Must We Tie Into a System? A Historical-Grammatical Response

Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

The question of whether Christians must adopt a fixed theological system—such as covenant theology, dispensationalism, or others—is not merely academic. It touches on the authority of Scripture, the integrity of interpretation, and the Christian’s relationship to the Word of God. While systematic organization of doctrine is helpful for instruction and defense of the faith (Titus 1:9; 1 Peter 3:15), Scripture itself never mandates allegiance to a human-constructed framework. The historical-grammatical approach to interpretation affirms that Scripture interprets Scripture and that all theology must emerge from faithful exegesis, not imposed systems.

Creation and the Original Unity of Knowledge

Genesis reveals that when God created Adam and Eve in His image (Genesis 1:26–27), He endowed them with intellectual capacity, moral sensibility, and the ability to interpret the world from His perspective. Adam’s naming of the animals (Genesis 2:19–20) demonstrated not only creativity but discernment—a God-given order of thought that mirrored divine wisdom. At this stage, humanity experienced an undistorted grasp of truth. The “system” was not man-made but directly imparted by God.

The Fall, however, fractured this original clarity. Satan’s deception was not merely about the act of eating forbidden fruit, but about adopting a rival interpretive framework. By questioning God’s goodness and redefining the meaning of divine command (Genesis 3:1–5), Satan introduced a system of thought grounded in autonomy rather than revelation. The Fall was epistemological as well as moral. Adam and Eve no longer saw with God’s eyes; their perception became darkened (Romans 1:21).

Post-Fall Longing for Coherence

Despite the Fall, man retains a drive to interpret and synthesize reality—an impulse rooted in the image of God. This explains the historical pursuit of comprehensive systems in philosophy, science, and theology. From Plato to Kant, Newton to Einstein, and Augustine to Aquinas to Calvin, thinkers have sought intellectual frameworks that explain the whole of existence. Yet apart from revelation, these systems are always incomplete or flawed.

Even theological systems developed by respected Christians often incorporate elements of secular philosophy. Augustine was influenced by Neoplatonism; Aquinas by Aristotelianism; the Reformers by early church traditions and their own historical context. Later theologians such as Charles Hodge adopted Scottish Realism, and others absorbed Enlightenment or modernist presuppositions. While God has used such men for much good, Scripture itself does not endorse the idea of an overarching man-made “key” that unlocks all theology.

The Dangers of Systematization

The danger arises when a theological system becomes prescriptive rather than descriptive—when it demands the text conform to it rather than being shaped by the text. Several hazards follow:

Lack of Scriptural Mandate: Nowhere does Scripture command us to find or create a system that resolves all theological tensions. God’s Word is truth (John 17:17), not because it fits into a human structure, but because it is inspired and sufficient (2 Timothy 3:16–17).
Suppression of Exegesis: Systems often lead to forced harmonization, where texts that do not fit the system are reinterpreted, marginalized, or ignored. This fosters theological bias and weakens the call to “rightly divide the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).
Elevating System Over Scripture: Confessions and creeds, while useful, can become more authoritative than Scripture itself. When theology is driven by what is deducible from a system rather than what is explicit in Scripture, it ceases to be biblical theology.
Misplaced Hermeneutical “Keys”: Systems often assume that one concept—such as covenant, kingdom, remnant, or promise—is the interpretive key to all of Scripture. But the Bible is multi-thematic and develops numerous parallel strands from Genesis to Revelation.
Reductionism: Systems tend to flatten Scripture’s richness by subordinating it to one dominant theme. This undermines the diversity of Scripture and disregards the full counsel of God (Acts 20:27).
Sectarianism and Intellectual Pride: Adherents to a system may dismiss alternative interpretations not based on poor exegesis, but because they contradict their framework. This breeds a tribal mindset, often alienating the church from valuable perspectives found in other traditions.

Scripture as the True Framework

Rather than seek a perfect system, Christians are called to faithful exegesis. This means interpreting each passage in light of its grammar, historical context, literary structure, and canonical setting. The Word of God is not a theological codebook but a divine revelation of the nature and purposes of God through narrative, poetry, wisdom, prophecy, and apostolic instruction.

To interpret Scripture properly, we must:

Acknowledge its internal unity and divine authorship.
Accept its multi-dimensionality without seeking to flatten it into a single category.
Allow difficult texts to remain difficult if the Spirit has not revealed more (Deuteronomy 29:29).
Follow the apostles’ interpretive methods without importing foreign philosophies.

Paul himself, though brilliant and trained, does not appeal to human logic or speculative theology. Rather, he reasons from Scripture and presents a coherent theology grounded in revelation (Acts 17:2–3; Romans 1–11). Yet even Paul does not claim to have resolved all mystery. After tracing God’s redemptive plan in Romans 9–11, he concludes: “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” (Romans 11:33).

Christ as the Center, Not a System

The unifying center of Scripture is not a concept but a person—Jesus Christ. All Scripture testifies of Him (John 5:39; Luke 24:27). He is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17), the Word made flesh (John 1:14), the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15). Thus, while Scripture contains many themes—kingdom, covenant, promise, judgment, glory—they all ultimately converge in Christ.

However, even Christ is not to be reduced to a “key” theme but exalted as the living Logos who brings coherence to God’s multifaceted revelation. Any theological system that loses sight of Him, even in pursuit of doctrinal precision, becomes spiritually barren.

Conclusion

We are not required to “tie into” a man-made theological system. While sound doctrine (1 Timothy 4:16; Titus 2:1) is essential, it must be drawn directly from Scripture through careful exegesis, not constructed from overarching themes imposed upon the text. The historical-grammatical approach avoids the pitfalls of speculative theology by grounding all interpretation in the actual meaning intended by the human authors inspired by the Holy Spirit.

In an age of theological rivalry and denominational systems, we must resist the temptation to force Scripture into artificial frameworks. Let us speak where Scripture speaks and remain silent where it is silent. Let us honor the Word as our supreme authority and Christ as our interpretive center. And let us be content with the mysteries that remain, knowing that “we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face” (1 Corinthians 13:12).

You May Also Benefit From

Who Authored the Bible?

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).