SYSTEMS AND METHODS

The various systems of theology are scarcely less important as subsidiary sources, than the creeds and confessions. Representing as they do, the various groupings of the great doctrines of Christianity, they are arranged according to some principle of organization which in the mind of the author is regarded as central and comprehensive. Frequently these systems are attempts to relate theology to the philosophy of the times, and so to justify its claims at the bar of reason. Dr. W. B. Pope has given us a paragraph, which sets forth perhaps more clearly than any other, the value of system in theology. "It is of great importance," he says, "that the mind should be imbued at the outset with a sense of the possibility and advantage of a well-articulated system. In the organic unity of Christian truth, every doctrine has its place, while all the lesser systems revolve around their common center, and it is one of the fruits of theological study to enable students to locate every topic at once. But not only so, there are rich and profound harmonies among these truths; and every doctrine having its proper place, has also its relation to almost every other; the quick discernment of these relations is another fruit of devout and earnest inquiry. Putting the two together, the high aim of the proficient in this study should be to discover all the affinities and connections of the truths of the Christian system. Theology, the city of God, is built as it were upon seven hills, which are the great doctrines that may be discerned as fundamental. These several hills of the Lord are not sharply separated from each other, but throw out their spurs in all directions, making it hard to show where one department of truth ends and another begins. To maintain the distinctions without marking them too mechanically is the aim of sound theological science" (POPE,CCT, I, p. 26).

The question is sometimes asked by the naive and uninformed, "Why not take the truths of the Bible as God has revealed them, without any attempt to systematize them?" Dr. Charles Hodge answers this question in an argument for systematization which has become classic in theology. "Such, evidently," he says, "is the will of God. He does not teach men astronomy nor chemistry, but gives them facts out of which these sciences are constructed. Neither does he teach us systematic theology, but He gives us in the Bible the truth which, properly understood and arranged, constitute the science of theology. As the facts of nature are all related and determined by physical laws, so the facts of the Bible are all related and determined by the nature of God and His creatures, and as He wills that men should study His works and discover their wonderful Organic relation and harmonious combination, so it is His will that we should study His Word, and learn that, like the stars, its truths are not isolated points, but systems, cycles, and epicycles, in unending harmony and grandeur. Besides all this, although the Scriptures do not contain a system of theology as a whole, we have in the Epistles of the New Testament, portions of the system wrought out to our hands. These are our authority and guide." We may say further, that three general arguments are urged in support of the necessity for systematization.First,the constitution of the human mind, the nature of which is such that, having gathered factual knowledge, it must of necessity reflect upon these truths and unify them into a harmonious system of knowledge. The mind can never rest satisfied in possession of facts unless these are arranged in an orderly and coherent manner. This is as true in the study of the Scriptures as in any other field of investigation.Second,the development of Christian character. Only as truth is thoroughly assimilated does it become conducive to the development of' the Christian life. The uniform testimony of the Church is, that the strongest Christians in every age are those who have had a firm grasp upon the great fundamentals of the Christian faith. This is true, not only because of the power of truth itself, but also because of the strength of purpose which leads to patient research, in order that a reason may be given for the hope that is within them.Third,the presentation of the truth. Closely related to the fact that the very constitution of the mind demands an orderly system, is the same fact viewed from a different angle. Truth must be presented in an orderly manner if it is to be comprehended by other minds. "If we would discharge our duty as teachers and defendants of the faith," continues Dr. Charles Hodge, "we must endeavor to bring all the facts of revelation into systematic order and mutual relation." According to Dr. A. H. Strong, the object of the Christian teacher must be to replace obscure and erroneous conceptions among his hearers, by those which are correct and vivid. He cannot do this without knowing the facts with regard to their relations-knowing them in short, as parts of a system. With this truth he is put in trust. To mutilate it or misrepresent it, is not only a sin against the Revealer of it, it may prove to be the ruin of men's souls. The best safeguard against such mutilations or misrepresentations, is the diligent study of the several doctrines of the faith in their relation to one another, and especially to the central theme of theology, the Person and work of Jesus Christ (Cf. STRONG,Syst. Th., p. 17).

