find its doctrine. Touch the narrative of this culture and you will find what the culture’s doctrine is.

Second, this approach that is skeptical of doctrine is misleading because everyone has a doctrine.

Third, We need to look to the Scripture to be informed how to be theological in our pastoral ministry. We need to understand the objections of our time to be sure. We need to hear the doubts of the post-moderns, but then we need to give a better diagnosis and prescription than they have offered.

Dr. Duncan argues that systematic theology or propositional theology is in distress at this time. As faithful shepherd we need to resist to the death falling into this mindset. Some are saying that we need to meet post-modernism by entertaining post-modern vagueness.

Charge to be doctrinal like Piper and Lloyd-Jones.

We must show that doctrine is necessary, important and unavoidable. Many believe that systematic theology, in addition to being a useless philosophical process, is useless. Dr. Duncan stressed that he wants us to see the value of systematic theology. It out to be our aim to outlive, out joy and out adorn the critics of systematic theology.

Finally, the Bible makes it clear that doctrine is for living. Doctrine out not to be a speculative practice. Doctrine is for life. If our lives do not reflect this the the truth has gone bad on us.

I. The Concepts and Legitimacy of Doctrine and Systematic Theology are Under Distress at this Time.

We hear even evangelicals around us saying things like “Christianity is a life not a doctrine.” It is saying the same thing that liberals said at the turn of the 20th Century. Duncan recommended that everyone read Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism.

When someone says “We should care more about people than about doctrinal truth,” we need to recognize that this is a truth statement. Dr. Duncan, in a humorous fashion, said, “I wonder if this means that he cares more about the truth that we should be more interested in people that about doctrinal truth, than about people.”

“Deeds not Creeds” is a unitarian slogan. We are now hearing it from Evangelical leaders. You will hear such things are “Let’s stop debating the faith and lets start living it.” The assumption is that the defense of the truth is contrary to living the truth. Sometimes you will hear things like “Truth is a Person not a proposition,” which is, ironically, a proposition.

Sometime systematic theology is challenged by the way it was done in the past. For instance, some challenge the systematic theology of the Princetonians because “they embrace modernist ways of approaching the Bible.”

We are being told that we need more “narrative,” “exegesis,” or “story” than propositions.

Dr. Duncan read quotes from a well known Unitarian pastor and a Jewish Rabbi stating that we need “Deeds not Creeds.” What is interesting about this quote is that we can find affinity for it in the quadrants of evangelicalism–even within circles that are not emergent.

Many people say that the reason evil exists is because of all the evil that has come about because of theology. But theology does not kill, bad theology kills. We need to get rid of the bad and strive for good theology.

The concept of freedom that we have today is a result of Puritan and Reformed history, not on account of the work of those who tell us we need to tolerate everything that opposes what we believe.

Eugene Genevieve comments that the religious minority in American at the turn of the 20th Century felt more comfortable around conservative Protestants than mainstream Liberals. God has made people in his image and therefore we must treat them with respect. Force conversion is illegitimate. But strangely a laze fair attitude did not make for a welcoming atmosphere for religious immigrants.

Collin Hanson quotes Scott McKnight’s artcle on systematic theology. McKnight argues that God did not give a systematic theology, but a narrative. He notes that ST should be held in suspicion because there is no unified agreement on systematic theology. But the Bible is not a story narrative. It is His word coming to His people. It contains written history, hymns, prayers, love poetry, philosophy, rubrics, etc. Indeed we have to put the metanarrative together. We do this with Biblical (i.e. Redemptive Historical) and Systematic Theology. If you believe in the canon of Scripture, inerrancy, and the analogy of Scripture you have just showed the importance of ST.

Remember this is not the first generation of people who have liked stories. Can you image a father, in the 18th Century, tucking his child into bed at night and hearing the child say, “No stories tonight dad. I like propositional syllogisms.” No, we all have had stories to teach us political and religious truth.

Furthermore McKnight’s assertion that you cannot find systematic Truth in the Bible. In Gen. 2 you do not have Adam wondering whether he can have a relationship and conversation with God. The apostle Paul and John were ready to expel people from the church over words and language. Affirming the humanity of Jesus was not unimportant to the apostle John. Many of the theologians of the Medieval and Reformation church stressed the archtypal/echtypal distinction. Archtypal knowledge is the knowledge that we cannot know God like God knows Himself. Echtypal knowledge is the knowledge of God that we can know.

Dr. Duncan stressed that he loves Biblical Theology. He said it is important and necessary. BT and ST are friends. They need each other and compliment each other. Geerhardus Vos and John Murray had a healthy appropriation of these two discipines. Richard Gaffin, D.A. Carson and Bruce Waltke are among living theologians who do the same. Through this inter penetration of these disciplines we will be able to better articulate the truth of Scripture.

When a member of your congregation comes up and asks you to tell them about Angels, they do not want a story. They want a systematic treatment in about 2 minutes. When a member of your church asks you what happens when you die? You have to be able to give them a systematic, propositional summary of truth as it is taught in the Scriptures. Doctrine is what the whole Bible teaches about a particular topic.

We must sit under the judgment of, and not over the Master of, the word. Even the most sympathetic of evangelical biblical studies men can find systematic theology to be less important than it really is.

II. Scripture shows us the truth that truth, doctrine and theology are necessary for the Christian Life and simply unavoidable.

1. John 17:13-17

In this context truth is not faithfulness. Truth is God’s word.

2. Matthew 28:18-20

In the Great Commission Jesus tells the church to teach all of His truth to His people who are seeking to live out that truth.

3. 1 Timothy 1:3-5

Paul tells Timonthy negatively not to listen to bad theology and positively that good theology leads to godliness.

