March 8, 2021 • 38 mins
Have you heard the term systematic theology but don't know exactly what it means or how it is different from other ways of studying theology? In this episode, Dr. Gray Sutanto of Reformed Theological Seminary discusses what systematic theology is and how it is helpful for the average Christian, providing some tips for those who want to try it out for themselves. Also in this episode: the one thing that Amy's husband says there is to do in Dayton.
Links for this episode:
Dr. Sutanto's faculty page and publication list
Lecture on "Bavinck's Christian Worldview"
Discussion with Tim Keller on "Bavinck, Epistemology, and Ministry in Global Cities"
"10 Things You Should Know about Systematic Theology" by Scott Swain
God and Knowledge: Herman Bavinck's Theological Epistemology by Gray Sutanto
The Wonderful Works of God by Herman Bavinck
The Trinity by Scott Swain
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Jon Guerra (00:07):
[ MUSIC PLAYS] I have a heart full of questions
quieting all my suggestions.
What is the meaning of Christianin this American life?
I'm feeling awfully foolishspending my life on a message.
I look around and I wonder everif I heard it right.
[MUSIC STOPS]
Amy Mantravadi (00:27):
Welcome to the (A)Millennial podcast.
I'm your host, Amy Mantravadi,coming to you from Dayton, Ohio,
home of the U.S.
Air Force Museum, also known asthe main reason that tourists
come here.
Located on Wright-Patterson AirForce Base, the museum surely
has the country's bestcollection of aviation items
other than the Smithsonian Airand Space Museum.
Depending on what you're lookingfor, some might argue it's even
(00:48):
a bit better.
If you can't make it to Daytonin person, especially during
this time of travelrestrictions, check out the
virtual tour on the museum'swebsite, where you can get a 360
degree view of all the exhibits.
Today, I'll be speaking withGray Sutanto about systematic
theology.
Some of you may be very familiarwith this type of theological
study, while others may haveheard the term but have little
idea of what it means.
(01:10):
Whichever camp you fall into, Ihope that today's discussion
will be of some benefit to you.
We're going to talk about whatsystematic theology is, what it
involves, and how it differsfrom and builds on other methods
of theological study.
We'll also dig in a little tothe debates in history
surrounding this topic.
Scripture tells us that ourpurpose as human beings is to
know God, glorify him, andrejoice in him.
(01:32):
All of those things require usto understand something about
theology, which is nothing otherthan the study of God.
So when we talk about systematictheology, we're talking first
and foremost about how weunderstand our Creator as he has
revealed himself and theintentions he has for us as his
creatures.
Let me illustrate this byappealing to a familiar biblical
story.
When God revealed himself toMoses in the burning bush, he
(01:55):
told him,"I am the God of yourfather, the God of Abraham, the
God of Isaac, and the God ofJacob." When Moses asked God his
name, he replied,"I AM who IAM." Furthermore, God told
Moses,"I have certainly seen theoppression of my people who are
in Egypt and have heard theiroutcry because of their
taskmasters, for I am aware oftheir sufferings, so I have come
(02:17):
down to rescue them from thepower of the Egyptians and to
bring them up from that land toa good and spacious land, to a
land flowing with milk andhoney, to the place of the
Canaanite, the Hittite, theAmorite, the Perizite, the
Hivite, and the Jebusite." Thosequotes are all from Exodus
chapter 3.
Every one of these statementstells us something about who God
is (02:36):
enough that we might spend a lifetime in meditation upon
them.
We learn that God is personal,compassionate, eternal,
self-existent, never changing.
He is above and beyond history,and yet intimately involved in
it, carrying out his plan onbehalf of those he loves.
Think of how it changes ourlives to know these things about
God.
(02:56):
This is the whole purpose of thestudy of theology: to bask in
the greatness of our God and toturn around and praise him.
Now, let's head on to theinterview where I'll be
discussing this with Dr.
Sutanto.
Jon Guerra (03:07):
[MUSICAL INTERLUDE]
Amy Mantravadi (03:17):
And I'm here with Dr.
Gray Sutanto.
He was educated at BiolaUniversity for his bachelor's
degree, Westminster TheologicalSeminary for his masters, and he
received his PhD from theUniversity of Edinburgh.
He has served as teaching elderat Covenant City church in
Jakarta, Indonesia.
He is a visiting fellow atKampen Theological University,
(03:40):
associate fellow at theNeocalvinism Research Institute,
and fellow in modern theology atthe Greystone Theological
Institute.
His research interests includethe Dutch Reformed theologian
Herman Bavinck and theNeocalvinism movement, along
with several other theologicaltopics.
He is currently the assistantprofessor of systematic theology
at Reformed Theological Seminaryin Washington, D.C., and his
(04:04):
published works include God andKnowledge: Herman Bavinck's
Theological Epistemology, and healso contributed to the editing
and translation of HermanBavinck's Christian Worldview
and Herman Bavinck's Philosophyof Revelation, and he's been
published in several theologicaljournals.
So Gray, thank you so much forcoming on the podcast with me
(04:25):
today.
I really appreciate it.
Gray Sutanto (04:27):
Thanks so much, Amy.
It's great to be here.
Thanks for having me.
Amy Mantravadi (04:30):
Yeah.
So how have you and your wifebeen doing during the
coronavirus pandemic?
I know you said you've been inIndonesia all this time, but
teaching virtually still withRTS.
Gray Sutanto (04:44):
Yeah, that's right.
It's been a really surprisingyear and a half or so.
I mean, we'd anticipatedactually moving to DC back in
May of 2020, but already inFebruary, the consulates in
Jakarta and Indonesia werebasically closed because of the
pandemic, and there were a fewexecutive orders on immigration
that meant that immigration wasbasically frozen for the work
(05:07):
visas for a while now.
So we've been just back here,still in Jakarta and teaching,
like you said, virtually on Zoomfor RTS.
We've definitely grown inconfidence in teaching over
Zoom.
I bought into,"How is this goingto work?" But you know, the
students have been incrediblytenacious, hardworking, patient
with us, and we've been verygrateful for that, and we've
been close to friends and familystill as well here in Jakarta
(05:27):
where we have come from.
So overall, it's gone as good asit could have been, so we're
really grateful for that.
Amy Mantravadi (05:33):
Yeah, I know it's just been so challenging
this whole year.
It's been really interesting tohear from all the missionaries
that our church supports,because of course they're all
over the world and some of themhaven't been able to go back to
the places where they'resupposed to be working, whereas
some of them haven't been ableto come back to the U.S.
So we just have all theseinternational connections that
(05:55):
haven't been being made thispast year.
So I'm glad that you've beenable to sort of make that work
despite the difficultcircumstances.
Has Indonesia been particularlyhard hit by the pandemic?
Gray Sutanto (06:08):
Yeah, I think- we've been grateful in Jakarta
that we've been able to workfrom home, and a lot of our
friends have been able to workfrom home, but in other more-
maybe in smaller towns, insmaller cities, and also in just
the more rural areas, peopledon't have the privilege of
being able to work from home.
So they've been still having tocarry out their work, so our
numbers aren't exactly the bestright now, and we haven't really
(06:31):
flattened the curve.
So it's a bit worrying to take alook at that, but at the same
time, we're very hopeful of thevaccine and we're reminded, like
you said, this is a very globalthing.
Lots of different nations arestruggling with this, and so we
have to also kind of zoom outand realize that we're all in
this together and dependent uponthis vaccine together.
So we're hopeful for that.
Amy Mantravadi (06:53):
Well, thanks so much for just sharing a little
bit about how things have beengoing.
And now we can get into thetopic that we're to discuss
today, which is systematictheology, and as I mentioned,
you are the assistant professorof systematic theology for RTS
in Washington, D.C.
So maybe you could just startout by telling us, what is
(07:13):
systematic theology?
Gray Sutanto (07:15):
Yeah, that's a great question, and depending on
who you ask, you might getdifferent people answering that
question.
Well, systematic theology, as itis understood here today,
basically refers to thinkingabout what the Bible teaches
holistically, logically, and ina way that therefore connects
particular doctrines that youfind in the Bible together.
(07:37):
So instead of asking thequestion perhaps of,"What does
the book of Genesis chapterthree say particularly in a
narratival form?", you might beasking the question,"What does
it say about the condition ofhumanity?
