Systematic Theology

[Ahab]

Fact of the matter is that there is more than one way to define what "Systematic Theology" is and I see no problem at all with having and using some systematic methods to understand who and what God is.

So-called intellectuals can balk and disagree with me and with what is true as much as they want to.

[Calm]

You can define words however you want, but if others don't understand them in the same way, meaningful and fruitful conversation and learning will not take place.

[Ahab]

You can define words however you want, but if others don't understand them in the same way, meaningful and fruitful conversation and learning will not take place.

I offer explanations when using the words I use. Feel free to try harder to understand me and ask me for more help when you need it.

Words have multiple meanings so it's not my fault that they can be understood in more than one way.

[Calm]

Not all meanings of a word are useful in every conversation. It should be obvious that in a discussion about building a ship, "poop deck" is only useful defined in one limited way. Insisting that one be able to use it differently because it makes sense outside the restricted context is counterproductive.

I see no more reason to divert a conversation because you want to use a word differently than others thenI do putting effort into everyone learning French because a French speaker who knows English refuses to use it with an English speaker who doesn't know French (which happened to me in Canada...he was fine talking to me in English when he learned I had just moved to Canada).

When someone asks if LDS have a systematic theology where they mean a specific type of discussion, answering "yes" and then going off discussing something significantly different does not help increase understanding, only confusion.

PS: I do understand the rationale behind the refusal to speak English given the oppression the Franophones went through, so not offended and do think they have a right to insist on certain things like bilingual signs and officials all over Canada but I was a volunteer helping out a small national organization and in the circumstances where he had no knowledge of my background or age and had no clue whether I supported that oppression or found it reprehensible, in my case he essentially was doing what he condemn others for doing....refusing to allow them to use the language they were most comfortable with because he could do that. He was seen as somewhat of a tyrant by insisting his unique standard had to be accepted by a couple of hundred others in conversation.

Edited April 3, 2015 by calmoriah

[Analytics]

Has anyone ever attempted to write a systematic theology or dogmatics of the LDS faith?

 

This might prove me to be a simpleton, but I would think that the following works are attempts at written "systematic theologies" of the LDS faith:

 

The Articles of Faith by James E. Talmage

Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie

Doctrines of Salvation by Joseph Fielding Smith 

[Ahab]

When someone asks if LDS have a systematic theology where they mean a specific type of discussion, answering "yes" and then going off discussing something significantly different does not help increase understanding, only confusion.

Pethaps the confusion could be avoided if the person asking if we have a systematic theology could explain what they mean by that question just in case some people don't know what he means by that term.

For me when I think of the word "systematic" I think of some kind of system, which could conceivably be any kind of system. And then when I see the word "systematic" combined with the word "theology", which I think of as the study of God, I think of the question being if we have a system or systematic method for studying God. So then I think Yes, we have a system for studying God. And if asked I would describe the system we use, or at least that some of us use.

We've gone around and around on issues like this before, and I've told you that I don't always uphold somebody's claim to a copyright on certain words. Like some who say rhere is only one correct definition and use of words like trinity, or Christianity, or even God.

So if you are expecting me to limit my understanding of the term "systematic theology" to only one very narrow use of that term you might as well forget about that.

[Ahab]

This might prove me to be a simpleton, but I would think that the following works are attempts at written "systematic theologies" of the LDS faith:

The Articles of Faith by James E. Talmage

Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie

Doctrines of Salvation by Joseph Fielding Smith

As someone else who is analytical, I appreciate your analytical contributions.

[Teancum]

Yes, but they were all failures to one degree or another,

 

really?  Who did these?  How were the attempts failures? 

[The Nehor]

really?  Who did these?  How were the attempts failures? 

 

Most of the best attempts have been given already. They were failures because the LDS faith defies the basic conceptions of being orderly. It relies on revelation and not systems. Things change on the institutional, family, and individual level quite rapidly. Sometimes we must kill but usually not. Sometimes we have many wives but now not. Seventies were not always a general Priesthood office but now they are. Once we gathered to Utah and now we do not.

 

Our theology is being revealed as time goes on as well. Our understanding of the atonement is deeper than it was when the Journal of Discourses was recorded. There are probably more doctrines taught in other dispensations that must come forth in this dispensation when all must be revealed.

 

A systematic theology would quickly be out of date and the whole concept is, in my opinion, not healthy. It leads readers to be dogmatic. I am against being dogmatic even when you are positive you are right because it tends to cut one off from more revelation. Each person must learn our theology and while all truths are universal not all are needed by everyone in this life. As we study God unlocks to us what we need. There are thousands of people in the church receiving revelation of things not generally revealed that they need.

