Study of Systematic Theology

[Bronconagurski]

Question for anyone that has completed a serious study of Systematic Theology. Is there a preferred order of things? I have several different complete works of Systematic Theology, and the written orders are somewhat different. I guess in the long run it doesn't matter, but I seem to think that maybe starting with Angelology then doing Anthropology would be a good way to start. One of my works starts with Theology Proper, and one ends with the same. Anyway, any suggestions or experiences are welcome.

 

[Greektim]

Question for anyone that has completed a serious study of Systematic Theology. Is there a preferred order of things? I have several different complete works of Systematic Theology, and the written orders are somewhat different. I guess in the long run it doesn't matter, but I seem to think that maybe starting with Angelology then doing Anthropology would be a good way to start. One of my works starts with Theology Proper, and one ends with the same. Anyway, any suggestions or experiences are welcome.

Prolegamena first
Theology proper or bibliology second
Christology
Pneumatology
angelology
anthropology
hamartiology
soteriology
ecclesiology
eschatology

Keep in mind... this is coming from someone who prefers biblical theology over systematic theology any day of the week (and twice on Sunday)

 

[Bronconagurski]

Prolegamena first
Theology proper or bibliology second
Christology
Pneumatology
angelology
anthropology
hamartiology
soteriology
ecclesiology
eschatology

Keep in mind... this is coming from someone who prefers biblical theology over systematic theology any day of the week (and twice on Sunday)

Thanks for the info. What do you think of Vos when it comes to biblical theology?

 

[Yeshua1]

Thanks for the info. What do you think of Vos when it comes to biblical theology?

Doesn't all theology though, regardless either biblical/Systematic start and end with the study on the nature/person/Workings of the truine God?

wasn't Vos more of a form critical theologian, more into seeing God working in and thru his people by covenant, not so much holding to an Evangekical viewoint reagrding say the actual scriptures?

 

[Bronconagurski]

Doesn't all theology though, regardless either biblical/Systematic start and end with the study on the nature/person/Workings of the truine God?

wasn't Vos more of a form critical theologian, more into seeing God working in and thru his people by covenant, not so much holding to an Evangekical viewoint reagrding say the actual scriptures?

It appears you are correct. I have found an Old and New Testament Biblical Theology edited by Zuck in my ebooks software. It appears to be more of what I am looking for. I really need to go through all the ebooks I have on my computer software one of these days. Thanks for the response.

 

[thomas15]

....What do you think of Vos when it comes to biblical theology?

Not very much

 

[12strings]

GreekTM has given a good example of the typical order.

regarding the logic of such an order:

Either God himself is placed first since all things come from God...or the bible is placed first since all things that we understand come from scriptures...THe person of Christ & the H.S. are a part of theology proper...then it often moves to man's nature as created, then the fall, then Christ's work of salvation, then the church, then end times...

I think some may put the person of Christ and the work of Christ next to each other, in which case they may insert man and sin before that, and the present Christ as the solution.

Angels and demon's could either be part of the section on creation, perhaps just before the fall of man, or perhaps right after Theology proper.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not very much

wasn't he of the liberal higher critic school, who basically saw that isrealites as having a eligion that was about same as others, and that the real meaning was in how God moved in the Bible, as Bible was NOT seenas being infallible/inerrant?

 

[MorseOp]

Thanks for the info. What do you think of Vos when it comes to biblical theology?

Geerhardus Voss' Reformed Dogmatics is excellent. Of course, he was a Reformed theologian; one of the last solid theologians to come out of Princeton Seminary. Even if you are not Reformed you will find some excellent insights.

 

[thomas15]

Geerhardus Voss' Reformed Dogmatics is excellent. Of course, he was a Reformed theologian; one of the last solid theologians to come out of Princeton Seminary. Even if you are not Reformed you will find some excellent insights.

Of course he has much to offer even to those not of the reformed club such as myself. He does however assume a covenant/replacement theology as many in his camp do. He is at times confusing and like Berkhof argues his point with sources outside of the Bible (the WCF, the ECFs and the writings of the reformers and the historical creeds). While not as condescending as Berkhof with respect to pre-mill theology, he will make his point at times by simply bashing dispensationalism, a method that Riddlebarger has turned into an artform.

Vos is not in any way, shape or form Baptist. It is interesting and telling that we will not tolorate the living breathing Lee Strobel here but will embrace the dead Vos and others such as Stott and Packer and the semi-dead Wright.

 

[thomas15]

wasn't he of the liberal higher critic school, who basically saw that isrealites as having a eligion that was about same as others, and that the real meaning was in how God moved in the Bible, as Bible was NOT seenas being infallible/inerrant?

I wouldn't agree with this, Vos is not a liberal in the classic sense but he like many other reformed have it seems more respect for liberals like Barth and Harnack than conservatives like Chafer. Still, you and I view the Bible as inerrant, many on the reformed side equate inerrancy as the same as fundamentalism in all its legalistic glory, brushing aside the actual fundamentals of the faith as outlined by Torrey.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I wouldn't agree with this, Vos is not a liberal in the classic sense but he like many other reformed have it seems more respect for liberals like Barth and Harnack than conservatives like Chafer. Still, you and I view the Bible as inerrant, many on the reformed side equate inerrancy as the same as fundamentalism in all its legalistic glory, brushing aside the actual fundamentals of the faith as outlined by Torrey.

