Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
TEMPLE THEOLOGY
by
William MacDonald
At the outset of the
literary costal Studies it is
prudential direction. What kind of
theology can we
sharpen
what new
ground
will we break? scholarly craftmanship?
will we do? This article
proposes stance and overall
methodology and
significant,
not
theology” (as developed
the focus? What traditions will we
conserve,
In
short,
work of the
Society
for Pente- to raise the issue of
theological
characterizes us
now,
and how
and
What ethos will
permeate
our
what kind
of theologizing
that as to our
presuppositional
we have an orientation
unique
with the fish of “biblical
to
be
equated
in
twentieth-century neoorthodoxy), nor the fowl of
“systematic theology”
inquire
we assess
presuppositional types,
model of our own.
forms. But first we must theology
before
forth a
presuppositional
in its dominant traditional as to the
general
nature of
and then
put
Louisville,
Assemblies
Kentucky. of
God.
William MacDonald is
professor
of Bible at Gordon
College, Beverly, Massachusetts. He received the Th.D.
degree
from Southern
Baptist Seminary,
Dr. MacDonald is an ordained minister in the
– 39-
1
Truth is eternal.
Theology thought
in
every generation Truth is real.
Theology
able to
encompass
life.
Theology
is alive
only Truth and
theology
particular theology may
contain. and
theology
man’s.
Holy Scripture
is a
picture
a 360°
perspective
as it draws are never the
same,
however
is
temporal
and must be re- or it will smell like another era.
of divine
reality
never
quite
on truth. Truth radiates
its breath from truth.
much truth a
Truth is God’s
understanding
reduces truth
man to hear and see. In the
greatest psalm
of God
(testimonies, ways, precepts,
revelationally
to words for
pertaining
to the
statues,
command- things
out of
thy law”)
the
in the
eighth
and last of the resh lines.
endures forever”
conveyed
always
in some manner
not in well-worded
of God. He is “the
inner self as “the
is
truth;
and
every
one of
thy
(Psa.
119:160
RSV).
This
in words of revelation a sen- by
its own summation. Truth
and characterized
by
whole-
goes beyond
the words in the beyondness
of truth above the
philosophical
constructs of
true God.” He expressing
“the
truth,”
and he
spirit
of truth.”
Truth,
of
ÍLself,
but
only
in terms of
apart
from
God,
although
word(s)
ments, ordinances,
and “wondrous climax is reached
“The suml of
thy
word righteous
ordinances
means that biblical truth tence at a time is transcended therefore is
ultimately indivisible,2 ness. Truth
mouth or on the
page.
That truths consists
unity
but in the character entered the flesh
incarnately enters the believer’s
then,
cannot be defined in and the nature of God.
Truth has no
common
parlance
ness of data in the created thing more,
because it is forever hensiveness characterizes truth/the as a finite creature
of truth is God.
end of
truth,”
man who
readily
understands and
ends,
lasting identity
admits its
usage
as a term for factual correct-
order.
can
say properly
But to
speak theologically while it
may
be
true/correct
“The truth” is
always
some-
whole in God. That
is, compre-
truth so that one
speaking
that the source and end
of “the source and
for
informing
finite temporal language
about sources
eternal dimensions
originates
in heaven.
originate.
The
knowledge/experience fulfillment of the
meaning to the truth affords
only truth.
is nevertheless not true the
way
God is true! Talk about source and end is nonsensical
of truth. On earth it is
proper
But in heaven
of one’s a human “end”
– 40-
when one
recognizes
the
to
say:
Truth truth
simply is;
it does not of truth
may
be a
proper life,
but human submission
but no limit on
2
It is because there is truth that most
is
theology.
and not because there
that we never
get
bored with God.
Believing
sometimes
satisfying
below-yes,
a whole world doctrine”
if it
peaks
in
doctrines, himself.
Truth is
personal. Theology
beliefs is sometimes
to the
temporal mind,
below-believing is a means and not the end. Good
and does not lead
of us are believers-
It is because there is truth believing.
True believers believe
a
struggle,
sometimes a
duty,
but
always
a cut
God. Even “sound
theology
is stultified
beyond
to God
is
propositional.