What does it say about thenature of human fallenness, sin,
human wrongdoing?
What does it say about the lawof God?" And then you're
therefore taking teachings from,let's say the Book of Genesis,
(07:59):
and connecting it with NewTestament texts, let's say in
Romans chapter five on the fallof man.
You're connecting it withdifferent descriptions of the
conditions of sin, let's say ifyou get from the Book of
Proverbs.
So you're trying to thereforeask the question of,"What does
the whole Bible say aboutparticular doctrine?" But it is
a bit more than that too.
It's also asking the questionof,"How do we use philosophical
(08:20):
tools and concepts to helparticulate what the Bible
teaches in a way that is notonly logically coherent and
persuasive, but also that makessense for the world today?" So
it's definitely theinterconnection of exegesis,
biblical theology, andphilosophy for the sake of
articulating a coherent systemof truth together, if that makes
(08:44):
sense.
And there's probably more tosay, but that's an overall rough
sketch of it.
Amy Mantravadi (08:49):
Yeah, no, I appreciate that- kind of summing
it up in a way that's prettyeasy to understand there.
And that leads me reallynaturally into my next question,
which is how is systematictheology different from biblical
theology?
And just to give a littlepersonal example there, when I
(09:10):
was in college and I did adegree in biblical literature,
my senior year I had to take acourse in biblical theology
where we went over the wholebroad narrative of the Bible and
looked for the broad connectionsin the narrative, but I actually
never had any courses insystematic theology because I
was mainly looking at the studyof the biblical text as a work
(09:34):
of literature, and so we didn'tget as much into systematic
theology.
So if you had someone ask you tocompare the two- systematic and
biblical theology- how would youdo that?
Gray Sutanto (09:44):
Yeah, that's a great question.
I think historically therehasn't been a strict separation
between the two.
So when you take a look at theChurch Fathers, the medieval
doctors, the Reformationdivines, they don't really make
a strict distinction betweenbiblical theology and systematic
theology.
They normally regard just thewhole work of theology as sacred
(10:05):
doctrine, which is really justexegesis of Scripture in a way
that is something for the wholeChurch to believe universally.
It's a catholic statement aboutwhat Christians ought to believe
about God and the Bible, andclassically they argued that
theology is the study of God andall things in relation to God.
And the Bible teaches us aboutall those things in relation to
(10:27):
God, and also of course, Godhimself.
So the modern division betweenbiblical and systematic theology
is really, again, a 19th, 20thcentury division because of the
specialization of thedisciplines in the modern
research university, rootedreally in the German research
universities, right?
(10:48):
So I think today we see thatdivision because of that
specialization, but again,classically it hasn't been the
case.
But because we live in thepresent times, here's how we
might divide the two perhaps.
If biblical theology asks aboutthe story of redemptive history
from creation, fall, redemption,consummation, right?
(11:08):
The basic plot line of the Biblefrom Genesis to Revelation, and
in the middle of that, what Godhad done in Christ Jesus.
Systematic theology perhaps goesa little bit beyond the
narrative of the biblical textand asks the more unifying
questions of,"What is behind thebiblical text and what does the
(11:28):
whole biblical text teachcoherently?" So it traces the
biblical text to the foundationsof the biblical text, so if this
is what, let's say again, theBook of Genesis teaches about
the narrative of Joseph andJacob, what does this tell us
about the character of God thatis behind this?
What does this say about thefaithfulness of God that he
would do this to the sinnersthat we see in particular
(11:50):
narratival accounts.
So it traces behind theexegesis, as well as along with
the exegesis, if that helps.
Amy Mantravadi (12:00):
Yeah, I think that does help, and systematic
theology is pretty commonlydivided by topics.
Sort of as you're talking about,making links and going behind
the biblical text to look atwhat the Bible has to say about
a particular theme throughoutthe text.
What are some of the commontopics that tend to be covered
(12:21):
in systematic theology?
Gray Sutanto (12:24):
Yeah.
Some of the common topics- Ithink you would probably begin
with what theologians havecalled prolegomena, which simply
just means the things that yousay beforehand, right?
So what are the theologicalassumptions and foundations,
presuppositions, then you haveto affirm before you study
theology.
Well, you would have to saysomething about the fact that
(12:45):
you can't know anything aboutGod unless God reveals himself
to you, right?
Just as when you meet astranger, you might not know
anything about them, unlessthey've disclosed themselves to
you.
They've voluntarily andwillingly said something about
themselves to you.
So it is with God- our knowledgeof God.
So normally systematic theologystarts with the doctrine of
revelation, right?
(13:07):
That God has spoken both innature and in scripture, and God
therefore is knowable to us,even though ultimately he
transcends creation and is farabove us.
So the doctrine of revelationnormally comes first in the work
of systematic theology.
You even see this in theWestminster Confession of Faith.
Chapter one is on the light ofnature and scripture, and it's a
(13:27):
description of how God hasdisclosed himself to us
basically.
And then you would normally getto doctrine of God: how God is
one, that we worship the oneGod, and that he is indivisible
and so on, but he's also at thesame time a triune God as
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
And then we would get to thedoctrine of creation, that God
(13:48):
has created all things out ofnothing; doctrine of Providence,
that God continually sustainscreation; the doctrine of the
creation of humanity, thatmankind is made in the image of
God; and how humanity is fallenand redeemed in Jesus Christ,
doctrine of salvation.
Therefore towards the end, wealso get a doctrine of the
church and last things, how hasGod redeemed us, not only as
(14:10):
individuals, but as a communityof believers united to Jesus
Christ and how by his Spirit, heis working to renew all things
so that there would be no moresin in the last day and there
would be a total restoration andconsummation of God's creation
in the last day.
So there is definitely- you seethe connection there, don't you,
between biblical and systematictheology?
(14:32):
There is a following roughly abiblical plot line, even if in
its articulation of thoseparticular loci, there is a more
philosophical, expositionalaspect to it.
Amy Mantravadi (14:44):
And it almost seems like with the topics you
mentioned in systematictheology, you're looking at
things that are essentiallyimplied topics from the biblical
texts in certain cases, such as-the Bible starts with God
creating.
It doesn't spend a lot of timewith the backstory of what
happened before God created,although there are certainly
(15:07):
things in scripture that lead usto think of certain
considerations that happenedbefore that, such as that God
already was aware that he wouldhave to save humanity, and there
was a plan in place for how thatwas going to happen.
But it does really complimentour study of the biblical text
in that way.
How did systematic theology thendevelop as a discipline in
(15:30):
Christian history?
You mentioned that in previoustimes, it wasn't thought of
necessarily as different frombiblical theology, but were
there particular periods duringthe Reformation or even earlier
that you kind of saw thatstarting to develop?
Gray Sutanto (15:47):
Yeah, that's another great question, and it's
almost like for any of thesequestions, you could probably
spend about 45 minutes each,because there's so many things
to say- so many different anglesyou can take.
So maybe I could mentionprobably two here.
I think in the Reformationperiod, there was a heightened
focus on the writing of biblicalexpositional commentaries.
(16:09):
So you think about Calvin'scommentaries on particular books
of the Bible- Now, this wasn'tcompletely new.
You already see this even in theChurch Fathers and the medieval
doctors.
Aquinas wrote so manycommentaries on the scriptural
texts, but I think in theReformation, the desire to
reform the Catholic tradition byway of an appeal to the Bible
(16:29):
heightened that focus.
And so Calvin understood, forexample, that you can't just
hand over the voluminous amountsof commentaries that he had
written to just anyone, so hestarted to write The Institutes
of Christian Religion as a kindof remedy to that.
It wasn't exactly a systematictheology the way we understand
(16:50):
it here today, but it wasbasically a summary of Christian
teaching for the Church that hethought would be helpful.
And I think also you can take alook at the confessionalism of
the reform periods as a kind ofproto-systematic theology.
And now some might maybe contendwith what I just said there, but
basically I think theconfessions are a nice summary
(17:10):
of the scriptural texts that isvery logically focused, tightly
knit, and also in a way that isimmediately understandable to
the Church in that present day.
Right?
So you take a look at theWestminster standards,
Confession of Faith, larger,shorter catechisms, and the
Three Forms of Unity.
These were basically, I think,theological texts that said,
what do we need to believe?
(17:32):
What are some errors that weneed to encounter in Roman
Catholicism or in the RadicalReformation side of things.
