Presbytery June 2014 D Macleod Address Part 2

I want to start at this point by asking what is between those disciplines, the biblical systematic.

! And we saw that the biblical is of course systematic because it organizes. We can't think without

! organizing your thought and certainly biblical theologians are highly organized scholars.

But in systematic we make the opposite plea here that it also supports the biblical discipline.

It involves one exegesis and also biblical theology and gathers all these up into one final coherent whole.

So briefly, what are its distinctives? The major distinctives are systematic organizing the material

on a topical basis. On a subdued basis not, they could originally assess biblical theology,

but in terms of the great biblical concepts which one finds in Revelation. It is often suspected

that, as I suppose in supposing, alien philosophies of the student doctrine or non-biblical concepts

of the student doctrine. Karl Barthes refused to elect himself because of what he saw as problematic

in that area that meant they gave the alien concepts of philosophy and imposing those on theology.

He also subjected, of course, to a confessional approach because he thought that was equally a sweet jacket.

He gave us what he called church normative. He gave us what he called church normatics. They don't see much improvement

in the normative or when it gives the alternative terms, but that's what he did.

Now, these topics are subjects which occur and recurrent in the Bible. We find them time and time again.

And there are five or six basic loci, which all of you are aware of, theology as such, doctrine of God,

anthropology, histology, scoteriology, and physiology and perhaps some suespectology, depending on your range of material.

But those are the five that have to create sub-humanism. But within these, of course, there are also a large number of what we might

have to do with the sub-humanism. And we have to recall some concepts such as the Trinity, the divine attributes,

creation, providence, the sub-humanity of God for ordination. These are all in theology proper.

And Christology, again, we have the sub-humanism, the incarnation of Christ, his work of atonement, his exaltation.

Or perhaps the three, four doggies, prophet, priest, and king, that are all alternative ways of recognizing material.

But the epithel is more based on biblical guidelines. It's an iterating point, having made that comment that

only in Hebrews is Christ called a priest. But it has become a major category in the form of theology that they do this through the

through place the deep port office of Christ. They assume that they're quite valid because it's so widely endorsed by the epithel of the Hebrews.

And of course, again, those other ideas of theology and so on.

What I would say perhaps in that area is that these are almost as an abstruse concepts. Some of them do sound abstruse.

And some can remain abstruse. But remember that, in secularism, we also cover experiential and practical realities.

For example, Calvin's Institutes in Book 3 has a great extension on the Christian life as part of his systematics.

And that includes such issues as Christian liberty, for example, and assurance, which are by no means abstruse or practically aware of the issues.

And we might also, under the same rubric, cover such things as repentance, conversion, faith, perseverance, all of them again experiential.

And ethics too was seen by Calvin and by many others as part of systematics, based on the Ten Commandments.

And so again, Calvin, of course, is part of the Christian life. Because the law is the rule of life for believers.

Now, there are always discussions about what are your cases and proportions and what order you take them.

And there is no biblically mandated or necessarily order, there is no canonical order that we want to discuss these topics.

When I discuss the book, under God, we discuss first of all the One God, Deopuno, or the Trinity.

And there are those who call one and the one who strongly that is called the Trinity.

But historically, when has it begun with the One God?

And then that is, of course, the divine begins with the One God, and then it's triune, necessarily, later on in the New Testament,

the course of the work of redemption. But the discussion is quite a matter of discussion.

And again, Calvin's locating of predestination in book 3, in relation to the new birth and so on.

When, as others have put, God and ordination just before creation, the order again can be buried widely.

But, as I've been saying, in videos of the democratic arrangements, for example, our own Thomas Charles of Scotland, in his Institute of Theology,

he began with the disease, which God was a remedy, began with the disease, reflecting against the Charles of Schoen practical mind.

But these are two significant points. But he begins, not for a quietness or courage, but he earns life with the disease, unable for remedy.

And that's his order. And then again, this is the book that can be detestable, I'm sure.

So, Barthel often quoted the phrase, method who says, amethalius. Method is, amethalius is a matter of free women.

You choose your own method. But, the opposite of systematic, of course, is not biblical, but are systematic.

So you have to organise material, there is only the material, but organise as far as one can see, in terms of the bigger proportions and balance.

