God has spoken, and we have his Word
Beeke and Smalley points to Hebrews 1:1-2 to tell us that we have God’s words.
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.Why does it matter? Because God’s words are “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). His words are also intended to encourage us (Romans 15:4).
As God has spoken, we respond
As God has given his Word, we should “study it, do what it says, and teach it in God’s church so that people glory him”.
We should study because our human nature is corrupt. Without sound doctrine, the authors quotes John Calvin to explain the potential consequence: our nature is a “perpetual factory of idols” because the mind is full of “pride and boldness” and “dares to imagine a god according to its own capacity”.
We should “do what it says” to glory God. Theology helps us to remember God’s words. “Spiritual remembrance produces obedient action”.
We should teach because God told us to teach his Word to our children (Deuteronomy 4:9) and to the nations (Matthew 24:14).
We may nevertheless encounter arguments against theology
The authors list nine common arguments, which I have organized into three main categories:
- There are epistemological arguments against theology (reasons 1 and 2)
- There are ‘practical reasons’ to not study theology (reasons 3, 4, 5 and 6 )
- There is no ‘absolute truth’ to be studied (reasons 7, 8 and 9)
First, empiricism claims that God cannot be studied because he cannot be measured. “Only those things that can be measured by the physical sciences can contribute to our knowledge of reality. We can know only what we see, hear, touch, taste, or smell.”
In response, the authors explain that “the physical sciences … do not merely analyze data but … interpret it according to prevailing theories, which are based upon assumptions and traditions that change over time. Empiricism sets up a … mythology, enshrined around the idol of the infallible scientific community that acts with [supposedly] total objectivity”. In short, the physical sciences can be grounded as much ‘philosophical understanding’ as theology.
Second, rationalism tells us to not study theology because it does not make sense. It argues that “our knowledge is based … upon reasonable thinking”. However, rationalism considers “many essential Christian doctrines … as irrational or illogical, and therefore untrue”. In response, the authors explain that Christians must acknowledge that God is God, and that “[God’s] understanding is unsearchable” (Isaiah 40:28). Therefore, no one can deduce all knowledge from rational principles.
Third, pragmatism argues that the only thing that matters is success in building the church, especially through evangelism. Theology is not ‘practical’. In response, the authors retort that “sound theology is essential to evangelism and building the church. Evangelism is preaching the gospel. The church must guard against a false … gospel, such as infected the Galatians (Galatians 1:8-9)”. Moreover, “theological knowledge, doctrine, and truth are crucial for spiritual growth”—I can attest to this point!
Fourth, ecumenism claims that theology is too divisive to be studied. It argues that theology damages the unity of the body of Christ. In response, the authors retort that only false doctrine divides. The authors also assert that “it insults the wisdom of God to say that his Word contains teachings that we do best to avoid. All Scripture is profitable for teaching and application (2 Timothy 3:16)”.
Fifth, anti-intellectualism opposes ‘intellectual engagement’ with the Bible. It perceives that theology can become heretical. In response, the authors argue that “it is impossible to teach biblical truth without reflecting upon the Bible in a systematic fashion”. I also note that anti-intellectualism contradicts Jesus, who told us to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37).
Sixth, romanticism tells us that an ‘emotional connection’ with God is more than important than our ‘knowledge’ of God. It argues that the “only thing that matters is bringing people into a personal encounter with God so that they may be moved to love him”. In response, the authors use Luke 8:13 to explain that “it is possible to respond to the Word with [emotions], but then fall away as the feelings prove to nothing of abiding value”. Again, I would point to Matthew 22:37.
Seventh, progressivism suggests that theology is meaningless because we will never find the ‘right answer’. It argues that “we are on a never-ending journey into truth, so we never arrive at any definite conclusions”—that we should adopt an “evolutionary view of religion in which we constantly shed old forms and advance to higher levels”. In response, the authors use 2 Timothy 1:13 to remind us of our biblical duty to “follow the pattern of sound words … in Christ Jesus”. The authors explain that “true reformation is a return to the [ancient] paths (Jeremiah 6:16)”.
Eighth, agnosticism tells us that theology disrespects God because we will never find the ‘right answer’. It argues that “any attempt to build a system of truths not only fails but necessarily distorts the paradoxes of God and dishonours his infinity”. In response, the authors point to Christ who rebuked ignorance and doubt when he said, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!” (Luke 24:25).
Ninth, relativism tells us that there is no absolute truth. It claims that the Bible “has as many teachings as there are people who read it, or even more”. In response, the authors remind us Jesus told us to abide in his words to know the truth (John 8:31).
This article is part of a series on systematic theology, based upon the first of four volumes of Reformed Systematic Theology by Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley.
