Horton on systematic theology
Posted by Steve Wilkins
In a comment on a previous post, Joshua Smith pointed to a fine article by Michael Horton on the importance and necessity of systematic theology. Professor Horton makes a number of great points regarding the importance of systematic theology, but I especially appreciated his cautions regarding the dangers of making our theological systems immune to Scripture:
“we should have a healthy fear of ignoring some Scriptures in the interest of maintaining our ’system.’ During every great shift in Christian theology-take the Reformation, for instance-it is always possible to treat the existing system as unalterable. But for we who are heirs to the Reformation, this would be ironic, since the reformers were rightly critical of the notions of an unerring magisterium and irreformable dogmas. In fact, the Reformation occurred because some biblical passages came knocking on the door of the church; and division resulted largely because the late medieval church simply refused to rethink its interpretation of Scripture in the light of clear exegesis.”
“we must be careful to keep our systems open to correction by accurate exegesis, that is, by accurate interpretation of biblical passages. And we must beware of equating our confessional and systematic theologies with Scripture itself. No responsible evangelical theologian has ever attributed final authority to any system.”
yea and right on.
3 Responses to “Horton on systematic theology”
Leave a Reply
May 19th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
So, Mike Horton says it and it gets sent out on the Westminster Cal alumni email list (which is how I got it). Jeff Meyers said on the DRC discussion and got lambasted by Darryl Hart and others for for being anti-confessional. Go figure.
May 24th, 2008 at 7:05 am
Josh, are you saying that by being biblical you’re also being confessional? That would make every Bible toting Christian a confessionalist even if he also believes in no confession but the Bible. Go figure, indeed.
If you want to say that being confessional is a problem, fine, or that being a certain kind of confessionalist is a problem, fine. But I don’t see how it’s so hard to figure out that if someone criticizes the confession he may be anti-confessional. None of this, of course, settles whether the criticism of the confession is legitimate. But remember, Arminians don’t like the Westminster Standards and claim to be biblical. Is it wrong to conclude they are anti-confessional?
May 27th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Darryl, you appear to specialize in not just jumping, but flying first-class on a trans-Atlantic flight to conclusions. Where did what I say at all imply that all biblicists are confessional? Or that we should not say Arminians are anti-confessional?
What I’m saying is this: it appears that certain parties are being selective in how they test for confessionalism. When Meyers says that theology is developing and the confessions need to be tested according to Scripture, he’s anti-confessional, un-Reformed, etc. When Mike says something very similar, it is trumpeted on our alumni list. I was simply raising the question, not making blanket statements about confession and Scripture.
BTW, I never did get an answer in the DRC discussion as to how your view of the authority of confessions differs from Rome’s view of the magisterium.