Their
unity
can come
only
from the Word of God which is at once both
per-
sake, propositional.
to state it in forms understandable
Truth is God’s to
give. is man’s
attempt
to receive and
at a
given it with one’s total
thinking,
and
in the word. If
appropriate responses
is
shining brass,
and the
theologians their articles.
is that which is most
transparent it will never be
perfectly
of
light through
by
their
degree
of
opaqueness.
to the truth
clear. For in this
age The worst
theology
is concerned
the
window,
that
is,
itself. Good
theology
is
always
in to
expose cloudy traditions,
of a man
facing
the
sun,
and
preoccupied the God of all
truth,
was
dramatically captured
of
Bethany
we must ask: Is
systematic theology
model for
doing good theology?
a standard term for centuries
who makes himself
objective in us
by
his
Spirit.
The
posture
in the New Testa-
sitting
at the feet of Jesus to his words.
the best
pre-
Systematic
the-
covering
a broad which various
theologies
have
assumes that
theology
must
sonal,
and for man’s
He reveals himself.
Theology digest
that
truth,
time and
culture,
to
integrate to
implement
it with
truth is
golden, good theology must ever be
polishing
Theologies may
be
judged The best
theology
of
God, although
we can know
only
“in
part.” with
reversing
the direction with
divulging
itself and
defending vulnerable to more
light streaming humble as the
eyelids
with its
object,
to us in his Word and
subjective of
good theology
ment
picture
of
Mary
focusing upon
him and
listening
Now
suppositional
ology
has been
mindset for
theologizing,
under been
developed.
This
methodology embrace the
totality
tem. Not
to
encompass
all
knowledge turing
of the whole.
Theology sciences in the
pre-modern philosopher contemporary
being
all-inclusive is commended
of relations of God and the world in a
sys- until modern times did
philosophy
and
reality
to be
respectable
times,
who was
king? (Just
to that
– 41-
abandon its
quest
in a
systematic
struc-
was
queen
of the
ask
any
period.)
While the
goal
of by
all who love the
truth-they
3
want it all-the rational very theology
frontier
that is
bridgeable
The nature of a system principle
of man so as to explain the
philosophical principle extrapolate
ently
with his
principle.
serving
the
simplicity
gether.
Therefore
passages shaping principle
the
king principle.
unanticipated
in the Bible-to its
systematic implications. mately
to weaken
the
ignorance implicit
logic
of the
system, therefore, eventually (often
in the second resolution
may
take the
theology antithetical to it.
Systematic theologians divulging
the
controlling principle the Manichaean
principle
to be basic
interpreted
evil
according
good.
Anselm
began
with argument
fied Aristotelian
need to be all-inclusive can subvert that
from a biblical base. There is indeed an intellectual
only
in
worship.
is the
application
to all the biblical materials and
contemporary
everything
is
clearly
from there what the
interpretation
of the Bible will be, if the systematician
Understanding
of the
system
of
Scripture
must be sacrificed
Sometimes the
system
itself
spawns mysteries-
The effect of these the
system. Why?
The
system
in the confession
have not
of a
philosophical
questions or
nearly everything.
Once understood one
usually
can
of a
given passage
has
proceeded
consist-
is
contingent upon pre- that holds
everything
to-
that conflict with the like
pawns
for the
safety
of
ease the
acceptance
of certain of
mysteries
is ulti-
is threatened
by
of
any mystery,
and the will seek to resolve the
mystery
generation),
however far that
from statements in
Scripture
always
been
forthright
in of their
system.
For
instance,
of
good
and evil seems
thought
even
though
he
as
just
the absence of
sancti-
of the dualism
to
Augustine’s theological
to
Neoplatonism
Being
and moved via his
ontological
to the existence of God.
Aquinas quite openly
forms of
logic
and used them to work his
way from Nature to Grace. Calvin was
deeply
ing
of the works of William of
Occam,
Will.
Contemporarily
on A. N. Whitehead’s
and
by
liberation
would
influenced
by
his read-
whose
concept
of God
we see
systems being
principle
of theology
on Karl Marx’s
world has been
waiting
to see
produce
its own
systematic or
augmenting
other
theologies
of histories of the
was that of Absolute
built
by process theology “integral impetus,”
principle
of economic determinism.
For decades the
theological if the Pentecostal movement theology
in lieu of
modifying in the schools. While
Pentecostal movement
and a few
good
treatises nothing approximating
a creditable number
and the charismatic renewal have
emerged,
on Pentecostal interests have
appeared, a Pentecostal
– 42-
system
exists
(unless
per-
4
one of our readers is
sitting right
now on a fat manu-
his
gar-
of
us, however, just yet
should be
shredding
sackcloth and the nearest ash
heap
to mourn
While we are
relatively
and form as
judged
late as a move-
task,
and while we have neither much of
anything self-consciously
by
the
theological to
represent
us in the non-Pente=
of
Christianity ironically may
be most beneficial.
alternative to
systematic
to accord deference to
(non-exis-
of our
tradition,
and leaves of a humbler more biblical kind
Karl Barth led the
way
in
defining
that the
systematic theology
theology
Particularly during
the second
and theology.
