Systematic Theology

[JonC]

I think we as Christians must train ourselves to be constrained by words. When it comes to the scriptures this will automatically put us into a system of study and will drive us to word studies.

(just breaking up my reply)

If we were constrained by the words of Scripture then many doctrines and theologies would not exist.

The Doctrine of the Trinity, as is typically defined in Systematic Theologies, would not exist. The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement would not exist. Neither would the Satisfaction Theory. Calvinism, Arminianism, Methodist Theology, Anabaptist theology, Baptist Theology....none of these would exist.

We cannot be constrained by the words because that is not how human beings think. We put the words together to form ideas. Just that act of reading a line of consecutive words as a sentence often allows in room for interpretation.

But I do agree that we should limit foundational doctrine to the actual text of God's Word. If you can't highlight it in your Bible with a pen then don't build on it.

 

[Van]

From Wikipedia:

"...Systematic theology organizes truth under different headings[1] and there are ten basic areas (or categories), although the exact list may vary slightly. These are:

Bibliology – The study of the Bible

Theology proper – The study of the character of God
Paterology – The study of God the Father
Christology – The study of Christ
Pneumatology – The study of the Holy Spirit

Teleology – The study of God’s design and purpose for the world and all He created in it
Ecclesiology – The study of the church
Missiology – The study of missionary work

Theological anthropology – The study of the nature of humanity
Hamartiology – The study of sin
Soteriology – The study of salvation

Angelology – The study of angels
Demonology – The study of demons

Eschatology – The study of the end times​

We spend most of our time on Bibliology, Triune Theology, Soteriology, and Eschatology.

 

[atpollard]

Truth is absolute.

How we know comes before what we know.

The laws of logic.
The law of identity.
The law of noncountradiction.
The law of the excluded middle.

Conclusions from generalizations are not always true.

First we have our own experiance.
We have the witness from others.
And conclusions from logical deductions.

We have presuppositions.

Most of what we think we know, comes from others.

Then we cannot know anything without believing it.

Amazing things come from the struggle when two sources of “truth” contradict one another and we must work to find “Truth” on our own from among competing “truths”. In the end, one comes to convictions, at least in some narrow area, that cannot be shaken.

The Biblical imagery of a refiners fire always seemed apt in this case. Once the gold or silver has been refined (Truth has been learned) it is virtually impossible for dross to work its way back into the finished gold/silver (false has no power to shake the truth).

(at least that’s what I observed)

 

[Deacon]

…we should limit foundational doctrine to the actual text of God's Word. If you can't highlight it in your Bible with a pen then don't build on it.

One of the advantages of Systematic Theology its flexibility to adapt to modern ideas.
Scripture (and fundamental doctrine) does not change but Systematic Theology adapts, explores, flexes, as it attempts to apply our understanding of Scripture to the world we live in.

We can observe this easily by reading about the doctrine of CREATION (it can be underlined or highlighted in your Bible).
But ST explores how the doctrine of creation interacts with science as well as with various doctrines, original sin, evolution, the age of the earth, etc.
ST is an exploration of theological possibilities.
It can be quite exciting and enlightening.

Rob

 

[DaveXR650]

. If you can't highlight it in your Bible with a pen then don't build on it.

The problem is that every single group has a bunch of verses highlighted, sometimes the same exact verses. Yet collectively, throughout history, we still manage to separate, excommunicate, and sometimes do violence to each other until we have thousands of schools of thought and denominations. This will continue until we run out of highlighter.

 

[atpollard]

The problem is that every single group has a bunch of verses highlighted, sometimes the same exact verses. Yet collectively, throughout history, we still manage to separate, excommunicate, and sometimes do violence to each other until we have thousands of schools of thought and denominations. This will continue until we run out of highlighter.

Paul spoke of those who ate meat and those who abstained from meat and those who held one day special and those that held every day alike … all as Christian Brothers and all as “honoring God” and NONE as being wrong. Is there a lesson for us in that?

 

[JonC]

The problem is that every single group has a bunch of verses highlighted, sometimes the same exact verses. Yet collectively, throughout history, we still manage to separate, excommunicate, and sometimes do violence to each other until we have thousands of schools of thought and denominations. This will continue until we run out of highlighter.

