Biblical vs systematic theology

[percho]

or, you might not understand the answer lol.

Nope... pretty sure you didn't understand the distinction between the academic disciplines of systematic theology and biblical theology.

The Spirit of Truth may not, I say, may not, think it matters. I, am not sure.

 

[Van]

The problem with the your view in post #3 is that Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology are disciplines in themselves and both strive to faithfully represent Scripture within their own disciplines. You are right that the two are not mutually exclusive, but that does not mean that they are not also distinct. Systematic Theology is dependent on Biblical Theology, but Biblical Theology in itself does not form most of doctrines of which you speak. Instead of making up definitions, perhaps it would be a good idea to simply look up the meaning of those terms.

There is no problem with post #3. Did I say they were or were not disciplines? Nope. Did I say I was providing a definition? Nope. I alluded to the possibility of a special definition existing.

So, since we are making suggestions, why not do a study on fault finding, using either discipline.

 

[JonC]

There is no problem with post #3. Did I say they were or were not disciplines? Nope. Did I say I was providing a definition? Nope. I alluded to the possibility of a special definition existing.

So, since we are making suggestions, why not do a study on fault finding, using either discipline.

For that, I'd use Historical Theology :laugh:

 

[Van]

Long cut or cross-cut.

As JOJ might say, just because a person can talk the talk, i.e. inside baseball theology distinctions, does not mean they can actually study God word and arrive someplace other than their path of presuppositions.

 

[JonC]

Long cut or cross-cut.

As JOJ might say, just because a person can talk the talk, i.e. inside baseball theology distinctions, does not mean they can actually study God word and arrive someplace other than their path of presuppositions.

True....of course the ability or inability to "talk the talk" has no bearing on one's ability to study God's word. On a more serious note, I though that y'all were speaking of disciplines in Theology (Biblical, Historical, Systematic, etc)...but I see your point that all of the above needs to be "biblical."

 

[Van]

No, I was and remain ignorant of "disciplines" taught in colleges concerning the study of God's word. But my presupposition is that it all fits together, so if the study is valid, it will end up in the same place.

We have all seen the "what we believe" statement of faith, where something is asserted, then a laundry list of verses is cited supposedly supporting the assertion. However, if each reference is looked at in context, the assertion is not supported and several cases actually refuted.

As one great theologian said, we should labor too long in the furrows of other men, but should plow our own furrows in the riches of God's word.

 

[JonC]

No, I was and remain ignorant of "disciplines" taught in colleges concerning the study of God's word. But my presupposition is that it all fits together, so if the study is valid, it will end up in the same place.

We have all seen the "what we believe" statement of faith, where something is asserted, then a laundry list of verses is cited supposedly supporting the assertion. However, if each reference is looked at in context, the assertion is not supported and several cases actually refuted.

As one great theologian said, we should labor too long in the furrows of other men, but should plow our own furrows in the riches of God's word.

:thumbsup: OK. Here was what I was thinking when I saw the terms:

Biblical Theology engages the Bible as the individual authors addressed it in their situation. It does not look for application to our culture, but instead will look at what the words meant to a certain author writing to a specific audience (for example, it may address redemption as found in Peter's epistles, but would strive to exclude Pauline ideas into Peter's words).

Historical Theology explores how previous generations viewed certain issues/doctrines. It looks at the development of doctrines and benefits from counter arguments/defenses engaged at that time.

Systematic Theology looks at theological issues one by one. For example, if you were developing a systematic theology of redemption then you would derive your doctrine from the entire Bible. You would rely on Biblical Theology to understand what each author/book held regarding your topic, you would look at how previous generations dealt with the topic, and you would reason out a presentable teaching from what you have gleaned.

 

[evangelist6589]

Greek Tim

Spoke with a friend whom did complete his Mdiv and unlike me took Biblical Theology. The books I mentioned are all systematic, but he did say the book The Law and the Gospel by Ernest Reisinger looked to be both. I know you have a difficult time using Google and or looking on amazon for books (correct me if I am wrong) but if you looked at that book would you agree?

In fact he says all my books except 3 are systematic in nature. The Moody Handbook of theology is useful for undergrad studies in Biblical theology, and the book by Thomas Scheiner is NT Biblical theology, and I have another book on OT theology.

 

[evangelist6589]

:thumbsup: OK. Here was what I was thinking when I saw the terms:

Biblical Theology engages the Bible as the individual authors addressed it in their situation. It does not look for application to our culture, but instead will look at what the words meant to a certain author writing to a specific audience (for example, it may address redemption as found in Peter's epistles, but would strive to exclude Pauline ideas into Peter's words).

Historical Theology explores how previous generations viewed certain issues/doctrines. It looks at the development of doctrines and benefits from counter arguments/defenses engaged at that time.

Systematic Theology looks at theological issues one by one. For example, if you were developing a systematic theology of redemption then you would derive your doctrine from the entire Bible. You would rely on Biblical Theology to understand what each author/book held regarding your topic, you would look at how previous generations dealt with the topic, and you would reason out a presentable teaching from what you have gleaned.

This book is both Biblical and systematic?

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0875523870/?tag=baptis04-20

 

[evangelist6589]

No, I was and remain ignorant of "disciplines" taught in colleges concerning the study of God's word. But my presupposition is that it all fits together, so if the study is valid, it will end up in the same place.