There are challenges such as eschatology. Where does that go? Because it's tempting to paint it on at the end of the system, as an appendix.

And I am very, very suspicious of that arrangement. So, sometimes I place it under Christology,

linking it to the polemic of Christ, because that inaugurates the conservation. But then, of course, the last days were inaugurated with the arm of Jesus to enter him.

Now, there is the eschatology. God has, in these last days, spoken to us.

But we have made, as we call that, in all of eschatology, so where are we put it? The eschatology.

Or, as we call it, as we call it, is a theology. Because it's conservation, or redemption.

Basically, if any of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of

inevitably, the site of the clerical press, and I know this to my cause, because I'm also

more clerical press than myself, there's a type of believer to a clerical call, which

is like, I'm going back to Amur, and they are convinced this man can be converted, because

he's a clerical call. And so the site of the bishop, I'm saved, and he be the pedagogy

that he owes, he said, it depends on what text will be where you're using. I have been

saved, I am being saved, and I shall be saved. And so at that point, eschatology is a part

of the redemptive process. It's been, we have redemption inaugurated, but not yet

consolidated too. And so, I will be occasionally accompanying events of the

evangelism of the universe. That really is part of our salvation. And it's even

somewhat part of humanology, what is said. Because in a single way, it's the dead, as

the bodies of believers. And the transformation of the universe of

Timothy, as the same ancient, as Homer, over the original chaos, and I may use that

word, of Genesis, Genesis 1. And so, questions of a range of education do raise

very interesting issues. The other issue that's of consequence is the physiology. Where do you

put that? Last year I taught a six-week course of

this called a physiology, 24 lectures. This year is going into Systematics 2, which already

occupied 96 lectures, and some have wanted to, 24 to 96, to give us a flag what we want. But

obviously, they did a defective. It's going wrong something. Now, my concern is that, listening

into your own discussions today, the doctrine of the church is so important. As long as I

took it, there aims to theology in the sense that the church is a community of the redeemed.

The same as having baptism in the theology. Because the New Testament, there is no separate baptism

on conversion. When there is conversion, there is baptism. And I think that link perhaps has

been sometimes rather randomly broken in some of our theology. I do it all the time. But

the broken issue should be from the eventual calling to faith, repentance, and baptism. That

is the profile of the theology. I think the scripture is so fairly good. But my concern is that the

church is God's chosen instrument for the blessing of the world. We are able to have seed. And in the

the church is God's chosen instrument for the blessing of the earth to be blessed. And if the church becomes

dysfunctional as it has, to some extent, lack of self-reflection, self-reflection, self-reflection,

then it's in opposition to the blessing of the world. And that's why the kind of

Lachlan-decent approach to theology is something deeply wanted. It is important to ask what is the

Lord's idea of the church, and what are the notes of the church, and what are its ministries. And to have

clarity on issues of that kind. How should a church be organised? And you have a choice. You can say what we think as

as Western business people, we go this way. And then you say the New Testament are a different way. And you have a choice.

Do you choose what made you choose the most efficient business-like way of doing things? Some American

corporations, directors, and so on. Or do you go with the Presbyterian Church or the New Testament with its

the New Testament? It's a college of overseers, and its connections of where the

the, in my opinion, where the Vatican court is the local accession, the local church. And where that church is again

overseen and turned by the Presbytery, and in turn by the Synod. So you have a review of the Lord by what

the Protestant my darling called the Ephelium. Now of course only in rare circumstances, such as the

superior at all medal in the Ephelium, the local church autonomy is a pretty important

but the particular principle. And it's interesting to remind ourselves that in Scotland, post-officacy,

the Catholic formation, there were no Presbyterians for several years. And Father

the Indian John Knox had died before they had Presbyterians. So the idea that Presbytery

the Vatican court is not one that had me to teach endorsements from the Symbolic

American thinking. The Vatican court, the Vatican church is still the local church. And that

local church is linked or gathered into any other church. They linked to any church in the whole

world. And one of the intriguing themes from Scottish theology which gave me much attention

to the church, the so called Second Reformation, the Benedict Coulterford and George Gillespie and

the Catholic Church and so on. But they had this view that when you sat at the Lord's table, you

know better mind this fear of sitting at a table when somebody wasn't pushing me there. And the

powers that can cause, I'm not going to sit at the table without pushing. And they said, look, when you sit at

the Lord's table, you sit at the table with every other communicator of the whole world. Now, it's

something that was, I think, most interestingly present, but in this facsimum, it was a unifying

factor. And it's a challenge, I'm not going to acknowledge it entirely. Who are Christians? The