[Robert F. Smith]

Fact of the matter is that there is more than one way to define what "Systematic Theology" is and I see no problem at all with having and using some systematic methods to understand who and what God is.

So-called intellectuals can balk and disagree with me and with what is true as much as they want to.

The only people who do systematic theology are intellectuals.  Why?  Because they have been trained to do it in theological seminaries.  Nearly all are Protestant and Catholic, except for an occasional Mormon who happens to attend one of their seminaries.  "Systematic theology" is a particular genre of literature, just as the "fairy tale" is another genre of literature.  Each has literary characteristics unique to it.

 

No one is saying that such identifiable genres of literature are either good or bad, only that they are pedefined by centuries of usage.  However, it is true that nearly all of those objecting to the idea of Mormons doing "systematic theology" are themselves very conservative members of the Church.  I know some of these people and have discussed it with them.  I don't share their view, but I understand it.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

This might prove me to be a simpleton, but I would think that the following works are attempts at written "systematic theologies" of the LDS faith:

 

The Articles of Faith by James E. Talmage

Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie

Doctrines of Salvation by Joseph Fielding Smith 

I can't think of any reason why those volumes would be considered as "systematic theology," and I doubt that the authors intended them as such -- even if they actually knew what a "systematic theology" is.

[The Nehor]

Pethaps the confusion could be avoided if the person asking if we have a systematic theology could explain what they mean by that question just in case some people don't know what he means by that term.

For me when I think of the word "systematic" I think of some kind of system, which could conceivably be any kind of system. And then when I see the word "systematic" combined with the word "theology", which I think of as the study of God, I think of the question being if we have a system or systematic method for studying God. So then I think Yes, we have a system for studying God. And if asked I would describe the system we use, or at least that some of us use.

We've gone around and around on issues like this before, and I've told you that I don't always uphold somebody's claim to a copyright on certain words. Like some who say rhere is only one correct definition and use of words like trinity, or Christianity, or even God.

So if you are expecting me to limit my understanding of the term "systematic theology" to only one very narrow use of that term you might as well forget about that.

 

So you make up a definition on the spot and expect people to treat it seriously?

 

Having words mean things is how we communicate. "Systematic Theology" is a term with a specific use. It is not used for other explorations of theology. Broadening it because you feel like it makes it difficult to discuss anything.

 

Suppose we were talking about the idea of dark matter and someone brought up obsidian and how it is dark matter. After all it is a deep black and it is composed of matter so dark matter could refer to obsidian just as easily as anything else. Do we have to take that ad hoc redefinition seriously too? 

[Calm]

"So if you are expecting me to limit my understanding of the term "systematic theology" to only one very narrow use of that term you might as well forget about that. "

You can of course decide to use the term anyway you want, you just need in order to contribute to understanding and intelligence not enter conversations that are using it in a narrow way and then insist they follow you down the rabbit hole of distractions from the actual topic they are trying to learn about. It would be quite rude of you to try and control the conversation because you want to derail the conversation into something that is meaningful to you and camouflaging the derail by usurping a word's usage.

Edited April 3, 2015 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

"So if you are expecting me to limit my understanding of the term "systematic theology" to only one very narrow use of that term you might as well forget about that. "

You can of course decide to use the term anyway you want, you just need in order to contribute to understanding and intelligence not enter conversations that are using it in a narrow way and then insist they follow you down the rabbit hole of distractions from the actual topic they are trying to learn about. It would be quite rude of you to try and control the conversation because you want to derail the conversation into something that is meaningful to you and camouflaging the derail by usurping a word's usage.

I wasn't trying to be rude or cause a derail from the idea of whether we study theology systematically. I just didn't and still don't buy into the idea that there is only one way to define what systematic theology refers to, just as I don't buy into the idea that there is only one way to think of God as a trinity, or only one way to think of who and what God is, or only one way to think of what Christianity is.

[mfbukowski]

Despite the incoherence of this statement, you appear to believe that "systematic theology" is a generic combination of all the Church's "official" publications (the Canon along with anything else that you desire to include).  You also appear not to know what the word "genre" means, as for example in the case of the fairy tale genre -- which typically begins with the phrase "Once upon a time . . . ."  It might help you to consult some systematic theology books from the Protestant tradition so that you can see what they are like.