And so it presented not only thetruth of things, but also in a
philosophical expositional way,denied errors that attended to
it, right?
So you see these differentgenres where you...in the
Reformation, but really it wasin the modern era with some
(17:55):
concerning developments, whichbasically started to say things
like,"Well, the Bible isgrounded in history and the
Bible therefore should be readas free from the doctrines of
the Church." And so the originof biblical studies actually it
comes with this Enlightenmentand philosophical assumption
(18:18):
that the Bible in and of itselfis not a theological text.
It's just a human book, like anyother human book, and you should
be able to read it free from theconstraints of churchly
confession.
And so when the modern researchuniversity started to say,
therefore,"Well, we got totherefore distinguish between
(18:39):
the historical study of theBible on the one hand and
churchly dogma on the other,"and that became a really strict
bifurcation in the modernresearch university.
Figures behind that are figureslike Friedrich Schleiermacher in
the 19th century and so on.
So there's that kind ofmovement, and I think what
(19:00):
happened after that istheologians started to say,
"Okay, maybe there's somethinghelpful about this division
between historical biblicalstudy on the one hand and
churchly dogmatics on the other,but how do we therefore
reevaluate this division in atheological way?" And they
started to say, therefore, thatin the historical exegesis of
(19:22):
the biblical texts, we can usesome of the methods of
historical grammatical exegesis,that the modernists have taught
us, but at the same time, notcompletely divorced that from
churchly dogma.
So we started to say, therefore,there's a distinction between
biblical studies and systematictheology, not division.
This is a cause forself-reflection perhaps, because
(19:44):
I don't think many of us realizehow much of the modern seminary
curriculum is indebted tomovements in the modern research
university and theEnlightenment.
But there's always going to be,I think, a tension, but also a
reciprocal relation betweenwhere the Church is and where
the modern culture is, and Ithink this is one way where we
(20:04):
see it for better or for worse.
Amy Mantravadi (20:08):
Yeah, I think that's a good point.
And it seems like in every eraof Church history, there's been
a kind of swinging of thependulum slightly in one
direction or another.
For instance, I've spent sometime studying medieval
Christianity for the novels thatI write and just for some
theological interests, and thatperiod was characterized by very
(20:34):
sort of high-mindedphilosophical considerations.
So they had something likesystematic theology and that it
was arranged by topics, but itimported philosophical ideas
very heavily, probably more thanyou would see today.
(20:54):
And the Reformation, I think,was in part a correction against
what they saw as a lot ofphilosophizing and getting away
from the plain gospel and thescriptural text.
So like you said, there was thisbig explosion of commentaries
and things like that, and thenmaybe you have to correct back
(21:17):
in the other direction a littlebit, but that is interesting
that you can think at everypoint there is sort of a going
back and forth between those twothings.
So how is a book on systematictheology usually set up?
If I were to go to the library-if I had a library nearby, that
(21:38):
stocked systematic theologyworks.
Luckily I do, but assuming thatyou're in a city that does- and
you get, say, Herman Bavinck'ssystematic theology, or Louis
Berkhof or someone like that,how would you go about
navigating it?
How would you expect to find itarranged?
Gray Sutanto (22:00):
Yeah, that's a great question.
I think it really depends onwhich particular texts you're
thinking about.
Like you said, in the medievalperiod, you actually would get
more treatments on particulartopics perhaps even in
isolation, right?
So there's particular treatmentsby Bonaventure purely on the
doctrine of illumination (22:19):
kind of just a one-off study on
illumination, his journey of themind to God.
But I think in Bavinck's example- in Bavinck's case, because he
came after the rise of modernbiblical study and modern
biblical criticism, he has thisheightened interest to talk
about theology in thatnarratival fashion, right?
(22:41):
So he would really start offwith the doctrine of revelation
and then doctrine of God andcreation, fall, redemption, and
last things.
His Four volumes is really setup according to that biblical
plotline.
And I think in Bavinck's case aswell, you get this more rigorous
historical attention to thedevelopment of doctrine.
So oftentimes in the modernperiod and afterwards, you get a
(23:05):
systematic theology-not justtheir summary of these
particular doctrines, but alsotheir sense of how the doctrine
had developed.
So in Bavinck's case, again, youwould start with the biblical
exegesis, and then after that,you would go to the Church
Fathers, to the medievaldoctors, to the Reformation, to
the moderns, and then Bavinck'sown restatements toward the end
(23:27):
of his particular chapter.
So whatever doctrine you diveinto in the middle of his
dogmatics, you would get thatkind of chronological,
genealogical tracing out of thatparticular doctrine.
I think that's really, reallyhelpful.
So if you want to get a moreconcise philosophical treatment
of a particular doctrine, maybegoing to an Aquinas or a
(23:48):
Bonaventure would be useful, butif you want this more
historically conscious tracingout of a particular doctrine,
then diving into Bavinck andisolating a chapter in Bavinck
on a particular doctor wouldhelp you do that.
Amy Mantravadi (24:01):
Yeah, and for those who have any experience
with reading Aquinas, it couldbe very confusing for the modern
reader because it's set up verymuch in the question and answer
format that was popular in thetime, and it can get a little
difficult to determine whichpart is actually him stating
(24:25):
what he believes and which partis him stating what someone else
believes.
And there isn't the historicalnecessarily- like you said,
going through all the differenthistorical periods like you
might see nowadays, so that isinteresting just to think about
how it's developed over theyears.
Yeah, so thank you for that.
Some Christians have contendedthat systematic theology either
(24:48):
causes us to ignore the originalbiblical context and narrative,
or causes us to delve into areasof speculation that God never
intended.
As a teacher of systemictheology, how do you respond to
such criticisms?
I've heard this particularlyfrom- certain theological
movements tend to make thesearguments more than others, but
(25:11):
what do you think when you hearsomething like that?
Gray Sutanto (25:14):
Yeah, I think my first gut instinct is maybe to
say that,"Well, the biblicaltext itself, I think, and the
arrangement of the biblical textrequires particular theological
choices and theologicaljudgments, right?" The fact that
the canon was set up in aparticular way was, I think,
(25:35):
partly a product of the Church'secclesial and theological
confession about what they thinkthe presentation requires,
right?
So there's lots of differentscholarly movements on this, but
the theological interpretationof scripture movement that came
out, I think, in the last twodecades or so pointed out to the
fact that even in the way thatthe canon was arranged in the
(25:56):
early Church, it's reflective oftheological judgments.
So in other words, there's neverbeen a time or period where
there was a purely neutralhistorical standpoint from which
to read the biblical texts.
It always came with theologicalassumptions about reading these
different authors, whetheryou're in the Apocalypse of John
(26:19):
or in the Book of Mark orsomething that Peter had wrote,
that these authors were writingin a way that was inspired by a
single divine author, right?
That was a theological judgment.
That's a theological confession.
So even as you're studying theBible as a biblical historian,
you have to come to grips withthe fact that if you're reading
(26:42):
the Bible as a canon, you'rereally bringing into it a
theological consideration.
And to push us even further, Iwould suggest that even the most
basic plot line summary of theBible of creation, fall,
consummation, or redemption,consummation is itself a
theological summary of theBible, right?
(27:03):
The moment you move away fromwhat the words of the Bible and
history of the Bible actuallysays to any summary that you
have of the Bible's plotline,you're already saying that this
is one story- that there's asingle divine plan, and here's a
coherent way of summarizing thebiblical texts.
You can't escape fromtheological judgments, in other
words.
And so if this kind of criticismis coming from an evangelical or
(27:25):
Christian biblical studiesscholar, then I would suggest to
this person that you're alreadypresupposing theology, even as
you're studying the biblicaltexts.
And when you're studying thebiblical texts, in the work of
exegesis there will always betheological questions that would
arise, that prompt you towardasking about questions about
(27:49):
being, questions about knowing,questions about ethics that go
beyond strict exegesis, I think.
You know, when you are readingExodus 3:14, God says,"I AM who
I AM." That prompts you towardparticular questions about what
this circular way of describingGod means exactly.
When you're asking questionsabout how God created everything
(28:10):
out of his Word, what does thatactually mean?
It requires some philosophicalexploration.