He had studied under
of his
day.
His conclusion was
characteristic of the nine- a
thorough-going philosophical
by
its
very
essence is
values,
and conclusion. The
a radically theocentric
philosophical
to con-
theology
point,
he found in Paul
was, by contrast,
the need for a
controlling extraneous to the revelation itself he
attempted
of the Word of God.
stance
chance
script
he is
waiting
to
publish).
None
ments and
seeking
this
supposed deprivation. ment in
taking up
the
theological thought through
nor
published theological
in
purpose
world,
the absence of a
system costal corridors
It frees us from the
obligation tent) great systernatic theologians open
before us the
possibilities of
theologizing.
The
twentieth-century has
emerged
as “biblical
theology.” quarter
of this
century
doing
what he called biblical some of the most notable liberals accurate
teenth
century
was in
reality theology,
and
philosophical anthropocentric
in
starting theology
theology.
To obviate
principle
struct a
theology
The Swiss
theologian’s opeans,
and
especially through temporary,
Emil
Brunner, place
of natural
revelation, in
many
American
with whom he differed
“biblical
seminaries for much of the decade 50’s. To the extent that Barth and Brunner succeeded
lishing
biblical
theology nerians
around,
but not
upon
the revealed Word.
Today around
partly
because because
who
began
in
company
there
vinced a student mythologized
Word-of-God-ians,
creation of a faith to believe
there are not
many professed
of the
positive
of the influence of Rudolf
with the dialectical
were called in the
early 30’s,
and then in the 40’s Bultmann
that the New Testament
that it is irrelevant
generation
– 43-
influenced
many
other Eur- the
theology
of his Swiss con-
sharply
on the
theology”
became
popular
of the
in estab- should be no Barthians or Brun-
or those who are bent
in but
upon listening
to
Barthians
reason
just
stated but also
Bultmann
(and
his
students)
theologians
as
they
con-
is so
heavily
to
twentieth-century
man.
5
Consequently
much
to the left of biblical
theology, over the biblical ones.
The
strengths
cated
by
Karl Barth are
worthy First,
the
strengths:
(1)
The
philosophical
ended, temporarily,
(2)
Revelation was
rightly
know God.
(3)
It became
respectable
(4)
Whole areas of
dogma
overlays
of Eastern
Protestant creed-makers
biblical examination. Weaknesses:
(1)
The task of
importing
of
contemporary theology
and weaknesses of biblical
captivity at least.
theologians,
preferring
has marched off existential
prophets
theology of consideration ‘ here
as advo- briefly.
.
of Christian
theology
was
celebrated as the
only way
to
to read the Bible once more. encrusted with the
philosophical
Western
popes,
and
have now been
reopened
for
truth into
theology
by
the
carryover
was made of Barth’s the Bible
teaches as a whole” dividual
part, according In the end Barth’s seems
philosophical principle principle,
more difficult and uncertain
old liberal views about the Bible.
Only
“what
can be trusted and not
every
in-
(2)
theology to succumb to the
which dislocates him from was the first man and Adam the
second),
is the
only rejected
the fact that his
theology
(He
could not write
of the
philosophic
in
spite
of his
using
for the most
part
biblical
to
mystery (Christ more,
going anywhere is most indicative
to Barth.
in
spite
of his intentions
tyranny
of a
controlling by
his
making
“Christ” that
history (Christ
and resorts
man).
Further-
does not seem to be
an
eschatology)
drift that it took
language
of the
great
thinkers.
Were not the
conservatives/funda-
a “biblical”
merely
at all. For most were
“systematizing”
the Bible rather than
listening
for the most
part
that
they
were
biblical,
theology
of their own in the affirmative is really
their
way to the text and
interpreting
appropriate
a
philosophical
instead of the catchwords
One can
properly
ask: mentalists/evangelicals doing during
this
century?
To answer not to answer
through
the Bible.
They thought
because
they
did not
self-consciously principle.