 

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Eerdmans, 1996).

John Frame, Salvation Belongs to the Lord: An Introduction to Systematic Theology (P&R, 2006).

James Leo Garrett, Jr., Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical and Evangelical, 2 volumes (Eerdmans, 1990-1991).

Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, 4 volumes (Bethany House, 2002-2004).

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994).

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 volumes (Eerdmans, 1960/ reprint Hendrickson).

Robert Jenson, Systematic Theology, 2 volumes (Oxford, 1997-1999).

Thomas Oden, Systematic Theology, 3 volumes (Prince Press, 1987-1992).

Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 3 volumes (Eerdmans, 1988-1993).

Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2nd ed. (Word Publishing, 1998).

 

They are typically based on Scripture, along with Greek philosophical modes of thinking, while the great Roman Catholic systematic theology is that by Thomas Aquinas -- based on Church tradition, the sacred deposit of the faith, along with Greek philosophy.  The LDS Church has never assembled such a systematic theology, not only because the Brethren are not trained to do so, but also because they apparently see no need for it.

 

 

You adopt your own incoherent definition of "systematic theology," for what purpose I don't understand, and at the same time make out as unbelievers the very conservative LDS intellectuals who do not think an LDS systematic theology possible.  Why don't they think it possible?  Because of the very dynamism which you tout:  continuing revelation and an open canon.

 

 

I guess that self-congratulations are in order, but it isn't clear to me that any such debate ever took place.  That would require a substantive discussion of real systematic theology, which you seem not to understand.

 

You could start with Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology: A Compendium for the Use of Theological Students, 3 vols. (Rochester Theological Seminary, 1903), online at http://www.thescripturealone.com/Strong'sTheology.pdf ,

 

I:94-96,Theology is commonly divided into Biblical, Historical, Systematic and Practical.

 

1. Biblical theology aims to arrange and classify the facts of revelation, confining itself to the Scriptures for its material, and treating of doctrine only so far as it was developed at the close of the apostolic age. 

 

2. Historical Theology traces the development of the Biblical doctrines from the time of the apostles to the present day, and gives account of the results of this development in the life of the church. 

 

3. Systematic Theology takes the material furnished by Biblical and by Historical Theology, and with this material seeks to build up into an organic and consistent whole all our knowledge of God and of the relations as between God and the universe, whether this knowledge be originally derived from nature or from the Scriptures. 

 

4. Practical Theology is the system of truth considered as a means of renewing and sanctifying men, or, in other words, theology in its publication and enforcement. 

----------------------------------   

I:99-109,The History of Systematic Theology

1. In the Eastern Church, Systematic theology may be said to have had its beginning and end in John of Damascus (700-760). 

2. In the Western Church , we may (with Hagenbach) distinguish three periods:

(a) The period of Scholasticism, — introduced by Peter Lombard (1100-1600), and reaching its culmination in Thomas Aquinas (1221-1274) and Duns Scotus (1265-1308). 

(b) The period of Symbolism, — represented by the Lutheran theology of Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560), and the Reformed theology of John Calvin (1509-1564); the former connecting itself with the Analytic theology of Calixtus (1585-1656), and the latter with the Federal theology of Cocceius (1603-1669). 

© The period of Criticism and Speculation, — in its three divisions: the Rationalistic, represented by Semler (1725-1791); the Transitional, by Schleiermacher (1768-1834); the Evangelical, by Nitzsch, Muller, Tholuck and Dorner.

Wow. What a post!

[mfbukowski]

I offer explanations when using the words I use. Feel free to try harder to understand me and ask me for more help when you need it.

Words have multiple meanings so it's not my fault that they can be understood in more than one way.

The reality is that repeatedly, scholars in this area agree that we have no "systematic theology". You are free to use words any way you like, but no one in the field will understand you, or they will think you are...uninformed, and ignore what you say. The choice is yours.

[mfbukowski]

This might prove me to be a simpleton, but I would think that the following works are attempts at written "systematic theologies" of the LDS faith:

 

The Articles of Faith by James E. Talmage

Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie

Doctrines of Salvation by Joseph Fielding Smith

These are explanations of what we believe.

On the Catholic side, these would be like discusions of the catechism. These are descriptions of beliefs. We believe this and this.

Theology would be like Aquinas discussing the nature of the Trinity being ONE in Being.

We go out of our way to condemn the "philosophies of men".

As long as we do that, we will not have systematic theology.

ST is just that- the attempt to combine philosophy with scripture.