And then when you're asking thequestion of,"How do I
communicate what I see in myexegesis to the Church in the
modern world?" then you'reasking questions about,"What are
the philosophies that arepresent today and how do I
communicate it to the modernworld?" So instead of I think
(28:31):
dividing the two, again, we dowell to think about these
disciplines as reallycomplementing one another, and
you can't really do one withoutthe other, right?
And this is why, again, inhistory, theology and biblical
studies have also gonehand-in-hand as sacred doctrine.
Amy Mantravadi (28:46):
And thinking back to what you mentioned about
the doctrine of revelation or adoctrine of scripture, when you
come to the biblical text, youcome, like you said, with a set
of assumptions about what thisbook is.
And in a certain sense, yourbelief that it is the Word of
God and that it's worth readinghas to stand a little bit
(29:08):
outside of the text itself,because the text tells you that,
but you have to have some faithin yourself to believe the text.
So I think, like you said, thereare- I don't think anyone comes
to it neutrally- comes to thestudy of the Bible neutrally.
So that's probably a good way ofthinking about it.
I mentioned that you've donereally extensive research on
(29:31):
Herman Bavinck, who wrote aninfluential work of systematic
theology in the 19th century.
How does his approach tosystematic theology compare to
others in the broadly Reformedtradition?
It probably would be way toolong of an answer to compare him
to everyone else who's writtensystematic theology, so let's
keep it within at least theReformed world.
Gray Sutanto (29:51):
Yeah, really, really useful question here.
I think one way to think abouthis work, again, is his
rigorously genealogical approachto the history of theology,
right?
He never just says a doctrine asif it just drops out of heaven.
He's always aware that whateverhe says is in the context of his
present moment, and he'sstanding upon the giants of
(30:14):
these church dogmaticians thathave come before him, right?
So that's, I think, incrediblyuseful, because theologians
today need to be aware thateverything that we say here
today is responsible to thehistory of the Church, right?
We can't just say things inisolation.
And then I think another usefulway of thinking about what
Bavinck was doing is he wastrying to proclaim this
(30:39):
confessional, catholic, Reformtradition to the modern world.
He saw that as a responsibilityof the theologian, the Church
dogmatician.
He actually argued that eachgeneration requires a new
systematic theology, not becausethe truth changes, but because
the world changes.
And so how you articulate thesame truth should use the
(31:01):
philosophical tools, concepts,terms, and even the cultural
lingo of the current day.
So you see in Bavinck, I think,a very consistent desire to
articulate that truth in a waythat is winsome, relevant, and
penetrative to his modernacademic milieu.
So I think that's incrediblyuseful for us to think about as
(31:23):
well- that I think the Church,like you said, does go through a
kind of pendulum swing betweenone pole to another, and I think
one of the poles that we couldtend to get used to is kind of
the isolationalist pole thatsays,"Hey, all we need is just
to be in the Church." Andthere's a sense in which that's
completely right and true.
We believe that the Church isbeautiful.
(31:44):
This is the people of God.
God has redeemed us to be a setapart people.
That's very, very true andBavinck would affirm that.
But at the same time, we arestill in this world- that we're
not of the world, and we are tocommunicate and be salt and
light in this world.
And how can we therefore be alight in this world unless we
read what others are doing andsaying right there?
(32:04):
And so I think that that's whatBavinck was doing in a very
unique way, and even in his ownperiod, you would see Church
dogmatics- not just Barth's, butI mean, theologies that were
being written by hiscontemporaries.
But I think he was particularlyacutely aware of those twin
responsibilities of being in thecatholic tradition, Reformed
(32:26):
broad tradition, and at the sametime engage in modern culture.
Amy Mantravadi (32:31):
Yeah, and the thing for those who are not
familiar with Bavinck- the thingthat's interesting with him is
that he was writing originallyin Dutch, so in a sense- he's an
older theologian in the sensethat yeah, he lived in the 19th
century, but it's only beenwithin the past few decades that
(32:51):
a lot of his stuff has beentranslated.
I mentioned that you've beeninvolved in helping with the
translation of some of his work,so in a way he seems very
contemporary, even though he waswriting a while ago, because the
exposure to him in the Americanchurch is still only ramping up
now.
So it's just a very interestingcase of how we connect to
(33:14):
history in that way.
So if an average Christian,without a seminary education
wanted to study systematictheology, where would you
recommend that they begin?
Could you maybe suggest aresource or two that are more
accessible for the averageperson?
Gray Sutanto (33:32):
Yeah, that's a really useful question.
I think perhaps it might be abit intimidating to just jump
into Bavinck's ReformedDogmatics, four volumes that it
is, so I would suggest actuallysome contemporary treatments of
particular doctrines would bereally useful just as a starting
point.
I can think of maybe ScottSwain's little introduction to
(33:53):
the doctrine of the Trinity, oreven particular popular works
that are useful in introducing,let's say, the Westminster
Standards, Chad VanDixhoorn'sConfessing the Faith.
That would be really useful.
But if you're thinking aboutprimary sources, let's say in
someone like a Bavinck, then hisWonderful Works of God would be
a great place to start.
(34:14):
I think there, if it's ChurchDogmatics- sorry, Reformed
Dogmatics.
I don't know why I keep sayingChurch Dogmatics today.
I haven't been thinking aboutKarl Barth too much recently.
But his Reformed Dogmatics is avery footnoted, historically
rigorous text.
His Wonderful Works of God waswritten for the ordinary person.
(34:36):
In the preface, he actually saysmodern people are so busy
nowadays and so totallybombarded by the news and work
that they scarcely have time toread theology, and that's why he
wrote The Wonderful Works ofGod: to engage with that kind of
readership.
So his Wonderful Works of Godwould also be a great place to
start there.
Can I circle back to thequestion that you asked before?
Amy Mantravadi (34:57):
Absolutely.
Gray Sutanto (34:57):
You asked,"How does Bavinck differ a little bit
from other theological works inhis day?" You know, I think it's
useful here to distinguish himfrom maybe the Dutch pietist
tradition, or maybe even thePuritan tradition that we might
be used to reading in theReformed world: the Puritan
Paperbacks that are- I'm notsaying they're bad.
(35:17):
They're very good.
I think of a lot of the PuritanPaperbacks that you see, you get
almost a desire to writeevergreen exposition of
doctrine.
In other words, they desire towrite something completely
timeless (35:30):
an historically distinguished piece of work that
simply tells you what thedoctrine in a very devotional
way.
And I think Bavinck wouldprobably say something like,
"That's useful at all, but it'snot going to be helpful to
penetrate the modern world." AndI think that's one way to
distinguish Bavinck's works fromthe Puritan tradition is that he
(35:55):
thinks that an evergreen kind ofdesire is a limited good.
I think he would actually arguethat the theologian has a harder
job of, yes, actually trying toreinvent something every
generation.
And I think that's worththinking about, because I think
sometimes we think to writesomething evergreen and timeless
is actually a more pious, moreholy thing to do.
(36:16):
Bavinck would actually suggestthat that's actually a more- it
reflects a lack of ambitionperhaps.
And controversial or not, butthat's another insight that
Bavinck would challenge ourreadership today,"Hey, don't
just deny the world, but see theworld as an opportunity for you
to say something fresh." Well,and that's getting also into the
(36:38):
Neocalvinist tradition that youalso have researched a lot.
So yeah, these debates areongoing.
I think ever since the Churchbegan there have been debates
over,"How much should weincorporate philosophy into our
theology?" and"How much shouldwe be engaging with the world or
trying to be separate from it?"These are questions that never
(37:00):
go away, so it's been good totalk about some of them today.
Thank you so much for coming onto answer these questions, and I
hope that it's been a goodintroduction for a lot of
people.
Thank you, Amy.
It's great to be here.
Jon Guerra (37:14):
[MUSIC PLAYS] I need to know there is justice, that
(37:38):
it will roll in abundance, andthat you're building a city
where we arrive as immigrantsand you call us citizens and you
welcome us as children home.
[MUSIC STOPS]
Gray Sutanto (37:40):
It was great to have Gray on the podcast today.
I'm especially thankful that wewere able to make an interview
work despite the 12 hour timedifference.
As always, the music is the song"Citizens" by Jon Guerra.
I'd like to give a special shoutout today to my husband Jai for
caring for our son Thomas whileI've conducted these interviews,
and to Thomas for taking time tonap so that I can edit them.
(38:01):
May the Lord bless you and keepyou.
May the Lord make his face toshine on you and give you peace.
