In the preface to his multi-volume collecton of sermon ‘skeletons’, Charles Simeon declares himself to be ‘no friend to systematizers in theology’.  And he expends a considerable amount of energy developing and enforcing this thought.

By theological systems, he means, principally, Calvinism and Arminianism.  He declares that, unlike the proponents of such systems,

‘he takes his religion from the Bible; and endeavours, as much as possible, to speak as that speaks.’

If he finds that two or more biblical texts appear to contradict one another, he endeavours to be faithful to the true sense of each of them, not favouring one over the other, as ‘systematizers’ tend to do.

Thus,

‘In writing, for instance, on John 5:40, “Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life,” he does not hesitate to lay the whole blame of men’s condemnation on the obstinacy of their own depraved will.’

And,

‘When he preaches on John 6:44, “No man can come unto me, except the Father who hath sent me draw him,” he does not scruple to state in the fullest manner he is able, “That we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will.”’ [Quoting from Article 10 of the 39 Articles of the Church of England).

So,

‘While too many set these passages at variance, and espouse the one in opposition to the other, he dwells with equal pleasure on them both; and thinks it, on the whole, better to state these apparently opposite truths in the plain and unsophisticated manner of the Scriptures, than to enter into scholastic subtleties, that have been invented for the upholding of human systems.’

And, after all,

‘Perhaps these points, which have been such a fruitful source of contention in the Church, are not so opposite to each other as some imagine: and it is possible, that the truly scriptural statement will be found not in an exclusive adoption of either, nor yet in a confused mixture of both, but in the proper and seasonable application of them both; or, to use the language of St. Paul, “in rightly dividing the word of truth.”’

To be specific:

‘If the doctrines of Election and Predestination be so stated as to destroy man’s free agency, and make him merely passive in the work of salvation, they are not stated as they are in the Articles and Homilies of our Church, or as they are in the Holy Scriptures. On the other hand, if the doctrines of free-will and liableness to final apostasy be so stated as to rob God of his honour, and to deny that he is both “the Author and the Finisher of our faith,” they are equally abhorrent from the sentiments of our Established Church, and from the plainest declarations of Holy Writ.’

In summary:

‘The Author is no friend to systematizers in Theology. He has endeavoured to derive from the Scriptures alone his views of religion; and to them it is his wish to adhere, with scrupulous fidelity; never wresting any portion of the word of God to favour a particular opinion, but giving to every part of it that sense, which it seems to him to have been designed by its great Author to convey.’

This is not to say that the Scriptures are inconsistent, only that no human scheme can lay claim to the scriptural system in its entirety:

‘He has no doubt but that there is a system in the Holy Scriptures; (for truth cannot be inconsistent with itself:) but he is persuaded that neither Calvinists nor Arminians are in exclusive possession of that system.’

So then, it has become an invariable rule with him

‘to endeavour to give to every portion of the word of God its full and proper force, without considering one moment what scheme it favours, or whose system it is likely to advance.’

An excellent test of the religion of a good Calvinist or Arminian would be his prayer life:

‘Pious men, both of the Calvinistic and Arminian persuasion, approximate very nearly when they are upon their knees before God in prayer;—the devout Arminian then acknowledging his total dependence upon God, as strongly as the most confirmed Calvinist; and the Calvinist acknowledging his responsibility to God, and his obligation to exertion, in terms as decisive as the most determined Arminian.’

Comment

There is much here that is good, true and wise.  Of course we should let Scripture speak for itself.  Of course we should be scrupulously careful not to impose any system of school of theology on Scripture.  Of course, where Scripture seems to speak with more than one voice on any doctrine (and this applies not only to divine sovereignty and human responsibility, but also to the Trinity, the Incarnation and to the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture itself), then we should allow all the voices to be heard, and not privilege one over another.

But I’m not convinced that it is either possible or necessary to exclude systematic theology from our exposition of the Bible.

In short, I agree with J.I. Packer’s comment that

‘The motive behind [Simeon’s] almost obsessive outbursts against Calvinistic and Arminian “system-Christians,” as he called them, was his belief that, through reading Scripture in light of their systems, both sides would be kept from doing justice to all the texts that were there. Be “Bible-Christians” rather than slaves to a system, he argued, and so let the whole Bible have its way with you all the time. Whether or not we agree that such speaking is the wise way to make that point, we must at least endorse Simeon’s “invariable rule . . . to endeavour to give to every portion of the word of God its full and proper force.”’