They do. Interpretations vary

BUT the strongest disagreements are with those things that are not in the Bible (those doctrines that cannot be highlighted along with the passages used to "support" those doctrines).

That is my strongest disagreement with a few theologies. They highlight a bunch of verses they think will support their theories rather than simply discussing and believing what is in the Bible.

One example is the idea that God made a covenant with Adam promising life should he not eat the of the fruit. You will see them provide passages of God commanding Adam not to eat of it with the consequence of death. Nowhere do you see an alternate promise or a formal covenant.

Another example is the idea that Christ died instead of us. They will provide verses stating that Christ died for our sins, that He took the stroke due us, that by His stripes we were healed. They will talk about Christ as our Head, as the Firstborn. In other words, they will provide verses upon which we all agree. BUT they will never actually provide a verse saying Christ died instead of us because it does not exist.

 

[JonC]

One of the advantages of Systematic Theology its flexibility to adapt to modern ideas.
Scripture (and fundamental doctrine) does not change but Systematic Theology adapts, explores, flexes, as it attempts to apply our understanding of Scripture to the world we live in.

We can observe this easily by reading about the doctrine of CREATION (it can be underlined or highlighted in your Bible).
But ST explores how the doctrine of creation interacts with science as well as with various doctrines, original sin, evolution, the age of the earth, etc.
ST is an exploration of theological possibilities.
It can be quite exciting and enlightening.

Rob

I agree. And Systematic Theology is necessary (it is how we think). Theology also seeks to be current, to address what is happening in our world.

That said, some theologies form a philosophy and then look to Scripture for support. Some rely more on philosophy, tradition, or historic theology than I believe is warranted as they begin to lean on their own understanding.

Take Covenant Theology as an example. The Presbyterian Church formed a system of understanding the Bible and particularly redemptive history. They then run Scripture through this process or system to gain "understanding'. Anything resulting from Covenant Theology is suspect because it prioritizes theory over Scripture.

 

[DaveXR650]

One example is the idea that God made a covenant with Adam promising life should he not eat the of the fruit. You will see them provide passages of God commanding Adam not to eat of it with the consequence of death. Nowhere do you see an alternate promise or a formal covenant.

Another example is the idea that Christ died instead of us. They will provide verses stating that Christ died for our sins, that He took the stroke due us, that by His stripes we were healed. They will talk about Christ as our Head, as the Firstborn. In other words, they will provide verses upon which we all agree. BUT they will never actually provide a verse saying Christ died instead of us because it does not exist.

This is exactly what I mean. Other people look at the same verses you do and say well, that looks like a covenant to me. I'm not trying to refute you here. I'm just saying we ALL claim to be backed up by scripture. Same with the idea of Christ dying in our stead. I've been in some of those debates. Bottom line, we look at the same scripture and you claim it isn't saying what I think it clearly says. I see penal substitution all over scripture. You don't. I respect that and I could be the one who is wrong but what I do not accept is the claim that you and you alone are the one who only uses scripture. I'm just saying that the other people are too. Thus, we have the development of systematic theologies.

 

[JonC]

This is exactly what I mean. Other people look at the same verses you do and say well, that looks like a covenant to me. I'm not trying to refute you here. I'm just saying we ALL claim to be backed up by scripture. Same with the idea of Christ dying in our stead. I've been in some of those debates. Bottom line, we look at the same scripture and you claim it isn't saying what I think it clearly says. I see penal substitution all over scripture. You don't. I respect that and I could be the one who is wrong but what I do not accept is the claim that you and you alone are the one who only uses scripture. I'm just saying that the other people are too. Thus, we have the development of systematic theologies.

I know. I look at the passage and think that Adam may have been able to have eaten of the Tree of Life and lived forever.

BUT that is just me thinking. It is not in the Bible, and certainly not something I would teach others or build an entire theology on.

That is the issue. You and I may have the same ideas, but if it is extra-biblical then I have to keep that as our idea and NOT doctrine. Scripture is objective. All those theories are subjective. Truth is always objective.

Ultimately it goes to where we place our trust - in God or in man. I believe we have to have our own ideas and understandings, but that we should not add those ideas to Scripture.