May the Lord lift up hiscountenance on you and be
gracious to you.
Amen.
Have a great week.
Jon Guerra (38:13):
[MUSIC PLAYS] Is there a way to live always
living in enemy hallways?
Don't know my foes from myfriends and don't know my
friends anymore.
Power has several prizes.
Handcuffs can come in all sizes.
Love has a million disguises,but winning is simply not one.
(38:34):
[MUSIC STOPS]
[ MUSIC PLAYS] I have a heart full of questions
quieting all my suggestions.
What is the meaning of Christianin this American life?
I'm feeling awfully foolishspending my life on a message.
I look around and I wonder everif I heard it right.
[MUSIC STOPS]
Amy Mantravadi (00:27):
Welcome to the (A)Millennial podcast.
I'm your host, Amy Mantravadi,coming to you from Dayton, Ohio,
home of the U.S.
Air Force Museum, also known asthe main reason that tourists
come here.
Located on Wright-Patterson AirForce Base, the museum surely
has the country's bestcollection of aviation items
other than the Smithsonian Airand Space Museum.
Depending on what you're lookingfor, some might argue it's even
(00:48):
a bit better.
If you can't make it to Daytonin person, especially during
this time of travelrestrictions, check out the
virtual tour on the museum'swebsite, where you can get a 360
degree view of all the exhibits.
Today, I'll be speaking withGray Sutanto about systematic
theology.
Some of you may be very familiarwith this type of theological
study, while others may haveheard the term but have little
idea of what it means.
(01:10):
Whichever camp you fall into, Ihope that today's discussion
will be of some benefit to you.
We're going to talk about whatsystematic theology is, what it
involves, and how it differsfrom and builds on other methods
of theological study.
We'll also dig in a little tothe debates in history
surrounding this topic.
Scripture tells us that ourpurpose as human beings is to
know God, glorify him, andrejoice in him.
(01:32):
All of those things require usto understand something about
theology, which is nothing otherthan the study of God.
So when we talk about systematictheology, we're talking first
and foremost about how weunderstand our Creator as he has
revealed himself and theintentions he has for us as his
creatures.
Let me illustrate this byappealing to a familiar biblical
story.
When God revealed himself toMoses in the burning bush, he
(01:55):
told him,"I am the God of yourfather, the God of Abraham, the
God of Isaac, and the God ofJacob." When Moses asked God his
name, he replied,"I AM who IAM." Furthermore, God told
Moses,"I have certainly seen theoppression of my people who are
in Egypt and have heard theiroutcry because of their
taskmasters, for I am aware oftheir sufferings, so I have come
(02:17):
down to rescue them from thepower of the Egyptians and to
bring them up from that land toa good and spacious land, to a
land flowing with milk andhoney, to the place of the
Canaanite, the Hittite, theAmorite, the Perizite, the
Hivite, and the Jebusite." Thosequotes are all from Exodus
chapter 3.
Every one of these statementstells us something about who God
is (02:36):
enough that we might spend a lifetime in meditation upon
them.
We learn that God is personal,compassionate, eternal,
self-existent, never changing.
He is above and beyond history,and yet intimately involved in
it, carrying out his plan onbehalf of those he loves.
Think of how it changes ourlives to know these things about
God.
(02:56):
This is the whole purpose of thestudy of theology: to bask in
the greatness of our God and toturn around and praise him.
Now, let's head on to theinterview where I'll be
discussing this with Dr.
Sutanto.
Jon Guerra (03:07):
[MUSICAL INTERLUDE]
Amy Mantravadi (03:17):
And I'm here with Dr.
Gray Sutanto.
He was educated at BiolaUniversity for his bachelor's
degree, Westminster TheologicalSeminary for his masters, and he
received his PhD from theUniversity of Edinburgh.
He has served as teaching elderat Covenant City church in
Jakarta, Indonesia.
He is a visiting fellow atKampen Theological University,
(03:40):
associate fellow at theNeocalvinism Research Institute,
and fellow in modern theology atthe Greystone Theological
Institute.
His research interests includethe Dutch Reformed theologian
Herman Bavinck and theNeocalvinism movement, along
with several other theologicaltopics.
He is currently the assistantprofessor of systematic theology
at Reformed Theological Seminaryin Washington, D.C., and his
(04:04):
published works include God andKnowledge: Herman Bavinck's
Theological Epistemology, and healso contributed to the editing
and translation of HermanBavinck's Christian Worldview
and Herman Bavinck's Philosophyof Revelation, and he's been
published in several theologicaljournals.
So Gray, thank you so much forcoming on the podcast with me
(04:25):
today.
I really appreciate it.
Gray Sutanto (04:27):
Thanks so much, Amy.
It's great to be here.
Thanks for having me.
Amy Mantravadi (04:30):
Yeah.
So how have you and your wifebeen doing during the
coronavirus pandemic?
I know you said you've been inIndonesia all this time, but
teaching virtually still withRTS.
Gray Sutanto (04:44):
Yeah, that's right.
It's been a really surprisingyear and a half or so.
I mean, we'd anticipatedactually moving to DC back in
May of 2020, but already inFebruary, the consulates in
Jakarta and Indonesia werebasically closed because of the
pandemic, and there were a fewexecutive orders on immigration
that meant that immigration wasbasically frozen for the work
(05:07):
visas for a while now.
So we've been just back here,still in Jakarta and teaching,
like you said, virtually on Zoomfor RTS.
We've definitely grown inconfidence in teaching over
Zoom.
I bought into,"How is this goingto work?" But you know, the
students have been incrediblytenacious, hardworking, patient
with us, and we've been verygrateful for that, and we've
been close to friends and familystill as well here in Jakarta
(05:27):
where we have come from.
So overall, it's gone as good asit could have been, so we're
really grateful for that.
Amy Mantravadi (05:33):
Yeah, I know it's just been so challenging
this whole year.
It's been really interesting tohear from all the missionaries
that our church supports,because of course they're all
over the world and some of themhaven't been able to go back to
the places where they'resupposed to be working, whereas
some of them haven't been ableto come back to the U.S.
So we just have all theseinternational connections that
(05:55):
haven't been being made thispast year.
So I'm glad that you've beenable to sort of make that work
despite the difficultcircumstances.
Has Indonesia been particularlyhard hit by the pandemic?
Gray Sutanto (06:08):
Yeah, I think- we've been grateful in Jakarta
that we've been able to workfrom home, and a lot of our
friends have been able to workfrom home, but in other more-
maybe in smaller towns, insmaller cities, and also in just
the more rural areas, peopledon't have the privilege of
being able to work from home.
So they've been still having tocarry out their work, so our
numbers aren't exactly the bestright now, and we haven't really
(06:31):
flattened the curve.
So it's a bit worrying to take alook at that, but at the same
time, we're very hopeful of thevaccine and we're reminded, like
you said, this is a very globalthing.
Lots of different nations arestruggling with this, and so we
have to also kind of zoom outand realize that we're all in
this together and dependent uponthis vaccine together.
So we're hopeful for that.
Amy Mantravadi (06:53):
Well, thanks so much for just sharing a little
bit about how things have beengoing.
And now we can get into thetopic that we're to discuss
today, which is systematictheology, and as I mentioned,
you are the assistant professorof systematic theology for RTS
in Washington, D.C.
So maybe you could just startout by telling us, what is
(07:13):
systematic theology?
Gray Sutanto (07:15):
Yeah, that's a great question, and depending on
who you ask, you might getdifferent people answering that
question.
Well, systematic theology, as itis understood here today,
basically refers to thinkingabout what the Bible teaches
holistically, logically, and ina way that therefore connects
particular doctrines that youfind in the Bible together.
(07:37):
So instead of asking thequestion perhaps of,"What does
the book of Genesis chapterthree say particularly in a
narratival form?", you might beasking the question,"What does
it say about the condition ofhumanity?
What does it say about thenature of human fallenness, sin,
human wrongdoing?
What does it say about the lawof God?" And then you're
therefore taking teachings from,let's say the Book of Genesis,
(07:59):
and connecting it with NewTestament texts, let's say in
Romans chapter five on the fallof man.
You're connecting it withdifferent descriptions of the
conditions of sin, let's say ifyou get from the Book of
Proverbs.
So you're trying to thereforeask the question of,"What does
the whole Bible say aboutparticular doctrine?" But it is
a bit more than that too.