We don't do that.

[mfbukowski]

The only people who do systematic theology are intellectuals.  Why?  Because they have been trained to do it in theological seminaries.  Nearly all are Protestant and Catholic, except for an occasional Mormon who happens to attend one of their seminaries.  "Systematic theology" is a particular genre of literature, just as the "fairy tale" is another genre of literature.  Each has literary characteristics unique to it.

 

No one is saying that such identifiable genres of literature are either good or bad, only that they are pedefined by centuries of usage.  However, it is true that nearly all of those objecting to the idea of Mormons doing "systematic theology" are themselves very conservative members of the Church.  I know some of these people and have discussed it with them.  I don't share their view, but I understand it.

Agreed.

[Calm]

I wasn't trying to be rude or cause a derail from the idea of whether we study theology systematically. I just didn't and still don't buy into the idea that there is only one way to define what systematic theology refers to....

But in this thread the individual was asking not about how people understood systematic theology, but examples of it. And this thread has now become a great example of a derail because you insisted on intruding with your idiosyncratic definition instead of answering the question of the original poster. And you weren't the only one.

You want to discuss your version, the polite thing to do is start a new thread instead of attempting to usurp this one.

Edited April 3, 2015 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

But in this thread the individual was asking not about how people understood systematic theology, but examples of it. And this thread has now become a great example of a derail because you insisted on intruding with your idiosyncratic definition instead of answering the question of the original poster. And you weren't the only one.

You want to discuss your version, the polite thing to do is start a new thread instead of attempting to usurp this one.

The best proof that we don't have systematic theology is that Mormons don't even know what it is.

[Analytics]

These are explanations of what we believe.

On the Catholic side, these would be like discusions of the catechism. These are descriptions of beliefs. We believe this and this.

Theology would be like Aquinas discussing the nature of the Trinity being ONE in Being....

 

 

All of the books I mentioned discuss the nature of the godhead being three beings with one purpose.  Why is a Catholic describing Catholic beliefs on this point "systematic theology" and a Mormon describing Mormon beliefs not "systematic theology"?

 

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism has an entry on Theology.  Quoting a particularly relevant paragraph: 

 

The desire for definitive answers to a host of vexing and unsettled questions has been satisfied in the present era by books like Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine. This book did not derive from a philosophical culture, as did much of traditional Christian theology. It is more nearly an instance of what those outside of Mormon circles would label as dogmatic, rather than formal or systematic, theology. Such compendia have no official standing and represent the opinions of their authors. Their pronouncements, however, are popular among some in the Church.

 

Apparently the argument is that while Mormonism doesn't have a "systematic theology" it does have a "dogmatic theology."  

[mfbukowski]

All of the books I mentioned discuss the nature of the godhead being three beings with one purpose.  Why is a Catholic describing Catholic beliefs on this point "systematic theology" and a Mormon describing Mormon beliefs not "systematic theology"?

 

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism has an entry on Theology.  Quoting a particularly relevant paragraph: 

 

The desire for definitive answers to a host of vexing and unsettled questions has been satisfied in the present era by books like Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine. This book did not derive from a philosophical culture, as did much of traditional Christian theology. It is more nearly an instance of what those outside of Mormon circles would label as dogmatic, rather than formal or systematic, theology. Such compendia have no official standing and represent the opinions of their authors. Their pronouncements, however, are popular among some in the Church.

 

 

Apparently the argument is that while Mormonism doesn't have a "systematic theology" it does have a "dogmatic theology."  

Yep, that's what I said.

 

Dogmatic theology teaches what the Dogma, or Doctrine IS. "Mormons believe this and this". Those are the terms I used to symplify the answer.

The term "dogmatic theology" became more widely used following the Protestant Reformation and was used to designate the articles of faith that the Church had officially formulated. A good example of dogmatic theology is the doctrinal statements or dogmas that were formulated by the early church councils who sought to resolve theological problems and to take a stance against a heretical teaching. These creeds or dogmas that came out of the church councils were considered to be authoritative and binding on all Christians because the church officially affirmed them. One of the purposes of dogmatic theology is so that a church body can formulate and communicate the doctrine that is considered essential to Christianity and which if denied would constitute heresy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogmatic_theology

 

In short, "dogmatic theology" is teaching what the beliefs are, as I said above.