Baptised and the Communicants. Now, we would never think of those things who would become so accustomed

to dismissing these sacraments as far as I define the criteria. But they were at one time precisely

that. They were identified criteria. And it has helped me often to know on the Lord's table

morning that as I sit at the Lord's table, I sit with all those in the church with me, all

others in Scotland at the Lord's table, and all over the world from this day are sitting at

the Lord's table, because we are born in Christ. You know, we can't choose a

progressive institution. God has his own adoption policy, and he doesn't consider us on that policy.

And so, that's where we are. So, I'm just suggesting to you that these issues of arrangement,

and so on, there are really some quite interesting issues as to the logical progression and so on, and

that is the second feature of the system that I want to comment on briefly. That is this. That is,

interestingly, organic connections between the various components of the truth. Because, at

at the last, uh, through the shmone, and there is a modern system of theology. Now, of course,

that can be horrified or subtle, but because the, uh, the, the, the, the, the, the, the

70 million years system. Now, obviously, that is a principle of the modern system. And within that system, uh, every secret truth, uh, is affected by every other truth, relates to that.

Uh, there is a support suit. And error in one department, where it would definitely, uh, generate error in another department. You know, you affect one member, one component part, then you affect every single, uh, component part.

And so we have to ask ourselves, not only how you are angels most of the times, but, how are they connected, the, the one, uh, to the other?

Now, there is one remarkable point that maybe we should take to heart here, and place in the heart of our students. And it is this. The, absolutely, the

fundamental importance of our views of sin. And it is the gravity of sin that means that we need an atonement. An atonement, uh, of such magnitude that God's own sin.

That's the virtue that God's own son takes their place under the curse of the law. Minimizes sin. As, uh, Abelard did. And, uh, uh, uh,

And, uh,

that's it, said,

you haven't pondered

the gravity of sin, he said.

And that, he said, is where you've got

wrong, Alba Larrie.

And only because sin is so brave

to justify

God's bruising his own

son on the

cross of slavery.

And only because of her sin for

us to believe in your birth

when the life is in,

then a little more

improvement will do.

But if we get in the test of us

that sin, then I think we would

want to do. We need to be

resurrected

and raised up

with Christ, more and again

back in the spiritual home.

And again, because

of the gravity of sin,

we need

proven in grace.

Because there is

no point of conflict

in my heart with the gospel

or with the glory

of God.

And so,

I need God's grace

to renew

my heart.

He does it

sovereignly.

Because I simply

can't take the initiative.

And it's not surprising

that Augustine's

very early debate

was in the ancient

controversy

for

original sin.

And all he says and does

is link to that

great doctrine.

And in a very important way,

the natural

lives

trust, most fundamentally,

all evangelicals

together.

Whether it be

Spurgeon,

Wesley,

Whitfield,

Baxter,

these things

don't

difference

in many departments.

And yet,

all of them

agree on this

great fact.

Wesley is a

great servant

on original sin.

More succeed

than Edwards,

but no less

urgent

than Edwards.

And

he may have

deviated

from what

you are

on some other

issues,

like perfectionism

and so on,

but nevertheless,

here,

he is one with

us.

That's true of all

your generation.

The reading

takes its

start

in what we

think,

on the

significance

and gravity

of the

form of

man.

And all

those other

connections,

the person

and what

of Christ.

Why has

he to be

God

and has

he to be

man?

And so on,

and so on.

You work out

all these

connections.

Karl

Barth,

sometimes

suggested,

and a

treatment

has

suggested

often,

as you

say,

in terms

of his

conclusion,

that sometimes

he suggested

that you

can start

at any

point on

the

physical

technological

spectrum

and develop

from that

point the

whole system.

Because the

whole system

is in every

element of the

system.

You can start

the

information

with

Christology

and

everything

to that.