It's also asking the questionof,"How do we use philosophical
(08:20):
tools and concepts to helparticulate what the Bible
teaches in a way that is notonly logically coherent and
persuasive, but also that makessense for the world today?" So
it's definitely theinterconnection of exegesis,
biblical theology, andphilosophy for the sake of
articulating a coherent systemof truth together, if that makes
(08:44):
sense.
And there's probably more tosay, but that's an overall rough
sketch of it.
Amy Mantravadi (08:49):
Yeah, no, I appreciate that- kind of summing
it up in a way that's prettyeasy to understand there.
And that leads me reallynaturally into my next question,
which is how is systematictheology different from biblical
theology?
And just to give a littlepersonal example there, when I
(09:10):
was in college and I did adegree in biblical literature,
my senior year I had to take acourse in biblical theology
where we went over the wholebroad narrative of the Bible and
looked for the broad connectionsin the narrative, but I actually
never had any courses insystematic theology because I
was mainly looking at the studyof the biblical text as a work
(09:34):
of literature, and so we didn'tget as much into systematic
theology.
So if you had someone ask you tocompare the two- systematic and
biblical theology- how would youdo that?
Gray Sutanto (09:44):
Yeah, that's a great question.
I think historically therehasn't been a strict separation
between the two.
So when you take a look at theChurch Fathers, the medieval
doctors, the Reformationdivines, they don't really make
a strict distinction betweenbiblical theology and systematic
theology.
They normally regard just thewhole work of theology as sacred
(10:05):
doctrine, which is really justexegesis of Scripture in a way
that is something for the wholeChurch to believe universally.
It's a catholic statement aboutwhat Christians ought to believe
about God and the Bible, andclassically they argued that
theology is the study of God andall things in relation to God.
And the Bible teaches us aboutall those things in relation to
(10:27):
God, and also of course, Godhimself.
So the modern division betweenbiblical and systematic theology
is really, again, a 19th, 20thcentury division because of the
specialization of thedisciplines in the modern
research university, rootedreally in the German research
universities, right?
(10:48):
So I think today we see thatdivision because of that
specialization, but again,classically it hasn't been the
case.
But because we live in thepresent times, here's how we
might divide the two perhaps.
If biblical theology asks aboutthe story of redemptive history
from creation, fall, redemption,consummation, right?
(11:08):
The basic plot line of the Biblefrom Genesis to Revelation, and
in the middle of that, what Godhad done in Christ Jesus.
Systematic theology perhaps goesa little bit beyond the
narrative of the biblical textand asks the more unifying
questions of,"What is behind thebiblical text and what does the
(11:28):
whole biblical text teachcoherently?" So it traces the
biblical text to the foundationsof the biblical text, so if this
is what, let's say again, theBook of Genesis teaches about
the narrative of Joseph andJacob, what does this tell us
about the character of God thatis behind this?
What does this say about thefaithfulness of God that he
would do this to the sinnersthat we see in particular
(11:50):
narratival accounts.
So it traces behind theexegesis, as well as along with
the exegesis, if that helps.
Amy Mantravadi (12:00):
Yeah, I think that does help, and systematic
theology is pretty commonlydivided by topics.
Sort of as you're talking about,making links and going behind
the biblical text to look atwhat the Bible has to say about
a particular theme throughoutthe text.
What are some of the commontopics that tend to be covered
(12:21):
in systematic theology?
Gray Sutanto (12:24):
Yeah.
Some of the common topics- Ithink you would probably begin
with what theologians havecalled prolegomena, which simply
just means the things that yousay beforehand, right?
So what are the theologicalassumptions and foundations,
presuppositions, then you haveto affirm before you study
theology.
Well, you would have to saysomething about the fact that
(12:45):
you can't know anything aboutGod unless God reveals himself
to you, right?
Just as when you meet astranger, you might not know
anything about them, unlessthey've disclosed themselves to
you.
They've voluntarily andwillingly said something about
themselves to you.
So it is with God- our knowledgeof God.
So normally systematic theologystarts with the doctrine of
revelation, right?
(13:07):
That God has spoken both innature and in scripture, and God
therefore is knowable to us,even though ultimately he
transcends creation and is farabove us.
So the doctrine of revelationnormally comes first in the work
of systematic theology.
You even see this in theWestminster Confession of Faith.
Chapter one is on the light ofnature and scripture, and it's a
(13:27):
description of how God hasdisclosed himself to us
basically.
And then you would normally getto doctrine of God: how God is
one, that we worship the oneGod, and that he is indivisible
and so on, but he's also at thesame time a triune God as
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
And then we would get to thedoctrine of creation, that God
(13:48):
has created all things out ofnothing; doctrine of Providence,
that God continually sustainscreation; the doctrine of the
creation of humanity, thatmankind is made in the image of
God; and how humanity is fallenand redeemed in Jesus Christ,
doctrine of salvation.
Therefore towards the end, wealso get a doctrine of the
church and last things, how hasGod redeemed us, not only as
(14:10):
individuals, but as a communityof believers united to Jesus
Christ and how by his Spirit, heis working to renew all things
so that there would be no moresin in the last day and there
would be a total restoration andconsummation of God's creation
in the last day.
So there is definitely- you seethe connection there, don't you,
between biblical and systematictheology?
(14:32):
There is a following roughly abiblical plot line, even if in
its articulation of thoseparticular loci, there is a more
philosophical, expositionalaspect to it.
Amy Mantravadi (14:44):
And it almost seems like with the topics you
mentioned in systematictheology, you're looking at
things that are essentiallyimplied topics from the biblical
texts in certain cases, such as-the Bible starts with God
creating.
It doesn't spend a lot of timewith the backstory of what
happened before God created,although there are certainly
(15:07):
things in scripture that lead usto think of certain
considerations that happenedbefore that, such as that God
already was aware that he wouldhave to save humanity, and there
was a plan in place for how thatwas going to happen.
But it does really complimentour study of the biblical text
in that way.
How did systematic theology thendevelop as a discipline in
(15:30):
Christian history?
You mentioned that in previoustimes, it wasn't thought of
necessarily as different frombiblical theology, but were
there particular periods duringthe Reformation or even earlier
that you kind of saw thatstarting to develop?
Gray Sutanto (15:47):
Yeah, that's another great question, and it's
almost like for any of thesequestions, you could probably
spend about 45 minutes each,because there's so many things
to say- so many different anglesyou can take.
So maybe I could mentionprobably two here.
I think in the Reformationperiod, there was a heightened
focus on the writing of biblicalexpositional commentaries.
(16:09):
So you think about Calvin'scommentaries on particular books
of the Bible- Now, this wasn'tcompletely new.
You already see this even in theChurch Fathers and the medieval
doctors.
Aquinas wrote so manycommentaries on the scriptural
texts, but I think in theReformation, the desire to
reform the Catholic tradition byway of an appeal to the Bible
(16:29):
heightened that focus.
And so Calvin understood, forexample, that you can't just
hand over the voluminous amountsof commentaries that he had
written to just anyone, so hestarted to write The Institutes
of Christian Religion as a kindof remedy to that.
It wasn't exactly a systematictheology the way we understand
(16:50):
it here today, but it wasbasically a summary of Christian
teaching for the Church that hethought would be helpful.
And I think also you can take alook at the confessionalism of
the reform periods as a kind ofproto-systematic theology.
And now some might maybe contendwith what I just said there, but
basically I think theconfessions are a nice summary
(17:10):
of the scriptural texts that isvery logically focused, tightly
knit, and also in a way that isimmediately understandable to
the Church in that present day.
Right?
So you take a look at theWestminster standards,
Confession of Faith, larger,shorter catechisms, and the
Three Forms of Unity.
These were basically, I think,theological texts that said,
what do we need to believe?
(17:32):
What are some errors that weneed to encounter in Roman
Catholicism or in the RadicalReformation side of things.
And so it presented not only thetruth of things, but also in a
philosophical expositional way,denied errors that attended to
it, right?
So you see these differentgenres where you...in the
Reformation, but really it wasin the modern era with some
(17:55):
concerning developments, whichbasically started to say things
like,"Well, the Bible isgrounded in history and the
Bible therefore should be readas free from the doctrines of
the Church." And so the originof biblical studies actually it
comes with this Enlightenmentand philosophical assumption
(18:18):
that the Bible in and of itselfis not a theological text.