METHODSOFSYSTEMATIZATION

The various methods of systematization which have been adopted by theologians of the Church, are here presented in brief review as illustrations of systems built upon a central truth, which by its author is regarded as sufficiently comprehensive to express the full range of Christian doctrine.

The Trinitarian Method. We have already indicated in our study of the three ecumenical creeds, that the trinitarian method of systematization seems to have been the earliest method adopted by the Church. This form of systematization has continued even to the present day. Bishop Martensen has worked out his monumental contribution to Christian Dogmatics in a very interesting manner on the three rubrics - the Doctrines of the Father, the Doctrines of the Son, and the Doctrines of the Holy Spirit. Dr. John Dickie, the learned theologian of the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand, follows the same plan inhis Organism of Christian Truth; and still later, Dr. Joseph Stump, or the Northwestern Lutheran Theological Seminary has adopted the same order. One of the earliest representatives of this system in modern theology is Leydecker (1642-1721) an ardent exponent of the doctrines of the Reformed Church.

The Analytic Method. This was the method of Calixtus (1586-1656) a theologian of the Lutheran Church in Germany, who began with the assumed end of all things as blessedness, and from this works out the means by which blessedness is secured.

The Federal Method. This method grew out of the political science of the sixteenth century, in which federal headship had become the popular theory. As carried over into theology, the method starts with the idea of two covenants, that of works and that of grace, the latter forming the basis for the unfolding of the doctrines of salvation. It was first used by Cocceius (1603-1669), a Dutch theologian from Holland. It was later used by Witsius (1636-1708), another Dutch theologian, and Thomas Boston (1676-1732) a Scottish writer.

The Anthropological Method. Here the central principle of systematization is the idea of man-his sinful condition and his need of redemption. Chalmers (1780-1847) begins with the disease of man and proceeds to set forth the remedy. Rothe (1799-1867) arranges his theology in two main divisions: (a) The Consciousness of sin, and (b) the Consciousness of redemption.

The Christological or Christocentric Method. The central idea here is the incarnation. It is evident to all Bible students that early Christianity was strictly Christ centered. With St. Paul, To live is Christ and to die is gain. "Jesus" and the "Resurrection were the central and dominating themes of early apostolic preaching and teaching. With the rise of the Western Church and the emphasis placed upon divine sovereignty by Augustine, the centrality of Christ was made subservient to the doctrine of the Church. "It almost seems," says Dr. A. V. G. Allen in hisContinuity of Christian Thought, "as though, if Christ were left out altogether, the scheme of Augustine would still maintain its consistency as a whole and retain its value as a working system." The new movement toward a Christ-centered theology is to be attributed to Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), a German theologian known as the "father of modern theology." With his background of Moravian mysticism, he reacted against the emptiness and formality of the rationalistic theology of his time, and became the "great revivifier of spiritual theology"; and in the field of dogmatic theology wrought a work comparable to that which John Wesley, his great contemporary, accomplished in revitalizing the formal religion of his day. "His it was to make Christ and His redemption the center of one of the most skillfully developed systems of theology which the Christian Church has known," writes Henry B. Smith, who himself was to become the apostle of the movement in this country. Others who have adopted this method are Hase (1800-1890), Thomasius (1802-1875), Andrew Fuller (1754-1815), Gerhart (1817-1904), while his outline would seem to indicate otherwise, his theology is essentially Christocentric, especially as it concerns the knowledge of God; and Dr. Olin A. Curtis is by some writers also placed in this class. Dr. A. H. Strong, and William Newton Clarke are generally classified otherwise, but give large attention to the Person and Work of Christ in their theological treatises. To Principal Fairbairn of England is usually attributed the most constructive and far-reaching contribution to the Christocentric school.