So we

want to

look at

how those

doctrines

are

linked

together.

the other

point that

might just

wonder here

is that

systemality

is about

finality.

It's

topical,

it's

different

connections,

and it

is

final.

Now,

I say

final in the

sense that

that was

a contrast

with biblical

theology.

Biblical

theology is

never

final,

because of

its historical

timeline.

you can

ascertain

what

Moses said,

that's not

final,

it's true,

but it's

not final.

What Isaiah

said,

again,

that's not

final.

And even

what Paul

said,

and James

said,

and John

said,

but no

one of

them

has

spent

the

whole

of God

through

one

given

topic.

And so

systemality

waits

until

the

final

process

concludes

and the

camera is

closed.

It deals

with a

closed

camera,

the

final

self-disclosure

of God,

God's last

words we

spoke.

And it

also deals

with the

Bible

comprehensively,

and it

puts all

that all

the hearers

and all

the

shawar

and all

the

writers

have

said.

And it

says,

take it

holistically,

what

message

are the

giving

tools.

And so

that

says,

it is

a

finality

that

everybody

does

not

have,

because

it

deals

with

the

closed

camera,

and

with

the

total

comprehensive

self-disclosure

of God.

Now,

of course,

in Isaiah,

there are

main words

about

incarnation,

there are

main words

about

the

sacrifice

of

Christ,

and

in the

Psalms,

again,

there are

main words

not

similar

messiahic

themes,

and there

are hints

in the

CO2

of

eschatology,

which are

brought into

the New Testament,

the Doctrine

New Testament,

but

Isaiah

is not

final,

there are

words that

come

after

Isaiah,

and there

are others

that speak

besides

Isaiah.

Even

the New

Testament,

or

justification,

we must

hear James

as well

us all

to get

the

poor

picture.

And

when we

have done

that,

you have

the

finality

that is

adherent

in

systematics.

Now,

it

follows

from

that

fact

that

systematics

is

dogmatic.

Now,

this is a

problematical

word,

because

dogmatism is

found in

the modern

culture,

and we

have to

be careful

what we

are dogmatic

about,

and

we

imagine

it's

both wrong

things.

But,

and dogma,

in the world

is used

in different

ways in

theology,

but what I'm

driving at

here is

this,

that if

we have

the truth

of God,

and it

is fine

the truth

of God,

and we

are saying,

thus said

the Lord,

then that

is a

dogmatic

statement.

If I

say that

Jesus Christ

is the

Son of

God

incarnate,

no

postmodern

hesitation

should

reduce me

to say

that that

is not

a

dogmatic

statement.

It is

categorically

true.

that he

is the

Son of

God

incarnate.

Again,

we are

justified

by

faith

without

the

works

of

the

law,

by

faith

alone.

That

again

is

a

dogmatic

statement.

So,

we have

to be

careful

not to

put our

humility

and

modesty

in the

wrong

place.

We

have

to

realise

that

we

have

no

way

to

speak

what

is

not

God's

word,

and

it

is

God's

word,

we

write

dogmatic

about

it.

Now,

of course,

there is

uncertainty,

and we

must be

aware of

that.

But when

we are

certain

that this

is what

God

has

said,

then we

have

a

dogmatic

statement.

Now,

many other

things are

involved in

that,

which I

first

learned

before,

like I

had

them.

in the

official

sense of

the word,

dogma is

an

officially

accredited

statement

on the

part of

the

church,

the

decrees,

for example,

of Acts 15,

of the

Catholic

Jerusalem.

These

decrees

were

dogmas,

and Isaiah

is a

dogmatic

statement.

In other

words,

what the

church is

spoken

upon,

pronounced

not officially,

is,

in that

special

sense,

a dogma

of the

church.

And,

the most

important

of them

are

described

in the

great

ancient

the

Chimedic

of

Crees,

of

Nicaea,

and

Castador.

These

encapsulate

the

dogmas

in which

we are

all,

as

Christians,

agreed to

do.

They

decrease

their

dogmas.

Again,

in the

Reformed

tradition,

we have

our

own

Reformed

Crees,

and so

there are

Reformed

dogmatics.

And,

at the

most

fundamental

level,

these are

the

doctorates,

which,

again,

have been

agreed by

the

Reformed

truths,

which are

not

consensus,

but

a great

number of

particular

doctrines.