It's just a human book, like anyother human book, and you should
be able to read it free from theconstraints of churchly
confession.
And so when the modern researchuniversity started to say,
therefore,"Well, we got totherefore distinguish between
(18:39):
the historical study of theBible on the one hand and
churchly dogma on the other,"and that became a really strict
bifurcation in the modernresearch university.
Figures behind that are figureslike Friedrich Schleiermacher in
the 19th century and so on.
So there's that kind ofmovement, and I think what
(19:00):
happened after that istheologians started to say,
"Okay, maybe there's somethinghelpful about this division
between historical biblicalstudy on the one hand and
churchly dogmatics on the other,but how do we therefore
reevaluate this division in atheological way?" And they
started to say, therefore, thatin the historical exegesis of
(19:22):
the biblical texts, we can usesome of the methods of
historical grammatical exegesis,that the modernists have taught
us, but at the same time, notcompletely divorced that from
churchly dogma.
So we started to say, therefore,there's a distinction between
biblical studies and systematictheology, not division.
This is a cause forself-reflection perhaps, because
(19:44):
I don't think many of us realizehow much of the modern seminary
curriculum is indebted tomovements in the modern research
university and theEnlightenment.
But there's always going to be,I think, a tension, but also a
reciprocal relation betweenwhere the Church is and where
the modern culture is, and Ithink this is one way where we
(20:04):
see it for better or for worse.
Amy Mantravadi (20:08):
Yeah, I think that's a good point.
And it seems like in every eraof Church history, there's been
a kind of swinging of thependulum slightly in one
direction or another.
For instance, I've spent sometime studying medieval
Christianity for the novels thatI write and just for some
theological interests, and thatperiod was characterized by very
(20:34):
sort of high-mindedphilosophical considerations.
So they had something likesystematic theology and that it
was arranged by topics, but itimported philosophical ideas
very heavily, probably more thanyou would see today.
(20:54):
And the Reformation, I think,was in part a correction against
what they saw as a lot ofphilosophizing and getting away
from the plain gospel and thescriptural text.
So like you said, there was thisbig explosion of commentaries
and things like that, and thenmaybe you have to correct back
(21:17):
in the other direction a littlebit, but that is interesting
that you can think at everypoint there is sort of a going
back and forth between those twothings.
So how is a book on systematictheology usually set up?
If I were to go to the library-if I had a library nearby, that
(21:38):
stocked systematic theologyworks.
Luckily I do, but assuming thatyou're in a city that does- and
you get, say, Herman Bavinck'ssystematic theology, or Louis
Berkhof or someone like that,how would you go about
navigating it?
How would you expect to find itarranged?
Gray Sutanto (22:00):
Yeah, that's a great question.
I think it really depends onwhich particular texts you're
thinking about.
Like you said, in the medievalperiod, you actually would get
more treatments on particulartopics perhaps even in
isolation, right?
So there's particular treatmentsby Bonaventure purely on the
doctrine of illumination (22:19):
kind of just a one-off study on
illumination, his journey of themind to God.
But I think in Bavinck's example- in Bavinck's case, because he
came after the rise of modernbiblical study and modern
biblical criticism, he has thisheightened interest to talk
about theology in thatnarratival fashion, right?
(22:41):
So he would really start offwith the doctrine of revelation
and then doctrine of God andcreation, fall, redemption, and
last things.
His Four volumes is really setup according to that biblical
plotline.
And I think in Bavinck's case aswell, you get this more rigorous
historical attention to thedevelopment of doctrine.
So oftentimes in the modernperiod and afterwards, you get a
(23:05):
systematic theology-not justtheir summary of these
particular doctrines, but alsotheir sense of how the doctrine
had developed.
So in Bavinck's case, again, youwould start with the biblical
exegesis, and then after that,you would go to the Church
Fathers, to the medievaldoctors, to the Reformation, to
the moderns, and then Bavinck'sown restatements toward the end
(23:27):
of his particular chapter.
So whatever doctrine you diveinto in the middle of his
dogmatics, you would get thatkind of chronological,
genealogical tracing out of thatparticular doctrine.
I think that's really, reallyhelpful.
So if you want to get a moreconcise philosophical treatment
of a particular doctrine, maybegoing to an Aquinas or a
(23:48):
Bonaventure would be useful, butif you want this more
historically conscious tracingout of a particular doctrine,
then diving into Bavinck andisolating a chapter in Bavinck
on a particular doctor wouldhelp you do that.
Amy Mantravadi (24:01):
Yeah, and for those who have any experience
with reading Aquinas, it couldbe very confusing for the modern
reader because it's set up verymuch in the question and answer
format that was popular in thetime, and it can get a little
difficult to determine whichpart is actually him stating
(24:25):
what he believes and which partis him stating what someone else
believes.
And there isn't the historicalnecessarily- like you said,
going through all the differenthistorical periods like you
might see nowadays, so that isinteresting just to think about
how it's developed over theyears.
Yeah, so thank you for that.
Some Christians have contendedthat systematic theology either
(24:48):
causes us to ignore the originalbiblical context and narrative,
or causes us to delve into areasof speculation that God never
intended.
As a teacher of systemictheology, how do you respond to
such criticisms?
I've heard this particularlyfrom- certain theological
movements tend to make thesearguments more than others, but
(25:11):
what do you think when you hearsomething like that?
Gray Sutanto (25:14):
Yeah, I think my first gut instinct is maybe to
say that,"Well, the biblicaltext itself, I think, and the
arrangement of the biblical textrequires particular theological
choices and theologicaljudgments, right?" The fact that
the canon was set up in aparticular way was, I think,
(25:35):
partly a product of the Church'secclesial and theological
confession about what they thinkthe presentation requires,
right?
So there's lots of differentscholarly movements on this, but
the theological interpretationof scripture movement that came
out, I think, in the last twodecades or so pointed out to the
fact that even in the way thatthe canon was arranged in the
(25:56):
early Church, it's reflective oftheological judgments.
So in other words, there's neverbeen a time or period where
there was a purely neutralhistorical standpoint from which
to read the biblical texts.
It always came with theologicalassumptions about reading these
different authors, whetheryou're in the Apocalypse of John
(26:19):
or in the Book of Mark orsomething that Peter had wrote,
that these authors were writingin a way that was inspired by a
single divine author, right?
That was a theological judgment.
That's a theological confession.
So even as you're studying theBible as a biblical historian,
you have to come to grips withthe fact that if you're reading
(26:42):
the Bible as a canon, you'rereally bringing into it a
theological consideration.
And to push us even further, Iwould suggest that even the most
basic plot line summary of theBible of creation, fall,
consummation, or redemption,consummation is itself a
theological summary of theBible, right?
(27:03):
The moment you move away fromwhat the words of the Bible and
history of the Bible actuallysays to any summary that you
have of the Bible's plotline,you're already saying that this
is one story- that there's asingle divine plan, and here's a
coherent way of summarizing thebiblical texts.
You can't escape fromtheological judgments, in other
words.
And so if this kind of criticismis coming from an evangelical or
(27:25):
Christian biblical studiesscholar, then I would suggest to
this person that you're alreadypresupposing theology, even as
you're studying the biblicaltexts.
And when you're studying thebiblical texts, in the work of
exegesis there will always betheological questions that would
arise, that prompt you towardasking about questions about
(27:49):
being, questions about knowing,questions about ethics that go
beyond strict exegesis, I think.
You know, when you are readingExodus 3:14, God says,"I AM who
I AM." That prompts you towardparticular questions about what
this circular way of describingGod means exactly.
When you're asking questionsabout how God created everything
(28:10):
out of his Word, what does thatactually mean?
It requires some philosophicalexploration.
And then when you're asking thequestion of,"How do I
communicate what I see in myexegesis to the Church in the
modern world?" then you'reasking questions about,"What are
the philosophies that arepresent today and how do I
communicate it to the modernworld?" So instead of I think
(28:31):
dividing the two, again, we dowell to think about these
disciplines as reallycomplementing one another, and
you can't really do one withoutthe other, right?
And this is why, again, inhistory, theology and biblical
studies have also gonehand-in-hand as sacred doctrine.
Amy Mantravadi (28:46):
And thinking back to what you mentioned about
the doctrine of revelation or adoctrine of scripture, when you
come to the biblical text, youcome, like you said, with a set
of assumptions about what thisbook is.