The Confessional Method. This plan is simply the exposition of certain creeds and confessions in regular order. As instances of this method may be cited, Pearson (1613-1686),Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles; Charles Hodge (1797-1878),Commentary on the Westminster Confession; Thos. 0. Summers (1812-1882), in his Systematic Theology,edited by John J. Tigert, follows the order of the Twenty-five Articles of Methodism. Dr. Summers was widely known for his "conservatism, broad theological scholarship, and particularly, for careful, conscientious, and patient study of all the elements of the Arminian system of theology. His work is at once a complete system of Wesleyan Arminian divinity and an exhaustive commentary onthe Twenty-five Articles of Religionwhich embody the doctrinal views of American Methodism" (Cf. TIGERT,Preface, p. 3). One of the latest representatives of this confessional method is E. J. Bicknell, who published in 1919 hisTheological Introduction to the Thirty-nine Articles, the last impression of the book being made in 1936.

The Allegorical Method. This method was prominent in the early church, especially among the followers of Origen, but fell into decline with the rise of rationalism. The best modern representative of this method is Dannhauer (1603-1666), a professor of theology in Strassburg and the minister of the cathedral church in the same city. He describes "man as a wanderer, life as a road, the Holy Spirit as a light, the Church as a candlestick, God as the end, and heaven as the home."

The Synthetic Method. This is the method adopted by Dr. A. H. Strong in hisSystematic Theology, and which he asserts is the most common and the most logical method of arranging the topics of theology. Dr. Gamertsfelder, who characterizes his own system of theology as "Evangelical Arminianism" follows this method also in his Systematic Theology, declaring that while the method has been in vogue many years it has lost none of its freshness and attractiveness. Hagenbach describes the method as one which "starts from the highest principle, God, and. proceeds to man, Christ, redemption, and finally to the end of all things." The basic principle of organization is its logical order of cause and effect. This is the method of Pope in hisCompendium of Christian Theology, Miley in hisSystematic Theology, Hills in hisFundamental Christian Theology, Fairchild in hisElements of Theology, Ralston in his Elements of Divinityand Wakefield in his revision ofWatson's Institutes, known asChristian Theology. It is likewise the method of Charles G. Finney, Henry C. Sheldon, Enoch Pond and numerous other writers.

Miscellaneous Methods. Among these may be noted: (a) The Decretal Method which begins with the idea of the divine decrees; (b) The Patricentric Method which arranges its material around the central idea of the Divine Fatherhood, and (c) The Historical Method, followed by Ursinus (1534-1583) and later adopted by Jonathan Edwards in hisHistory of Redemption, which, says Strong, was in reality a system of theology in historical form. It was "to begin and end with eternity, all great events and epochs in time being viewedsub specie eternitatis. The three worlds - heaven, earth and hell were to be the scenes of this grand drama. It was to include the topics of theology as living factors, each in its own place," and all forming a complete and harmonious -whole (Cf. STRONG,ST, I, p. 50). Dr. I. A. Dorner in his System of Christianity, makes Christian faith, the central organizing principle, while Dr. Julius Kaftan (b. 1858) in his Dogmatics makes the grace of God the central idea. In recent times, such works as William Adams Brown,Christian Theology in Outlineand William Newton Clarke,Outline of Christian Theology, have made the conception of the Christian religion the determining factor.

