This is but another way of describing one or some of the
various nuances that result from theological systemic thought and commitments
when applied to Revelation.
The System functions as a complicated mathematical
equation. Everything must cross examine and is subject to proofs and
verification. This allows the system to maintain integrity and gives a basis
(at least to those who think this way about theology) to proceed into the realm
of speculation. If the math works with the Scripture-verse starting points...or
even other theological points that they've already verified, then the
subsequent sum or answer can be reckoned to be indeed in accord with Scripture
and thus a reflection of it. The speculative theological deductions can be
reckoned as Biblical as if there were a 17th chapter to Romans.
Systemic thought is generally pretty hostile to
unresolved tensions, dynamics, dialectics. It seeks to synthesize. Historically
this has happened even outside the realm of theology in a host of philosophical
arguments and disputes that span the centuries. There are many theologians who
employ a hermeneutic reminiscent of Ockham's Razor. Ockham was a Nominalist,
rejecting the Platonic concept of Universals, reducing them to mere verbal
conceptions. There are many theologians who employ this type of reductionistic
thinking to Biblical issues regarding Covenant Form and Means. The analogy is not exact, but it's concept
that we encounter or derive from the text and is basic enough that even pagans
wrestle with ideas. With Systematics, which I argue often have a theologically Nominalist tendency, the universals or eternal categories are not granted a
'real' status but are instead a concept. Sometimes this can be inverted (a form of Realism) and
only the universals are granted a 'real' status and the particulars are but
concepts. Systematization tends to force all interpretations to one side or the
other of the register.
To grant abstract Forms and Means the status of reality would
place them in tension with their temporal manifestations which might not
exactly correspond with the eternal reality. The problem is the Scriptures
speak this way....They're not all Israel who are of Israel...they're not all
true/eternal Israel who are of form/temporal Israel. This presents a problem
for many and the issue rears its head in many places and with regard to many
issues.
The tendency is to COMPRESS....to force the text to
commit to one side or the other rather than to take the text at face value.
It's a hermeneutical issue and by way of historical note this is really the
difference you find between the 1st generation of Reformed who were
coming out of the Renaissance Humanist mindset...back to the text afresh, let
it speak etc.... vs. the Scholastic and Systematic mindset of the subsequent
generations. The System thinkers will often come up with very similar
conclusions but the way, the road in getting there is different, and when it
comes to certain issues there will be a serious divergence. This is why so many
contemporary Calvinists who generally speaking are committed to
Scholastic/Systemic thought stumble and struggle when they read Calvin's
Commentaries as well as various passages in the Institutes. "How did he
get that?" they gasp. He wasn't dealing with the text in the same fashion.
He had plenty of other problems, but Compression, the reductionistic tendency
wasn't one of them.
This also manifests itself in a misapplication of the
well known concept known as The Analogy of Scripture...or Scripture interprets
itself. For example if one wants to understand the Apocalyptic symbolism of
Revelation, one would do well to spend some time in Daniel where the symbols
and typology are very similar and in some cases interpreted. Then, one might go
to the Gospels and take note of how Christ interprets the passages and of
course how the Epistles deal with Apocalyptic imagery. Then applying what we
learn from these clearer passages we can then approach something that on the
surface is much more murky and nebulous like the book of Revelation.
The Analogy allows us to synthesize apparent
discrepancies in the narrative passages, especially the Gospels where the
parallel passages often exhibit slight variations in numbers and wording. Using
Scripture we can interpret Scripture.
What about with Didactic and Doctrinal passages? This
gets a little more complicated. We have passages that clearly teach
Predestination and Election, but we also have passages that clearly teach or at
least suggest/assume Free Will and some that even exhibit non-determinism. What
do we do? The Systematician like it or not has presuppositions and depending on
what those are, he answers some basic questions that build the foundation. We
all know if these are answered incorrectly, the subsequent building will be
incorrect.
The Arminian looks to rationality for a solution, rooted
in personal perception and experience as well as Western concepts of equity and
justice and determines the necessity of Free Will. And then employing
Systematics and the Analogy of Scripture he develops a system that assumes Free
Will from start to finish. This is the Anchor or a priori assumption of his system.
The Calvinist looks to the text and says...this teaches
Predestination. So, since Predestination is true, he constructs a system
Anchored on that premise. And just like the Arminian the Anchor point, the
foundation literally dominates the entire superstructure that he builds.
I'm arguing vehemently against employing the Analogy of
Scripture when it comes to Doctrinal Formulation and passages that are
explicitly didactic. To some degree it cannot be avoided...I admit this. But
the Systematic mindset is not subjecting itself to Divine Revelation, instead
it is subjugating the Revelation to the System Premise or Anchor. The Analogy
helps interpret narrative and other types of Scripture where synthesis is
desirable...but I'm arguing synthesis is not desirable when it comes to clear
and plain, non-symbolic, non-narrative passages that we find in the Epistles.
Employing synthesis with regard to these texts employs philosophical deduction
which will always be rooted in our perceptions, presuppositions, and context.
We all agree that the synthesis must stop at some point....the Incarnation
cannot be synthesized in a way to philosophically 'explain' the Incarnation, or
even more mind-bending...the Trinity. There are those who attempt to do so, but
they either commit sacrilege or with prideful abandon probe into areas where
they frankly have no basis or tools with which to function.
But the Bible teaches Predestination a Calvinist will
protest. Yes it does, but the Bible does not teach it in the Systematic fashion
or form that the Calvinistic and certainly the Hyper-Calvinistic camps present
it. Making it the centerpiece of all theology is logical and systemically
coherent, but it ends up negating many texts or at the very least strips them
of their plain meaning. The problem isn't Predestination, which is completely
Biblical, the problem is the method of theology.
When the Calvinist or the Arminian takes a text and
effectively reduces its meaning so that it will 'work' with the rest of the
system...they're engaging in Hermeneutical Compression. They are abusing the Analogy of Scripture. If God wanted us to
have Systematic Theology, He would have given us a text broken down into
logical order with outlines and footnotes. Instead we're provided with a
Revelation of Christ Jesus, the Risen King the Lord of the Covenant. We're to
digest His Word...not dissect it.