Instead
they
century
or a school of
theologians
often used a
theological giant
of another
interpretations
denominational creeds as the anvil on which
of biblical statements. At that
– 44-
of another time or a set of
they shaped
their
distance, being
6
one
step
removed
logically, tions,
from the
philosophical spoked
in from the outer in all
sincerity
that that indeed his
theology
Some non-Barthian hermeneutic
consisting the future
interpretation, just
as the have used their cherished it too often: Whenever of our answers
already
and
perhaps
center around which
rim,
the
theologian
only
the Bible was
shaping
was
resultingly
“biblicists”
of a
chronological
and used it
“systematically”
great systematic
philosophical principle.
we come to the Bible with the cut cloth
in hand we are not
doing
“biblical” ology,
no matter how
many prooftexts
several or
many genera-
everything
is
may
have
thought
his
thought
and
“biblical.”
adopted
a
“plan
of the
ages”
chart
emphasizing
to formulate
scriptural
theologians
would
We cannot
say
the- we
pin
like carnations on
is
requiste
if we are to write
as
psalm cap-
that best
task. His one
burning
desire
is that of
the finished
theological
suit.
What kind of
presupposition what
good theology?
ture
magnificently
befits the
pursuit
was to “dwell in the house to
gaze upon
the
beauty
ple” (27:4).
The
right sphere commitment to
worship
to the
consummation)
by
his
Spirit
and
expresses of revelation
by
the
Spirit revealing
This is
“temple theology”
because Its
epistemological starting point know
(=experience)
Much of the
questing today is concerned over tne
heretofore in this article has been referred to
simply
David’s words in the
twenty-seventh
the human attitude and
approach
of the
theological
of the Lord all the
days
of
my life,
of
the Lord and to seek him in his tem-
in which to do
theology
God
(from
the
prolegomena right through
in his
temple!
himself
by
his Word. Without
and the Word
together
himself there can be no
good theological
God is to
worship
establishment Bultmann convinced this
generation
without
There God
presents
himself
this kind
as one God
understanding. it
worships
in order to know. is
patent:
The
only way
to
him “in
spirit
and truth.” in the liberal
theological camps
of a
proper starting point.
that no
theology
is
pre-
a
“pre-understanding.”
He must start somewhere. He can
(Schleiermacher),
with
with his total
suppositionless, specifically, was
right
in that. The
theologian begin
with man’s
feelings some one
all-important
self
(existentialism),
with an infallible teacher of reason
(liberalism),
Itself) (ontologism),
with words themselves
(Gerhard Ebeling), berg),
with “times and seasons”
of
inadequacy
idea
(as
in the
systems),
with natural revelation alone
(unitarianism),
(older catholicism),
with “the God above God”
– 45-
with the
sovereignty
(i.e., Being-
supposed
to have
“Being”
in with universal
history (Pannen-
(acute dispensationalism),
or
7
of
worship
with the Bible alone outside the framework
to
begin
with
(worshiping)
in
speaking
(scholastic God in his
biblicism).
Or it is
possible temple (temple theology).
The best
theology
is not the most crowded with biblical intimate and accurate
theology
has
characteristically theology (proper) (the
doctrine “-ologies,” theology
of continuous
the
enormity
of
theology (proper) question
of
any lasting significance of the nature of God!
Worship worshiping theologian’s
value again
on the ultimate
theological more
succinctly,
Who is he?
done “in the
temple” (i.e.,
under adoration and
getting
necessarily
the most
logical,
nor citations,
but the most used and
of God. Whereas
systematic divided its
subject
matter into
of
God)
and then all the other
conditions
still before
God) perceives
to such an extent that
every
is determined
by
the
question
of God has so conditioned the system
that he focuses
again
and
question:
What is God like? or
anthropology
of
God, contrary
tion of man is
irretrievably
One can take
any
doctrine to illustrate
cannot be maintained without
to the
behaviorists,
flawed
one who faces God in the world and reflects
the
point.
A biblical
defining
man in terms
for
instance,
whose defini-
by
their failure to see man as
his
image
in certain remote
matters
of
eschatology.
aspects.
Or take the
seemingly The real
question
bined with
unquenchable is eternal in its effect stances from a
perspective
is not whether outer darkness can be com-
fire,
or whether “eternal
or in its duration
in
time),
of
theology proper again.
Is God:
(A) soft; (B) severe; (C)
sadistic?
Or take the Calvinistic-Arminian ology.
The incisive
question
punishment”
(calculating
in both in- but the real
question
is one
is not one of
sequences to
faith,
or even free will or
determinism;
to touch the hot issue of
bibliology,
tion as to whether God is
passible
Or if one dares
issue is not so much about errors the
day’s
battle in
bibliology conservative
camps happen gether,
of the Bible and
just
as
surely
to sit around the same
campfire they
all concede the same
thing.
