Systematic Theology

[JonC]

Reading through a few members posts I thought we may need to define Systematic Theology (especially when systematic theology is equated with Scripture itself).

Systematic Theology is "[a]n approach to the Bible that seeks to draw biblical teachings and themes into a self-consistent, coherent whole, in conversation with the history of Christian theological reflection and contemporary issues confronting the church. This is distinct from—yet related to—the approach of biblical theology, which focuses on the development of theological themes within individual books of the Bible or across one or both Testaments. The practice of biblical theology is often more closely intertwined with the practice of biblical studies, whereas systematic theology is usually viewed as a discipline that goes beyond the scope of biblical studies into church history, philosophy, and pastoral application." (Lexham Bible Dictionary)


Note what Systematic Theology is NOT:

1. It is not Scripture
2. It is not a collection of passages on one topic

Note what Systematic incorporates:

1. Historic Theology
2. Biblical Theology
3. Extra-biblical histories
4. Philosophy
5. Interpretation


The reason it is important to keep this in mind is Scripture itself is typically never the disagreement between theological positions. It is typically philosophy and interpretation.

The interesting thing is theologies use different amounts of each element. My personal opinion is we should not use Systematic Theology to develop foundational doctrines (I believe essential doctrines, or doctrines that we will build upon, should actually be in the text of Scripture).

 

[Salty]

Would you say if Mr. Webster has a good definition?
: "a branch of theology concerned with summarizing the doctrinal traditions of a religion (such as Christianity) especially with a view to relating the traditions convincingly to the religion's present-day setting"

 

[JonC]

Would you say if Mr. Webster has a good definition?
: "a branch of theology concerned with summarizing the doctrinal traditions of a religion (such as Christianity) especially with a view to relating the traditions convincingly to the religion's present-day setting"

Kinda. I'd say the doctrinal traditions of a religion are arrived at via Systematic Theology.

 

[Deacon]

My personal opinion is we should not use Systematic Theology to develop foundational doctrines (I believe essential doctrines, or doctrines that we will build upon, should actually be in the text of Scripture).

The doctrine of the Trinity is developed under Systematic Theology.
Systematic Theology is built upon the text of Scripture, this is good, a strength.
Its strength IMO is also a weakness. Some practitioners rely upon “proof texts” (passages that seem to prove or support a doctrine) without exploring what a passage really means or what it really says.
A reader always needs to check the references to see if the supporting Scriptures really uphold the position an author is conveying.

Rob

 

[JD731]

Reading through a few members posts I thought we may need to define Systematic Theology (especially when systematic theology is equated with Scripture itself).

Systematic Theology is "[a]n approach to the Bible that seeks to draw biblical teachings and themes into a self-consistent, coherent whole, in conversation with the history of Christian theological reflection and contemporary issues confronting the church. This is distinct from—yet related to—the approach of biblical theology, which focuses on the development of theological themes within individual books of the Bible or across one or both Testaments. The practice of biblical theology is often more closely intertwined with the practice of biblical studies, whereas systematic theology is usually viewed as a discipline that goes beyond the scope of biblical studies into church history, philosophy, and pastoral application." (Lexham Bible Dictionary)


Note what Systematic Theology is NOT:

1. It is not Scripture
2. It is not a collection of passages on one topic

Note what Systematic incorporates:

1. Historic Theology
2. Biblical Theology
3. Extra-biblical histories
4. Philosophy
5. Interpretation


The reason it is important to keep this in mind is Scripture itself is typically never the disagreement between theological positions. It is typically philosophy and interpretation.

The interesting thing is theologies use different amounts of each element. My personal opinion is we should not use Systematic Theology to develop foundational doctrines (I believe essential doctrines, or doctrines that we will build upon, should actually be in the text of Scripture).

i think you have just stated your own personal systematic study of God. And you have offered your opinion, which is philosophy. I would love to have you prove your system from the scriptures seeing as how they are the only source we have to determine how and what God is thinking and what his end goal is and how he is going to get there.

God sure has talked a lot about where he is taking us in his 66 books and in the last two chapters in the last book it shows we have arrived. There were a lot of players along the way, both for and against God on the journey and Jesus said that few make it.

it is possible to deceive oneself and think they are for God when actually they are working against him. It makes one wonder how someone who does not know what the end goal is could be much help to God in achieving it.

We learn in his Bible that God is working in a system that is purified and preserved in the eternal state and will last forever. We should all learn of his system and promote it.