4. 1 Timothy 1:8-11

Paul tells Timothy that doctrine and ethics are inseparately connected.

5. 1 Tim. 6:2-4

Paul here shows not only a concern for orthodox doctrine, but he even cares about retaining the pattern of sounds words of Jesus’ teaching.

6. Titus 1:1

Paul connects truth and godliness. Knowledge of the truth is vital to godliness. Paul barely gets out of his salutation in this letter before he breaks out into an exposition of the value of truth.

Paul also used the doctrine of the incarnation in Philippians 2 to teach the importance of doctrine on the life of the church. We are to have the same mind as Christ Jesus. The doctrine leads to a life of godliness in the people of God.

Paul always teaches that the answer to practical problems is always theology. These problems are, at the root, theological.

In the anti-doctrinal age we must be convinced that truth matters, that theology is for life, that doctrine matters.

Dr. Duncan ended the talk with a reference to Luke 24. This is often the key text for Biblical Theology, as over against Systematic Theology. Duncan argues very persuasively that Jesus teaches ST as well as BT when He speaks of His humiliation and exaltation in his discourse. This is ST. Certainly BT is taught there as well. But ST informs BT, just as BT informs ST.

—
Vos, Geerhardus. "Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology" in Redemptive-History and Biblical Interpretation edited by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. p 256.

Supernatural verbal revelation is, according to Van Til, inherent in the human situation and the intended concomitant to supernatural revelation in nature and in man’s inner constitution. In that case, man was never – and is not now – expected simply to observe the natural world or consider his own rational, moral personality and figure out for himself how they are to be interpreted and how their truths are to be verbally expressed. Man’s Creator has provided the linguistic framework for “exegeting” the truth of God in natural revelation and in man himself.¹

When we step back and think about this, it is a fairly straightforward point. But what is interesting is the way he couches the statement. God has given us the linguistic framework for understanding natural revelation. What Bahnsen and Van Til are saying is starkling opposed to contemporary teaching in philosophy. Grenz and Franke in following Wittgenstein present a post-modern world where each community has its own linguistic framework and makes sense of reality through that grid. Jacques Derrida talks about subjects being locked in a hall of mirrors. We are always and everywhere trapped by our own experience and our own linguistic structure. How does one transcend this limitation?

Karl Rahner, probably the most influential Roman Catholic theologian of the 20th century and the mind behind the theology of Vatican II, speaks of thematic and unthematic knowledge. Thematic knowledge pertains to religion, science and other structured knowledge most often obtained through a syllogistic process. This knowledge is second order, however and takes a back seat to the first order knowledge he calls unthematic knowledge. This is the intuition each human has that he is dependent upon “being” most properly understood as God. Unthematic knowledge is known immediately without conceptual or linguistic mediation. Formally, we might say Rahner’s unthematic knowledge is general revelation. Man as image of God does have an immediate knowledge of the Creator that is not run through conceptual or linguistic frameworks. But in understanding that immediate knowledge is where Rahner and Van Til go in opposite directions.

Van Til incorporates the reformed doctrine of special revelation and places it as the exclusive interpreter of general revelation. So for Van Til, there is no natural theology, only natural (general) revelation which is interpreted by special revelation. Rahner, on the other hand, has an understanding that grace is available through the whole world and that all men will be “divinized” or reversely incarnated, as it were, if they have some sort of passionate, genuine experience. In that sense, unbelievers are “anonymous” Christians. I’ve heard that Rahner would have even been “honored” to have been called an “anonymous” Buddhist.

We must maintain the exclusivity of special revelation for interpreting general revelation. Through this special revelation we are able to transcend our linguistic limitations because God transcends them and He has revealed Himself to us. We “break through” because we everywhere and always rely on God, who is a se – the God who is comprehensive in His knowledge and inexhaustible in His thought.

¹Bahnsen, Greg L. Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1998), 195.

Sanctification is a work of God’s grace, whereby they whom God hath, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in time, through the powerful operation of his Spirit applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, renewed in their whole man after the image of God; having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts, and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened, as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.

How do you understand sanctification and its relationship to the gospel message? What are your thoughts? Comment here or join the discussion at the RF Forums.

Genesis 1-6; and Matthew 1-2
Genesis 6-12; and Matthew 3-4
Genesis 13-18; and Matthew 5
Genesis 19-23; and Matthew 5:43-6:34
Genesis 24-26; and Matthew 7:1-8:15
Genesis 27-35; and Matthew 8:16-10:39
Genesis 36-40; and Matthew 10:40-12:14
Genesis 41-44; and Matthew 12:15-13:9
Genesis 45-48; and Matthew 13:10-52

Scripture is often used in Scripture in a systematic manner, making logical deductions in order to observe the full implications of what the bible teaches elsewhere.

Look again at Mark 12:24-27. Jesus rebukes the Saducees for not knowing the Scriptures, yet what he criticises is a part of their Systematic Theology: they wrongly deny the resurrection. He then reads Exodus 3:6 in the light of the systematic belief that God is the God of the living, to reach the conclusion that the Pentateuch affirms the resurrection.

The statement ‘He is not the God of the dead but the God of the living’, is particularly pertinent to our discussion. Not a single verse in the Old Testament makes this assertion explicitly, yet when we read of God’s action in the Old Testament as a whole, that he is the God of the living is clear. Jesus is not giving new revelation when he says this. He is deducing it from a systematic reading of the Old Testament. Neither is Jesus alone a legitimate Systematician, for if he were, he would not rebuke the Saducees for wrong Systematics. They too were expected to make such logical connections from Scripture. If Jesus expected it of the Saducees, then how much more will he expect it of his redeemed people?

HT: Les Prouty