God
inspired
debate within Reformed the-
in
coming
it resolves to the
ques-
or
impassible.
the
but about God himself. When is over and soldiers of
opposite
to-
the “books” let all those
originals pass
out of
There exist
today
posed
or were otherwise
Hebrew
scripts.
other
things (we speak foolishly)
existence when the materials on which
they
were written decom-
destroyed.
manuscript copies
and thousands of Greek biblical
No two of these
copies
are identical. Was God
busy
with
numerous
manu-
when the first and third
and
twenty-third copies
were
being
made? and the
copies
of
copies?
– 46-
8
and the translations of these ology
that is more concerned with the
lettering
God disclosed in the
Book,
“who copyists
and
translators??),
copies?
(please
note the italicized in the now non-existent
and
regularly
scripts
and fallible translations in
spreaking
theology may
be done
must be limited to devotional warm
Because
mean that it therefore
It cannot renounce the
obligation
It is raw rationalistic the-
modifier)
Originals
than with the reigns
over all”
(except
sincere
uses the
faulty
manu-
the
Gospel.
in the
temple
it does not
milk. to be critical
any
more than
critic of all. Within
it can take its
eyes
off God. God is the
greatest
our view
(that is,
on the
pages
of the
Bible)
we see him
assessing
itself
(at
least in its mental
the
teaching
We learn criticism from him.
aspect3 )
is a form of ‘worth’
(the etymological base)
of
Paul, any theologian
who has a
spiritual-and
not
just
a
criterion4 -for critical evaluations about God and
every-
is
ultimately subject
to no man’s
judg-
creation in
stages
as it
progressed. In
fact, worship
criticism. It consists of
ascribing to God.
Paraphrasing
locates his
study
in the
temple written
thing else,
but he himself ment but the Lord’s.5
Some
temple” invariably
the
person
than the
principle,
distinctions are in order now. Time
causes one to be more
deeply
spent
“in the
concerned with with God rather than a
“system.”
(both
trans-
This concern with God as the One who is there
is not to be confused with an isola-
cendently
and in the
temple) tion of one’s
energies
to
proving idea in itself could become which one could
the
personhood
of God. That a
philosophical principle
around
without ever
being
shape
a
systematic theology in contact with the Person himself.
Concern with the Person, that is what is meant the
“presented”
Self of
God,
by
the biblical
the role of the
Spirit
in
temple theology.
treat him as such-but God is
spirit/Spirit
and therefore the Presence
(for
figure
of the
“temple”), is but another
way
of
asserting
If God were
only Truth,
to a
principle-alas,
all natural
and true
that
bypasses
the
majesty
of
part
of the
truth; temple-
in his Word
only Word,
he
might
be reducible theologies
theology
cannot take the shortcut his Presence.
Omnipresence presence
is the
complement. and God’s self in his
Spirit. Spirit
of God cannot be
separated ing
statements.
theology
must be
engaged the result is to be true
theology.
In the Revelation
is
only
God’s truth is
expressed
Yet God is
one,
and the Word and
We have said that
with the
Spirit
of Jesus to the
Apostle
– 47-
as we are forced to do in mak- in order to
say
this:
Temple
as well as the Bible
if
John the
Spirit
9
kept speaking each
community
to the churches
of faith.
with
an individualized word to
we must contend
that the
Spirit
is still
speaking ourselves and
pray the
temple,”
and
resultantly be consonant
Unless we dare claim that
Christianity was fossilized in the first
century,
to the churches. Therefore let us commit
that this
journal
the biblical
with what “the
Spirit says
to the churches”
ENI?NOTES
meaning,
Psalm 139: 17
will be
headquartered
“in
theologizing
we do will
today.
only
1 Although rosh is generally translated by ‘head’, ‘chief, ‘top’,
its less frequent
rendered in this context, “sum” by the RSV and NASB, is justifiable; com- pare
for a similar use of rosh.
22 Tim. 2:15 as read through the smoked glass of the KJV and thereby miscon- strued in dispensationalism notwithstanding.
3There are emotional and volitional aspects as well.
4″Tell it not in Gath,” where the witness of the Spirit is conceived of existing
in an
apologetic certainty
that the Bible is inspired-that, and
nothing
more.
51 Cor. 2:15 and its preceding context.
– 48-
10