Don't candy coat it Tommy .....tell us what you really think! LOL

 

[MorseOp]

Of course he has much to offer even to those not of the reformed club such as myself. He does however assume a covenant/replacement theology as many in his camp do. He is at times confusing and like Berkhof argues his point with sources outside of the Bible (the WCF, the ECFs and the writings of the reformers and the historical creeds). While not as condescending as Berkhof with respect to pre-mill theology, he will make his point at times by simply bashing dispensationalism, a method that Riddlebarger has turned into an artform.

Vos is not in any way, shape or form Baptist. It is interesting and telling that we will not tolorate the living breathing Lee Strobel here but will embrace the dead Vos and others such as Stott and Packer and the semi-dead Wright.

I am a Baptist because of my ecclesiology and view of New Covenant membership (including baptism). I am also Reformed in my soteriology and covenantal. That is why I agree with much of Vos' insights. I am not an N.T. Wright fan because he rejects imputation.

 

[MorseOp]

I wouldn't agree with this, Vos is not a liberal in the classic sense but he like many other reformed have it seems more respect for liberals like Barth and Harnack than conservatives like Chafer. Still, you and I view the Bible as inerrant, many on the reformed side equate inerrancy as the same as fundamentalism in all its legalistic glory, brushing aside the actual fundamentals of the faith as outlined by Torrey.

Speaking as one who is Reformed; I respect Chafer but disagree with him on a critical point - soteriology. That is a key area (as all the Calvinistic threads on this board can testify to). There are many Reformed who see the theological compromises of Barth and do not embrace them. The Reformed camp takes umbrage with those who equate inerrancy with hard literalism; "See, it says it right there; Jesus is a door" (using hyperbole to make a point). We do believe the Bible is inerrant in the original autographs.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Speaking as one who is Reformed; I respect Chafer but disagree with him on a critical point - soteriology. That is a key area (as all the Calvinistic threads on this board can testify to). There are many Reformed who see the theological compromises of Barth and do not embrace them. The Reformed camp takes umbrage with those who equate inerrancy with hard literalism; "See, it says it right there; Jesus is a door" (using hyperbole to make a point). We do believe the Bible is inerrant in the original autographs.

Please explain to me what you believe "Reformed" to be. Are you saying that you "Reformed" Roman Catholicism or do you have some criterion to its membership? Lastly you identify yourself as a Reformed Baptist....how does that all go together? Why are you not for example a "Particular Baptist"?

 

[thomas15]

... The Reformed camp takes umbrage with those who equate inerrancy with hard literalism; "See, it says it right there; Jesus is a door" (using hyperbole to make a point). We do believe the Bible is inerrant in the original autographs.

The reformed camp, as I have illustrated, is not liberal in the classic sense but it does has liberal roots especially with respect to its view of scripture. And to further the outrage, I'll say that the 16th and 17th century reformers didn't do a whole lot of reforming. We are still stuck with the belief that the church is a body composed of professional clergy and protestant academia which still has as its primary objective political sway over the assembly.

The biggest threat to the body of Baptist assemblies, as far as numbers of members, is that Baptist, with its renewed insistence on reformed/covenant theology is chasing all of the Baptists out of her ranks, replacing them with Presbyterians. This is why Baptist churches are taking the word Baptist out of their names and not because Tim LaHay wrote a highly successful series of novels that portray pre-trib end times scenarios.

Those who take the time to read and study the Bible don't have the any problem with literary devices intended to enhance the narrative. Your argument against "hard literalism" is simply on loan from the Roman Catholics who justify the use of statues and icons as a way of allowing the illiterate the opportunity to learn from the Scriptures without actually reading the Scriptures.

 

[MorseOp]

The reformed camp, as I have illustrated, is not liberal in the classic sense but it does has liberal roots especially with respect to its view of scripture. And to further the outrage, I'll say that the 16th and 17th century reformers didn't do a whole lot of reforming. We are still stuck with the belief that the church is a body composed of professional clergy and protestant academia which still has as its primary objective political sway over the assembly.

The biggest threat to the body of Baptist assemblies, as far as numbers of members, is that Baptist, with its renewed insistence on reformed/covenant theology is chasing all of the Baptists out of her ranks, replacing them with Presbyterians. This is why Baptist churches are taking the word Baptist out of their names and not because Tim LaHay wrote a highly successful series of novels that portray pre-trib end times scenarios.

Those who take the time to read and study the Bible don't have the any problem with literary devices intended to enhance the narrative. Your argument against "hard literalism" is simply on loan from the Roman Catholics who justify the use of statues and icons as a way of allowing the illiterate the opportunity to learn from the Scriptures without actually reading the Scriptures.

I am not even going to attempt to engage you. You are so steeped in the cloak of fundamentalism that it would be a fools errand.

 

[thomas15]

I am not even going to attempt to engage you. You are so steeped in the cloak of fundamentalism that it would be a fools errand.

I really needed the good laugh!

On edit: I know, it's hard to argue against fact.

 

[thomas15]

...... I am not an N.T. Wright fan because he rejects imputation.

All anyone who takes the words of the Bible seriously needs to know with respect to being a fan of the semi-dead Wright is that he is one of the head cheerleaders of the Anglican church in all it's post modern spirituality. It is not necessary to dig that deep.

 

[thomas15]

....There are many Reformed who see the theological compromises of Barth and do not embrace them.

My point is that you reformed would rather be sitting at the same table with Barth than with Scofield. In fact, if you could you would ask Barth to sign your copy of his commentary on Romans, the one you hold in your right hand while slinging your aged vegtables at Scofield with your left.

If the comments from reformed baptists on this board are reflective of Baptist everywhere, the lowest form of life as we know it is those misguided dispensationalists. Not that I personally care what anyone thinks, just stating the facts.