There are several important results to be gained from the study of the various systems of theology. Among these may be mentioned,First,and most important perhaps, they give us a knowledge of what their authors regarded as central in their faith. Underlying every system is one principal truth about which all others are organized. What the dogmatic theologians of the Church in any age regard as central gives rise to the various types of Systematic Theology. Care should be exercised, however, in judging the methods of systematization in one age by those employed in another. If Anselm'sCur Deus Home, or Origen'sDe Principusor St. Thomas'Summa Theologicado not appear to be scientific according to our standards, they doubtless were according to their standards, and these very differences prove illuminating to the earnest student of theology.Second,these various systems furnish us with a knowledge of the materials which the writers had at their disposal, their mental characteristics, and the methods employed to adapt their teaching to the need of the times. Dr. Dickie regards Dogmatics as a Christian religious conviction endeavoring to think itself out, and to relate itself to all other knowledge and opinion. The situation is complicated, he says, by the fact that our varying mental elements have different sources in our experience. Part of our mental content we owe to our general environment, part to our special training, and part to our individual experience. One must take into account this whole mental complex of knowledge and opinion which, whether imperfectly or altogether unsystematized, is never alike in any two minds. It is evident then that attention to the method of systematization reveals much of the author's mental characteristics, and this personal equation will be taken into account, both in the materials selected and the methods by which they are adapted, to their proposed ends.Third,they are important as furnishing a foundation for the study of historical theology, enabling the theologian to trace in unbroken continuity the development of truth from age to age. Since the Church in all ages is one, no age can come to its fullest expression without a knowledge of the past.

THEOLOGYASCIENCE

Having defined theology and treated it from the standpoint of its sources and methods, we have now an objection which must be answered. It is objected that theology is not a science, in that its subject matter is not drawn from knowledge but from faith, and therefore lacks certitude. Closely related to this is the attack of Sir William Hamilton who, after defining faith as the organ by which we apprehend what is beyond our knowledge, argues that since science is knowledge, what is beyond our knowledge cannot be matter for science. He maintains, therefore, that science in its highest achievement can only build an altar to "the Unknown God." On the false assumption that faith and knowledge are antithetical, either that faith does not reach the requirements of certitude, or that it operates in a realm beyond scientific knowledge, two basic truths have been overlooked.First,science itself must be based upon faith, which in the scientific realm is known and treated as the assumptions of science. Physical science rests upon faith in our own existence, in an orderly world whose facts may be systematized, and in the power of the mind to logically arrange the facts presented to it. It assumes such metaphysical truths as space and time, substance and attributes, cause and effect, and also assumes the trustworthiness of the mind in its investigations. If these assumptions do not invalidate physical science, most certainly they should not be regarded as invalidating that science which deals with assumptions, admittedly without proof from the science which objects to it. "If theology is to be overthrown because it starts from some primary terms and propositions, then all other sciences are overthrown with it." Mozley defines faith as unverified reason (Cf. DOVE,Logic of the Christian Faith, p. l4).

Second, We must therefore take the position that Christian Dogmatics "is not only a science of faith but also a knowledge grounded in and drawn from faith" (MARTENSEN,Christian Dogmatics, p.1). This has been the position of all leading theologians. Richard Rothe (1799-1867), who is generally regarded as belonging to the right wing of the Hegelian school, gave to theological science a clear statement of the basic elements of knowledge which has been widely used in modern theology. "Now in the devout or religious man," he says, "according to the measure in which his devoutness is living and healthy, there is immediately contained in his thought as pure thought, the notion of being determined by God. The religious man's feeling of self is at the same time a feeling of God, and he cannot come to a distinct and clear thought of self without coming to the thought of God. Thus there is provided for the devout subject a twofold point of departure for his speculative thinking, and the possibility of a twofold method of speculative inquiry. Thinking can proceed either from the consciousness of self as ana priorifact, or from the consciousness of God. Theological speculation is in essence nothing more than the attempt to express, in conceptual form, the immediate and certain content of the devout consciousness, the content of the feeling of the divine." Julius Kaftan, a younger contemporary of Rothe (1799-1867), takes a similar position, though admitting that the idea of faith, in Christian Theology, underwent a change in passing from the medieval to the modern period. In the scholastic period, faith rested on authority, and was developed largely by strengthening external evidence. Now we have returned to the biblical idea of faith as a fact of human consciousness, and as a form of knowledge which strikes its roots deep into the inner practical relations sustained to its objects.