We have all seen the "what we believe" statement of faith, where something is asserted, then a laundry list of verses is cited supposedly supporting the assertion. However, if each reference is looked at in context, the assertion is not supported and several cases actually refuted.

As one great theologian said, we should labor too long in the furrows of other men, but should plow our own furrows in the riches of God's word.

Are you one of these "I don't read books but the Bible" types?

 

[Van]

Are you one of these "I don't read books but the Bible" types?

Yes another question calculated to suggest I ignore the scholarship of the past. Exhaustive concordances, Bible dictionaries, Lexicons, Interlinear translations, and of course commentaries. Even in this thread I have referenced the work of others. So your question seems disingenuous, like something out of middle earth.

However, I do not claim to be a mind reader, and giving you the benefit of the doubt, I rely on many of the methods and practices I learned in discipleship class, such as inductive bible study. In the first step, "observation" we learned to look at the passage as given at the time. Thus we asked questions like, what was the culture, the historical setting, the meaning of idioms at that time, and what what was the mind-set of the audience given the revelation at that time. (Sounds alot like an abbreviated "biblical theology" methodology, although that name was not presented or used.) Some of the aids were bible dictionaries, and the new manners and customs of biblical times.

The next step was called "principlization" where we tried to discern what if any timeless principles were being conveyed in the passage. We asked questions like, was this being addressed only to the apostles, or did this apply to any of Christ's disciples. And if the principle was derived from the Old Testament, we asked whether the principle had been embraced or superseded in the New Testament.

Finally, the third step is "application" where we consider how to apply the principle to our lives, such as never do wrong to get a chance to do right.

 

[JonC]

This book is both Biblical and systematic?

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0875523870/?tag=baptis04-20

It looks to be systematic (I don't see how it could be both as once you introduced elements of systematic theology it would no longer be biblical theology....that's like saying "if I take 100% sugar and make lemonade then is it both lemonade and 100% sugar").

 

[Van]

The book is topical, i.e. answering the question, what parts of the OT Law apply to New Covenant Christians. But that does not preclude looking at various scriptures as understood by the initial audiences.

 

[Yeshua1]

Systematic Theology attempts to treat things topically and attempts to arrive at a consistent presentation of a topic by examining all the scriptures that relate to that topic.

Biblical Theology attempts more to treat subjects as they arise in the Biblical canon and as they are developed by the Biblical writers in the progression of the Biblical canon.

Biblical theology and systematic theology are two different manners of arranging the teaching of the scriptures. Biblical theology seeks to understand the progressive unfolding of God's special revelation throughout history, whereas systematic theology seeks to present the entire scriptural teaching on certain specific truths, or doctrines, one at a time. Biblical theology is thus historical and chronological in its design; and in fact, a close synonym for biblical theology, at least in its wide-angle task of accounting for all of special revelation, is the term “redemptive history”.

Within that also would be how each particular author recorded down by the inspiration of the Spirit unto us the theology, such as how Luke and John and paul viewed certain doctrines?

And wasn't paul given by God the completeness of the revelation concerning us now under the new Covenant then?

 

[Yeshua1]

Biblical theology and systematic theology are distinct. Biblical theology is restricted to concerns/issues that arise within specific biblical texts (not the Bible as a whole) and are restricted to those texts. For example, if you wanted to explore repentance using biblical theology as a method, you run the risk of developing an incomplete doctrine (you would not be dealing with all that Scripture has to say about your subject). Systematic theology examines issues using the Scripture as a whole, but is not limited to that source. Systematic theology is dependent on biblical theology, but most of the issues we discuss cannot be adequately addressed with biblical theology alone.

Biblical theology concerns itself with the progressive revelation from God through the scriptures text themselves, while Systematic also involves interaction with other views outside the texts themselves...

 

[JonC]

Biblical theology concerns itself with the progressive revelation from God through the scriptures text themselves, while Systematic also involves interaction with other views outside the texts themselves...

Biblical theology is restricted to Scripture, that part is correct. But within Scripture it is also restricted. biblical theology typically does not explore progressive revelation through the Bible, that is too broad.

 

[Yeshua1]

Biblical theology is restricted to Scripture, that part is correct. But within Scripture it is also restricted. biblical theology typically does not explore progressive revelation through the Bible, that is too broad.

So it would be considering each seperate writers views on each selectibe topic then?

Such as a Pauline as compared to a Peterine view on election ?

 

[JonC]

So it would be considering each seperate writers views on each selectibe topic then?



Such as a Pauline as compared to a Peterine view on election ?

Yes. And that in context to and as developed by the singular source. Systematic theology attempts to put it together by overlapping the sources to arrive at a topical doctrine (how, for example, Peter actually relates to Paul).

 

[Greektim]

Biblical theology is restricted to Scripture, that part is correct. But within Scripture it is also restricted. biblical theology typically does not explore progressive revelation through the Bible, that is too broad.

Except for "whole bible" biblical theologies, which are becoming more and more in vogue these days.

 

[Greektim]

So it would be considering each seperate writers views on each selectibe topic then?

Such as a Pauline as compared to a Peterine view on election ?

I say no. It would not be Paul's view of justification. It would be Paul's theology which happens to include justification among other things. Picking a topic is a systematic way to approach an author. Biblical theology would see the author's thoughts and theology develop and explain that. It would see how his theology and thinking are interlinked in the development, such as Paul's monotheism, election, and eschatology.