The Systematic Theology which has traditionally dealt with “System” for Biblical Theology was to organize the biblical theological doctrines systematically to form a single system of thought that succeeds in eliminating the gross contradictions ineligible among both Theologians and in positivist rationalist science.

However, like other scientific disciplines called secular positivist ones have suggested flaws related to the limitation in time and space of Positivism, and classical and modern Systematic Theology had not prevented itself from seeing it leave weaknesses due to non-depth work on its object of study, namely, the flatness, the uniqueness, the droop, the broadness, etc.

So, to bring more vitality, dynamism, realism, etc. to this kind of Theology called Theology of “system” that we, Theologians of end times re-baptize the Classical and Modern Systematic Theology into Systemic Theology called the Metasystemic of the Theologian of the Bible, and better, so that the neatness of the same object, ill-studied or other consequential aspects to be ignored or unknown in the study, is now brighter and perceptible, we call it “QUINTIDIMENSYSTEMICS“. We call it that because it is meant to be inclusive as far as the studied systems are concerned by the so-called secular sciences which gave the mathematical diagram of a wheel within a wheel (some being gradually included in other). The Systematic Theology is wanting non-secular, it does not feel concerned by the progressive game of inclusion of all systems and arranged it as the Last Infinitely most Complex System including all other secular known, rightly or wrongly; and theorized by Kenneth BOULDING in his Hierarchy of systems. The logical consequence of this attitude is its superficiality, the vagueness and insufficiency of its approach.

To illustrate this point and avoid flat statements or even allegations against the Systematic Theology, here are excerpts from the writings of driven Theologians challenging by themselves nature, tools, and the final aim of this discipline mentioned as follows:

“In the words of D. A. Carson, the traditional and still prevailing model of Systematic Theology [the modern one] is oriented to the rational and hierarchical Rather than to the temporal

  “Wayne GRUDEM’s Systematic Theology makes Carson’s point. GRUDEM sees Systematic Theology as a topically-driven, synthetic presentation of Christian doctrine in which all the facts of revelationfit together in a consistent way” within the revelational jigsaw puzzle. The goal of rational consistency is an organized, internally coherent, non-contradictory system of truth

  “Focusing upon Scripture as doctrinal propositions, traditional Systematics tends to flatten out the biblical text. The complexity and ambiguity of reality is lost in the press toward univocal neatness and rational fit, and the dynamic of events and relationships is reduced to broad generalities. Noting the bloodless and impoverished world depicted in many systematic texts, Rainer Albertz commented that “then often have an effect that is remarkably static, lifeless, and at times boring”

“Applying and developing J. L. Austin’s speech-act theory, Kevin Vanhoozer has located the failure of Systematics to capture the vitality and depth of Scripture not simply in its sacrifice of the historical but also in the way Systematics has tended to treat all biblical expression as if they were ontological and conceptual. In handling all biblical statements as if they were the same sort of statement – didactic declaration – Systematics treats the Bible as if it were nothing more than a collection of lecture notes”