And in a certain sense, yourbelief that it is the Word of
God and that it's worth readinghas to stand a little bit
(29:08):
outside of the text itself,because the text tells you that,
but you have to have some faithin yourself to believe the text.
So I think, like you said, thereare- I don't think anyone comes
to it neutrally- comes to thestudy of the Bible neutrally.
So that's probably a good way ofthinking about it.
I mentioned that you've donereally extensive research on
(29:31):
Herman Bavinck, who wrote aninfluential work of systematic
theology in the 19th century.
How does his approach tosystematic theology compare to
others in the broadly Reformedtradition?
It probably would be way toolong of an answer to compare him
to everyone else who's writtensystematic theology, so let's
keep it within at least theReformed world.
Gray Sutanto (29:51):
Yeah, really, really useful question here.
I think one way to think abouthis work, again, is his
rigorously genealogical approachto the history of theology,
right?
He never just says a doctrine asif it just drops out of heaven.
He's always aware that whateverhe says is in the context of his
present moment, and he'sstanding upon the giants of
(30:14):
these church dogmaticians thathave come before him, right?
So that's, I think, incrediblyuseful, because theologians
today need to be aware thateverything that we say here
today is responsible to thehistory of the Church, right?
We can't just say things inisolation.
And then I think another usefulway of thinking about what
Bavinck was doing is he wastrying to proclaim this
(30:39):
confessional, catholic, Reformtradition to the modern world.
He saw that as a responsibilityof the theologian, the Church
dogmatician.
He actually argued that eachgeneration requires a new
systematic theology, not becausethe truth changes, but because
the world changes.
And so how you articulate thesame truth should use the
(31:01):
philosophical tools, concepts,terms, and even the cultural
lingo of the current day.
So you see in Bavinck, I think,a very consistent desire to
articulate that truth in a waythat is winsome, relevant, and
penetrative to his modernacademic milieu.
So I think that's incrediblyuseful for us to think about as
(31:23):
well- that I think the Church,like you said, does go through a
kind of pendulum swing betweenone pole to another, and I think
one of the poles that we couldtend to get used to is kind of
the isolationalist pole thatsays,"Hey, all we need is just
to be in the Church." Andthere's a sense in which that's
completely right and true.
We believe that the Church isbeautiful.
(31:44):
This is the people of God.
God has redeemed us to be a setapart people.
That's very, very true andBavinck would affirm that.
But at the same time, we arestill in this world- that we're
not of the world, and we are tocommunicate and be salt and
light in this world.
And how can we therefore be alight in this world unless we
read what others are doing andsaying right there?
(32:04):
And so I think that that's whatBavinck was doing in a very
unique way, and even in his ownperiod, you would see Church
dogmatics- not just Barth's, butI mean, theologies that were
being written by hiscontemporaries.
But I think he was particularlyacutely aware of those twin
responsibilities of being in thecatholic tradition, Reformed
(32:26):
broad tradition, and at the sametime engage in modern culture.
Amy Mantravadi (32:31):
Yeah, and the thing for those who are not
familiar with Bavinck- the thingthat's interesting with him is
that he was writing originallyin Dutch, so in a sense- he's an
older theologian in the sensethat yeah, he lived in the 19th
century, but it's only beenwithin the past few decades that
(32:51):
a lot of his stuff has beentranslated.
I mentioned that you've beeninvolved in helping with the
translation of some of his work,so in a way he seems very
contemporary, even though he waswriting a while ago, because the
exposure to him in the Americanchurch is still only ramping up
now.
So it's just a very interestingcase of how we connect to
(33:14):
history in that way.
So if an average Christian,without a seminary education
wanted to study systematictheology, where would you
recommend that they begin?
Could you maybe suggest aresource or two that are more
accessible for the averageperson?
Gray Sutanto (33:32):
Yeah, that's a really useful question.
I think perhaps it might be abit intimidating to just jump
into Bavinck's ReformedDogmatics, four volumes that it
is, so I would suggest actuallysome contemporary treatments of
particular doctrines would bereally useful just as a starting
point.
I can think of maybe ScottSwain's little introduction to
(33:53):
the doctrine of the Trinity, oreven particular popular works
that are useful in introducing,let's say, the Westminster
Standards, Chad VanDixhoorn'sConfessing the Faith.
That would be really useful.
But if you're thinking aboutprimary sources, let's say in
someone like a Bavinck, then hisWonderful Works of God would be
a great place to start.
(34:14):
I think there, if it's ChurchDogmatics- sorry, Reformed
Dogmatics.
I don't know why I keep sayingChurch Dogmatics today.
I haven't been thinking aboutKarl Barth too much recently.
But his Reformed Dogmatics is avery footnoted, historically
rigorous text.
His Wonderful Works of God waswritten for the ordinary person.
(34:36):
In the preface, he actually saysmodern people are so busy
nowadays and so totallybombarded by the news and work
that they scarcely have time toread theology, and that's why he
wrote The Wonderful Works ofGod: to engage with that kind of
readership.
So his Wonderful Works of Godwould also be a great place to
start there.
Can I circle back to thequestion that you asked before?
Amy Mantravadi (34:57):
Absolutely.
Gray Sutanto (34:57):
You asked,"How does Bavinck differ a little bit
from other theological works inhis day?" You know, I think it's
useful here to distinguish himfrom maybe the Dutch pietist
tradition, or maybe even thePuritan tradition that we might
be used to reading in theReformed world: the Puritan
Paperbacks that are- I'm notsaying they're bad.
(35:17):
They're very good.
I think of a lot of the PuritanPaperbacks that you see, you get
almost a desire to writeevergreen exposition of
doctrine.
In other words, they desire towrite something completely
timeless (35:30):
an historically distinguished piece of work that
simply tells you what thedoctrine in a very devotional
way.
And I think Bavinck wouldprobably say something like,
"That's useful at all, but it'snot going to be helpful to
penetrate the modern world." AndI think that's one way to
distinguish Bavinck's works fromthe Puritan tradition is that he
(35:55):
thinks that an evergreen kind ofdesire is a limited good.
I think he would actually arguethat the theologian has a harder
job of, yes, actually trying toreinvent something every
generation.
And I think that's worththinking about, because I think
sometimes we think to writesomething evergreen and timeless
is actually a more pious, moreholy thing to do.
(36:16):
Bavinck would actually suggestthat that's actually a more- it
reflects a lack of ambitionperhaps.
And controversial or not, butthat's another insight that
Bavinck would challenge ourreadership today,"Hey, don't
just deny the world, but see theworld as an opportunity for you
to say something fresh." Well,and that's getting also into the
(36:38):
Neocalvinist tradition that youalso have researched a lot.
So yeah, these debates areongoing.
I think ever since the Churchbegan there have been debates
over,"How much should weincorporate philosophy into our
theology?" and"How much shouldwe be engaging with the world or
trying to be separate from it?"These are questions that never
(37:00):
go away, so it's been good totalk about some of them today.
Thank you so much for coming onto answer these questions, and I
hope that it's been a goodintroduction for a lot of
people.
Thank you, Amy.
It's great to be here.
Jon Guerra (37:14):
[MUSIC PLAYS] I need to know there is justice, that
(37:38):
it will roll in abundance, andthat you're building a city
where we arrive as immigrantsand you call us citizens and you
welcome us as children home.
[MUSIC STOPS]
Gray Sutanto (37:40):
It was great to have Gray on the podcast today.
I'm especially thankful that wewere able to make an interview
work despite the 12 hour timedifference.
As always, the music is the song"Citizens" by Jon Guerra.
I'd like to give a special shoutout today to my husband Jai for
caring for our son Thomas whileI've conducted these interviews,
and to Thomas for taking time tonap so that I can edit them.
(38:01):
May the Lord bless you and keepyou.
May the Lord make his face toshine on you and give you peace.
May the Lord lift up hiscountenance on you and be
gracious to you.
Amen.
Have a great week.
Jon Guerra (38:13):
[MUSIC PLAYS] Is there a way to live always
living in enemy hallways?
Don't know my foes from myfriends and don't know my
friends anymore.
Power has several prizes.
Handcuffs can come in all sizes.
Love has a million disguises,but winning is simply not one.
(38:34):
[MUSIC STOPS]
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com