Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology: history, tradition and authority

Tom Underhill writes here about his concerns with Wayne Grudem’s “Systematic Theology.”  I know those concerns are shared among a number of people and Wayne has been called a “Biblicist” for his methodology (where Biblicist is used pejoratively).

I agree with Tom and others that there are some challenges both about Grudem’s methodology and specifically his conclusions.  I think that Grudem’s previous conclusions about Eternal Generation were wrong as was his position on Divine Impassibility.  Though in both cases, I’m also not convinced that the other side of the debate gets it right either. 

 I want to engage  a bit more though with Tom’s critique of methodology here because I think this gets to the nub of things.  Tom’s description is correct, Grudem’s definition of Systematic Theology treats it (correctly in my opinion) as being about looking at what the whole of Scripture teaches about any subject.  The result of that is that his book primarily brings together a variety of Scriptures with a varying degree of in depth engagement.  Grudem’s engagement with historical theology does vary as Tom argues. It is worth noting though that this is a popular level text and perhaps that is also partly the reason for patchiness.

Tom’s concern is that Grudem’s methodology pushes us towards an approach where we think we can squeeze the doctrine out of Scripture, without help and this becomes individualistic.  His response is to argue that we need to find a way to recognise the supreme authority of Scripture whilst giving tradition a right place as an authority in helping us to understand and interpret Scripture. I agree that we need to have a sense of the whole church, including the historic church coming together to understand God’s Word.  This has been the long held position of Reformed Christianity.  At the same time, we have to be careful of misunderstanding here.

You see, we need to understand what it is that makes tradition authoritative, what kind of authority it has and to do that, we need to understand what it is that gives Scripture its supreme authority.  Scripture has that authority, first because it is infallible and inerrant, true and without error.  It also has that authority because it is sufficient, so that we don’t need any additional revelation.  However, there is a third reason that sometimes gets missed. Scripture is sufficient because of perspicuity or clarity.  Scripture is clear in what it teaches. 

This is important because, approaches outside of evangelical and reformed circles have suggested that we need things like tradition, experience and reason because Scripture is not clear.  So, it is important to affirm that yes it is. We do not need it mediated to us by a magisterium who know better than us.  At the same time, we want to recognise that our own human frailty is the problem when we misunderstand or misinterpret it.

With that in mind, we also want to think about what authority tradition has.  Helpfully, I was recently at a Church of England ordination service.  Right at the end of the service, the newly ordained deacons were given a Bible each. The Bishop then says:

“Receive this book, as a sign of the authority given you this day to speak God’s Word to his people. Build them up in his truth and serve them in his name.”

The authority that those newly ordained clergy had was the authority to teach and proclaim God’s Word, in other words to proclaim Scripture. It wasn’t a separate authority, a separate content coming from elsewhere.  Their authority remains only so long as they stick close to Scripture.  This is true of any church elder or pastor.  I would also insist that this was the authority that Christian teachers had throughout history. Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Bavinck, Frame and Grudem only have authority to handle and proclaim God’s Word. It’s Scriptural authority.

This is important, because the tradition we are looking to is, if anything, what has been referred to as exegetical tradition. It means that when I say something about God’s Word, I want to makwe sure that I’m not coming up with anything novel on my own. I’m sticking with what the Church and its teachers throughout history have understood it to be clearly saying.  Now, there may be times when we disagree with the exegesis of others. There are things I disagree with Calvin on and things I disagree with Wesley on for example.  Where that is the case, then the onus is on us to carefully show why we disagree and to provide evidence for our choice.  To be honest, where I disagree with those great men, it is in my humble opinion because they have acted as though Scripture is unclear and have relied on outside authorities instead of Scripture. The result is eisegesis, something we are all, always in danger of.

Now, I think that when those like Grudem, Frame, Carson etc have been criticised in recent times for being “Biblicist”, I don’t think that the issue has been their coming up with novel interpretations of Scripture due to a rejection of this exegetical tradition. Rather, they have made different choices, sometimes about content, often about language because they believe that others have been influenced more by external authorities, specifically their own ability to develop doctrine through reason, particularly where that is shaped by the dominant culture, language and philosophy of their day. 

So, I don’t think that the problem with Grudem is that he isn’t relying on historical tradition enough.  Indeed, I’m tempted to say that Tom’s pejorative picture of people squeezing doctrine out of Scripture misses the point. Yes, just as when you milk a cow, you can squeezer the rich, nourishing food out.  Rather, it is that he hasn’t been Biblical enough. It’s when he has quickly assembled proof texts and not engaged seriously enough with exegesis or has failed to pay enough attention to context that his Systematic Theology has been at its weakest.