But,

right beside

that,

there lies

the fact

of a

hierarchy

of

truths.

And,

in other

words,

that some

are more

important

than others.

Now,

this is

a

dramatic

attitude

discovery.

Kalman

saw this

very

clearly,

not all

dogs

are of

equal

importance,

because not

all will

be with

equal

clarity.

And,

we can

disagree as

Christians,

some,

and yet,

they're looking

at each

other as

brothers and

sisters.

Another

division is

a

totimunity.

I'm not going to

my

demise,

that these

are

particularly,

which are

fundamental.

But,

what

better is

is

the

mathematics,

is the

existence of

proportion.

We know

what things

are really

worth

contending

for,

with

might and

may,

with

might and

may,

because there

are such

fundamental

importance.

Not all

are equally

important.

Kalman,

again,

says,

time again,

this

covers

particularly,

if you

can't

argue,

then I

wouldn't

worry

too much

about it.

On some

doctors.

But another

she's

adamant.

And we

need that

sense of

proportion.

Now,

systematics,

that's

distinct from

a

creed

of

statement,

doesn't

go to

confine

to

fundamentals.

A

creed

of

confession

should

be

a

certain

fundamentals.

But,

systematics

makes

over the

whole

of

revealed

truth.

And it

would

venture

to

express

the

fear

of

God's

word

on

each

and

every

topic

or

every

slight

of

God's

word

on

that

topic

at

all.

So,

because of

its

finality,

it is

a

dogmatic

statement.

Yet,

it's also

true that

theology is

provisional.

Provisional

because

it lives

under

constant

judgment

of

nature.

And

God

may

cause

more

right

to

break

out

of

this

word

and

revise

on

opinions

on

certain

things.

To

quote one

example

of that,

if you

get

any

kind of

pre-20s

discussions

of

the

type of

man,

it is

seen

immediately

as

an

antithesis

or the

opposite

to the

Son of

God.

God

divine

nature

of

human

nature.

Of course,

promise

Daniel is

revealed

to

the

divine

and

his

function.

There's

a divine

title

from

Daniel

Daniel 7 · chapter mention

chapter 7.

The

pre-existent

fellow

of the

ancient

of days

who

comes

to the

clouds

of

heaven,

clouds

of

glory.

It is

not a

reference

to

humanity,

but to

his

pre-existent

Christian

status.

So,

our

mission is

called

for.

It takes

something

else.

We

can

go to

the

old

world

of

sanctification

or

sanctification

or

even

why.

In

the

Christian

there

are

two

men,

the

old

man,

the

new

man.

And

that

was

the

accident.

We

know

that

we

have

this

almost

split

person

and

this

internal

laugh

between

old

man

and

new

man.

But

John

and

others

brought

out

this

alternative

approach.

In fact,

there's

no

old

man.

He

was

crucified

across

the

Calvary.

And

I'm

a new

man,

a new

person.

Now,

in my

new

person

there is

the

flesh.

But

I'm

going to

people

the

old

man

is

the

average

of

itself.

And

that

old

man

is

kaputu.

It's

the

wrong

man.

And

you

can't

pay

for

anything

because

it's

not

going to

be

paid

for

anything.

I

saw you

out of

the

theology

all the

time.

There's

another

text in

which

the

theology

is

around.

it's

this.

But

revelation

is not

yet

completed.

I've

spoken

of it

for many

years

and

well.

But

of

course

there's

another

world,

another

age

to

come.

And

in

that

age

of all

terms

which

I

see

not

to

look

as

darkly

but

face

to

face.

And

so

in

that

you

see

of

close

encounter

the

eyes

of

God

we

shall

see

depths

of

glory

that

at

the

moment

are

undisclosed

to

us

and

which

are

undisclosed

to

us

who

will

not

be

given

a lot

of

actually

assimilating.

And

part

of the

glory

of that

remember

is

this

that

we

come

to

another

timeline

that

is

the

unending

major

of

discipleship

something

that

is

everlasting

be

growing

in the

knowledge

of

God

so

that

at

every

point

of

the

process

there

is

progression

and

there

is

approvisionality

always

more

light.