 

[tyndale1946]

This is exactly what I mean. Other people look at the same verses you do and say well, that looks like a covenant to me. I'm not trying to refute you here. I'm just saying we ALL claim to be backed up by scripture. Same with the idea of Christ dying in our stead. I've been in some of those debates. Bottom line, we look at the same scripture and you claim it isn't saying what I think it clearly says. I see penal substitution all over scripture. You don't. I respect that and I could be the one who is wrong but what I do not accept is the claim that you and you alone are the one who only uses scripture. I'm just saying that the other people are too. Thus, we have the development of systematic theologies.

I believe I read a Systematic Theology once... I guess it didn't empress me cause I only read one and lets see I've been a Christian for how long?... Over 50 years... I just go to scripture and scripture rightly divided tells me all I want to know or need to know... Saying that I bow out of this discussion... Brother Glen

 

[Van]

Once again the simple expedient of ask "what is the least God is saying" seem essential to avoid different speculations claimed to be doctrine.

Just because God is able to do a thing does not prove or teach that God did a thing.

For example, God could predestine salvation, that does not support the God actually did predestine individuals for salvation.

 

[JonC]

I believe I read a Systematic Theology once... I guess it didn't empress me cause I only read one and lets see I've been a Christian for how long?... Over 50 years... I just go to scripture and scripture rightly divided tells me all I want to know or need to know... Saying that I bow out of this discussion... Brother Glen

So you use systematic theology (you go to the Bible and take it you are rightly dividing Scripture). We all use Systematic Theology (there is no understanding without it).

The best books are the ones that explain various views without even hinting at the ohe the author(s) prefer.

 

[DaveXR650]

I believe I read a Systematic Theology once... I guess it didn't empress me cause I only read one and lets see I've been a Christian for how long?... Over 50 years... I just go to scripture and scripture rightly divided tells me all I want to know or need to know... Saying that I bow out of this discussion... Brother Glen

Yes. I'd refer you back to my post #8. What you need to know to be saved can be gathered from the scripture. Fortunately. So if you're not inclined to that sort of thing then definitely don't go there. But there are verses that say that faith is a gift. That it is a virtue. That it is commanded and so on. To have an overall view in your mind of how this fits together you will, as Jon says above make some use of systematic theology, even if it's unconscious.

The point I am trying to make is that there is just as much contradicting and mutual condemning by those who claim THEY only use scripture as there is by those using systematic theology. If you're in a cynical mood you could say systematic theology is where people who claim they know the true meaning of a scripture find each other, agree to write down the explanation they know is right and then you have systematic theology.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

The best books are the ones that explain various views without even hinting at the ohe the author(s) prefer.

That would be stupid. Theologians of various camps would have to express their agreements and objections to the numerous theories out there. Certainly a Christian theologian would give warning to dangerous theories. It would be their duty as a conscientious believer in Christ.

 

[JonC]

That would be stupid. Theologians of various camps would have to express their agreements and objections to the numerous theories out there. Certainly a Christian theologian would give warning to dangerous theories. It would be their duty as a conscientious believer in Christ.

Not really. Several systematic theologies seek to explain various views without leading people towards one or another. But there are also subjective books which seek to indoctrinate.

The plus about explaining each view fairly is the reader can gain an objective understanding of each.

Now, this is not pastoral (I don't mean it that way). And it isn't just presenting ones own theology (although there is benefit to that as well).

One example is seminary. I had a Calvinistic theology professor but did not know he was a Calvinist until after the year was over. He explained that he did not want his understanding to influence us.

Paul Enns does a good job at this as well although he does indicate his preference.

 

[Silverhair]

All of us are grateful – or should be – to theologians who have over the centuries systematised their knowledge in order to help us get a grasp of it. Yet, as in science, theological systems or paradigms can sometimes become so powerful that they end up defining what Scripture is or is not allowed to mean, so that “taking Scripture seriously” means accepting a particular theological system and fitting all Scripture into it. It is therefore wise to recall that, just as science did not create the universe, systematic theology did not produce the Bible. [John Lennox DETERMINED TO BELIEVE pg 78-79]

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Apologitics is closely related to Systematic Theologies.

What is that, Somebody who says, I’m sorry allot? Sounds like an appendage of Wokeness Doctrine and you gotta dissect and expose the content of everything those Kooks say.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yessss

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You know those of us not as sophisticated as the august members of the BB board could very well dismiss terminology to incorrect conclusions… except for the fact that we are now apparently closed to new membership. Oh well.