The one true living God, “I AM WHO I AM”, is self-existing, self-sustaining, self-serving, and self-explaining. God created all and controls all. God was before all and by Him will all exist and by His will all continue to exist. He is above all in being, in knowledge, in power, and in will, thus He has no equal in creation. Man’s being, knowledge, power, and will are derivative as creatures are derivative from the Creator. Man can only know by the revelation of God through the means given by God. Man is a limited being with limited knowledge and power, while God is free and unlimited in the perfectly divine sense. It is by this presupposition that we confess: theology begins in the mystery of God and ends in the mystery of God. What we can know about God and His works is limited by what God has revealed to us. Without going further into the distinction between general revelation and particular revelation, we also confess: the nature of theology is limited by the nature of Scripture, in its scope, accuracy, and clarity.
The Scripture is sufficient but not exhaustive. It is sufficient to the scope God assigns and for the purposes God ordains. The Scripture does not, cannot, and needs not to address everything. The Scripture speaks specific things in specific ways. By God’s gracious and holy will, the scriptural revelation emerges out of the divine mystery and fades into the divine mystery. We only know as much as the Scripture says, nothing before, nothing after, nothing beneath, and nothing above. This should be a constant reminder, if not a warning, to us that our theology, our articulation about what the Scripture says must stay within the boundary the Scripture has established. It is a sin to fall short of the whole counsel of God, and it is also a sin to go beyond the scope of Scripture. Protestants like to point out the boldness and futility of medieval scholasticism in speculating what is not revealed, but this is not a particularly Roman problem, it is a universal human problem. Protestants are not immune to this sin, nor were the early church fathers. It is never easy to pinpoint the exact boundary of Scriptural revelation, and it is never easy to harness our mind that is supposed to inductively think but not deductively speculate. We may often fall short or step out of the boundary, but we shall endeavor to adhere to the boundary and correct ourselves whenever we are proved to be wrong.
There is no shame to claim ignorance when the Scripture is silent, and it is not shameful to admit ignorance when your understanding is not that “systematic” or neatly “systematic”. When we talk about theology being systematic, we often have the impression of a philosophical, mathematical, or even physical system that is monolithic and complete in front of our eyes or in our mind. We do not want to admit that the biblical system may not be that neat as we have imagined. It is a divinely organic (expansive and complex) system rather than a sub-system contained in human mind. In articulating doctrines, theologians tend to maintain a systematic consistency while rejecting a biblical dependency. Some would like to talk about “what should be”, “what must be”, rather than going with and stopping at “what the Scripture has said”.
This relates to the accuracy and clarity of theology. Some orthodox Christian theologians urge accuracy, precision in theological training and in expositing the Bible. Against the theological agnosticism and indifference popularized in the church, this is indeed right and necessary. But we should not advocate a precision that is beyond the biblical mandate. The Scripture does not say everything, nor does it say things with equal precision or clarity. The precision and clarity of Scripture is self-defined by Scripture, not externally imposed by the student of Scripture. It is precise to the extent it claims to be precise, and it is clear to the extent it claims to be clear. There are various levels of precisions and clarities in Scripture.
Inerrancy and infallibility do not equal to precision, because precision is measured by degree. When you say a time, eight o’clock, you can only say it to a certain degree of precision. For some, eight o’clock is true but it may not be precise. Precision can be subjective, and in practice it is often subjective. Some think theological precision is the antidote to theological downgrade, but in pursuing a precision some have quietly walked out of the biblical boundary. One can be technically precise, logically precise, or philosophically precise, yet not biblical, because he is talking about a precision that is not sanctioned by the Bible. What is biblical can be technical, logical, or philosophical, but it is not dictated by technical terms, logical deductions, or philosophical speculations. It deals with what is as defined by God, not what should be as surmised by man. We must be aware that the human mind cannot bridge the gap of God’s revelation, no matter it is the mind of the ungodly or the godly, of the wise or the ignorant. What God has not revealed, cannot be known, period. A scholar, a theologian, a pious man, or a group of such men does not have any extra ability of finding the unrevealed or confirming the obscure.
Any extra-biblical theological statement is one way of, at most a good way of articulating some biblical truth. It is never the only way, nor the best way, nor the perfect way. This applies to any creed or confession, any theological writings outside the Scripture. This applies to Nicene Creed, Chalcedonian Creed, to Augustine’s De Trinitate, John Calvin’s Institute, and to Westminster Confession. We are not saying that they are not helpful, on the contrary, they can be very helpful. But we should not treat them as infallible or perfect. Protestants shall not repeat the errors of Roman church. When we confess Scripture Alone, we must confess and practice its full meaning and implication, not just confess a phrase, not just against others. No human creed/confession/writing/articulation shall be considered as perfect, shall not be above criticism, shall not be above improvement. No extra-biblical theological statement shall be considered final as Scripture is final. We do not criticize or improve previous writings lightly, but our loyalty is to God and His Word, not to a person or a camp. Some think the errors only occurs in some creeds/confessions, and they do not see this as a human problem. They are against any deviation from such documents, and they are holding the same attitude as those they adamantly denounce. Historical documents, even as their best, are guiding posts on the journey, not ends of the journey. This is how John Frame’s “theology as application” can be helpful. This distinguishes the Word and man’s understanding of the Word.