When I

have been

there

ten thousand

years

prior

sharing

us

a

sandwich

to

see

God's

praise

when

first

began

and

I

will

put

it

to

you

that

even

the

incarnate

Christ

in this

human

nature

is

difficult

to know

God

as

Father

better

than

the

passing

day.

Now

it's

not

reminding

his

opinions

or

abundance

of all

thoughts

but it's

bringing

ever new

discoveries

of the

glory

of

God

and

so

in

that

sense

there

is

no

reality

there

is

no

provisionality

which

means

that

we

look

for

further

insight

for

a

change

of

our

current

position

but

more

we

look

for

more

revelation

of

God's

glory

in

the

world

to

come.

I

want

to

move on

now

in

conclusion

to

maybe

where I

should have

begun

this

but

chose

not to.

theology

of

preaching

or

theology

of

the

preacher

how

does

it

bear

on

our

own

ministries

and

I

want

to

see

it

very

quickly

first of

all

how

it

bears

on

an

exegesis

now

we've

had

this

already

how

he

raised

his

dematics

or

theology

in

general

to

exegesis

the

temptation

to

arrest

the

scripture

to

twist

the

text

to

accommodate

our

own

particular

systematic

prejudices

the

danger

that

a

capitalist

could

use

the

text

to

prove

that

God

did

love

the

world

because

the

system

is the

determinant

of the

approach

here

and

of course

that is

a real

danger

whether

you

are

a

dispensationalist

or a

charismatic

or a

calibrist

or a

baptist

he

would

bring

more

appeal

about

which

would

bring

more

prejudices

into

the

arena

and that

almost

forces

danger

he

was

a

preacher

once

reputed

the

enemy

who

whatever

the

text

almost

had

three

headings

very

convenient

headings

I can

assure you

first

he

would

say

I

worry

about

the

text

secondly

I

worry

about

application

and

third

they

worry

about

baptism

every

ceremony

that

was

in the

temple

started

so

that

shows

how it

got

not to

be done

to be

a

system

to be

able to

text

a

distorted

way

on the

other

hand

you

cannot

divorce

Jesus

from

your

system

you

bring it

with

you

and

again

think

of

scientists

dispassionate

impartial

calm

observer

of

phenomena

unfaithest

of course

he's

nothing

of a

kind

he

brings

his

paradigms

with

everything

that

you

share

to

the

motion

whether

it be

in

biology

or

in

physics

chemistry

or

whatever

they

have

a

paradigms

the

is

the

is

the

is

the

paradigm

or

unfortunately

the

the

the

paradigm

but

the

paradigms

are

there

the

the

the

conditions

of

temperature

and

pressure

and

he

doesn't

reinvent

the wheel

and say

well I

can't

be

any

preconceptions

to

this

for

example

he

has

to

accept

well

the

earth

is

not

flat

and

he

has

to

accept

that

they

are

close

with

the

sun

and

not

the

other

way

round

and

he

brings

these

preconceptions

these

paradigms

with

them

now

I'm

suggesting

to you

that

system

I

performs

that

same

function

you

have

your

paradigms

you

are

over

you

and

you

come

to

the

text

with

that

come

me

heads

at

you

of

Bible

teaching

as

a

whole

and

you

will

then

come

across

a

text

that

doits

you

to

quote

one

obvious

example

that

also

refers

my

father

is

greater

than

I

plain

subordinations

obviously

not a

divine

person

at

all

because

this

text

is

saying

that

Jesus

is

inferior

and

subordinate

to

God

but

then

you

have

your

paradigm

you

know

the

overwhelming

weight

of

the

evidence

that

Jesus

was

a

cultist

of

his

own

divinity

and

is

acclaimed

and

worshipped

as such

throughout

the

New

Testament

and

so

you

have

heard

him

say

stop

here

and

you

see

this

text

of the

light

of

your

whole

doctrinal

party

framework

you

realize

that

perhaps

there

is

a

spiritual

mediator

who

as such

is

the

servant

of

the

Lord

and

as

the

servant

of

the

Lord

yes

the

father

is

the

night

Jesus

did

not

capacity

as

the

genotized

servant

yes

the

father

is

greater

than

him

but

if

you

found

another

text

that's

in the

same

thing

the

same

general

sentiment

and

then

another