 

Systematic Theology, on the other hand, is different as your quote shows.  Wikipedia defines that difference this way:

Systematic theology draws on the foundational sacred texts of Christianity, while simultaneously investigating the development of Christian doctrine over the course of history, particularly through philosophy, science and ethics. Inherent to a system of theological thought is that a method is developed, one which can be applied both broadly and particularly. Using biblical texts, it attempts to compare and relate all of scripture and create a systematized statement on what the whole Bible says about particular issues.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_theology

 

In other words, Systematic Theology is the "philosophies of men mingled with scripture".

 

Thanks for showing that my point is consistent with the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

[Teancum]

Most of the best attempts have been given already. They were failures because the LDS faith defies the basic conceptions of being orderly. It relies on revelation and not systems. Things change on the institutional, family, and individual level quite rapidly. Sometimes we must kill but usually not. Sometimes we have many wives but now not. Seventies were not always a general Priesthood office but now they are. Once we gathered to Utah and now we do not.

 

Our theology is being revealed as time goes on as well. Our understanding of the atonement is deeper than it was when the Journal of Discourses was recorded. There are probably more doctrines taught in other dispensations that must come forth in this dispensation when all must be revealed.

 

A systematic theology would quickly be out of date and the whole concept is, in my opinion, not healthy. It leads readers to be dogmatic. I am against being dogmatic even when you are positive you are right because it tends to cut one off from more revelation. Each person must learn our theology and while all truths are universal not all are needed by everyone in this life. As we study God unlocks to us what we need. There are thousands of people in the church receiving revelation of things not generally revealed that they need.

 

 

A well thought out response. Thank you.

[mfbukowski]

All of the books I mentioned discuss the nature of the godhead being three beings with one purpose.  Why is a Catholic describing Catholic beliefs on this point "systematic theology" and a Mormon describing Mormon beliefs not "systematic theology"?

Three beings with "one purpose" is common sense.

 

A family working together consists of multiple individuals acting with one purpose.  A baseball team is multiple people acting with one purpose.

 

We don't even define really what that "purpose" is except "bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man".   Our purpose in life is simple- to return home to our father.  Common sense.  Direct.  Understandable.

 

On the other hand "teleology" is a whole branch of philosophical argumentation about what the nature of "purpose" IS.  An example:

 

A teleology is an account of a given thing's purpose. For example, a teleological explanation of why forks have prongs is that this design helps humans eat certain foods; stabbing food to help humans eat is what forks are for.

A purpose that is imposed by a human use, such as that of a fork, is called extrinsic.^[1] Natural teleology contends that natural entities have intrinsic purposes, irrespective of human use or opinion. For instance, Aristotle claimed that an acorn's intrinsic telos is to become a fully grown oak tree.^[2]

Though ancient atomists rejected the notion of natural teleology, teleological accounts of non-personal or non-human nature were explored and often endorsed in ancient and medieval philosophies, but fell into disfavor during the modern era (1600-1900).

In the late 18th century, Immanuel Kant used the concept of telos as a regulative principle in his Critique of Judgment. Teleology was also fundamental to the speculative philosophy of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

Contemporary philosophers and scientists are still actively discussing whether teleological talk is useful or accurate in doing modern philosophy and science. For instance, in 2012, Thomas Nagel proposed a neo-Darwinian account of evolution that incorporates impersonal, natural teleological laws to explain the existence of life, consciousness, rationality, and objective value.^[3] Another example is chaos theory and its notion of attractor.^[4]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology

 

This is what we DO NOT have, or do.  Like ET, we just want to go home, and raise the kids to be like Mom and Dad- in heaven.  OK, Heavenly Mother and Father to be more respectful.     But the point is that the idea is simple and direct.  You can explain it to a 4 year old, and really they will understand it as well as most adults.

 

No talk about causation or attractors or no discussion of extrinsic or intrinsic purpose, no talk of purpose as a regulative principle of the universe.   See the difference?  

 

The unity of the Trinity on the other hand is based in unity of "Being".   Sorry, but after 40 years of studying philosophy I still don't know what that means, because it is all based on confused language, in my humble opinion, and that of a whole generation of philosophers in the last hundred years.

 

THAT is the difference.

Edited April 3, 2015 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

The best proof that we don't have systematic theology is that Mormons don't even know what it is.

 

To be fair I would guess that a majority of Catholics and members of Protestant sects that have systematic theology do not know what it is either.

 

I admit I had to google it real quick when I first read the thread to make sure I was remembering the right definition for the term as I had not read about it for over a decade. I fortunately was right. So I am not senile yet. I will have to check again next year.