Proverbs 14:12
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

 

[37818]

Reading through a few members posts I thought we may need to define Systematic Theology (especially when systematic theology is equated with Scripture itself).

Systematic Theology is "[a]n approach to the Bible that seeks to draw biblical teachings and themes into a self-consistent, coherent whole, in conversation with the history of Christian theological reflection and contemporary issues confronting the church. This is distinct from—yet related to—the approach of biblical theology, which focuses on the development of theological themes within individual books of the Bible or across one or both Testaments. The practice of biblical theology is often more closely intertwined with the practice of biblical studies, whereas systematic theology is usually viewed as a discipline that goes beyond the scope of biblical studies into church history, philosophy, and pastoral application." (Lexham Bible Dictionary)


Note what Systematic Theology is NOT:

1. It is not Scripture
2. It is not a collection of passages on one topic

Note what Systematic incorporates:

1. Historic Theology
2. Biblical Theology
3. Extra-biblical histories
4. Philosophy
5. Interpretation


The reason it is important to keep this in mind is Scripture itself is typically never the disagreement between theological positions. It is typically philosophy and interpretation.

The interesting thing is theologies use different amounts of each element. My personal opinion is we should not use Systematic Theology to develop foundational doctrines (I believe essential doctrines, or doctrines that we will build upon, should actually be in the text of Scripture).

Apologitics is closely related to Systematic Theologies.

 

[37818]

And you have offered your opinion, . . .

And you yours. Thank you.

 

[DaveXR650]

Some people learn to drive a car in a few minutes and are very good drivers. Others are too, but they are fascinated in learning exactly how the automatic transmission works. I've noticed that the same type of people who want to understand the design of the auto trans seem to be the ones you can guess might be interested in systematic theology too. As far as getting saved you can do quite well without any knowledge of systematic theology. But you might later want to know why Paul said this here and Peter said that there and why was this or that church in turmoil and if you care you will have to learn some systematic theology.

Archeology is the same way. You don't need that to be saved. But if you want some evidence that the material you are reading is authentic then it is essential. Thank God for people with a mindset to unearth a football field sized area with a toothbrush. But it's not for everyone.

 

[Salty]

I would never use my toothbrush to unearth a football field !
Jerry Seinfeld would never forgive me

 

[DaveXR650]

I would never use my toothbrush to unearth a football field !
Jerry Seinfeld would never forgive me

Well, we need someone to operate the backhoe too.

 

[JonC]

i think you have just stated your own personal systematic study of God. And you have offered your opinion, which is philosophy. I would love to have you prove your system from the scriptures seeing as how they are the only source we have to determine how and what God is thinking and what his end goal is and how he is going to get there.

God sure has talked a lot about where he is taking us in his 66 books and in the last two chapters in the last book it shows we have arrived. There were a lot of players along the way, both for and against God on the journey and Jesus said that few make it.

it is possible to deceive oneself and think they are for God when actually they are working against him. It makes one wonder how someone who does not know what the end goal is could be much help to God in achieving it.

We learn in his Bible that God is working in a system that is purified and preserved in the eternal state and will last forever. We should all learn of his system and promote it.

Proverbs 14:12
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

No, I have not stated my own personal systematic study. I provided the definition of a branch of theology.

Every Christian uses a type of "systematic theology" (incorporating philosophy, history, experience, extra-biblical sources) as they study Scripture. We have to or we would have no understanding. But that is done unintentionally and often without knowing.

I believe that is why God tells us not to lean on our own understanding instead of telling us to have no understanding.

Systematic Theology is intentional. I'm not saying it is wrong to incorporate into our belief system (quite the opposite). But I am saying that what accounts for error is not Scripture itself but the human elements that go into theology as a science.

 

[JD731]

Some people learn to drive a car in a few minutes and are very good drivers. Others are too, but they are fascinated in learning exactly how the automatic transmission works. I've noticed that the same type of people who want to understand the design of the auto trans seem to be the ones you can guess might be interested in systematic theology too. As far as getting saved you can do quite well without any knowledge of systematic theology. But you might later want to know why Paul said this here and Peter said that there and why was this or that church in turmoil and if you care you will have to learn some systematic theology.

Archeology is the same way. You don't need that to be saved. But if you want some evidence that the material you are reading is authentic then it is essential. Thank God for people with a mindset to unearth a football field sized area with a toothbrush. But it's not for everyone.

There is merit in what you say but let me add this as the revealed will of God for those of us he saves. It cannot be expressed more clearly than the prayers of the apostle Paul for us. These prayers are particularly for gentiles, the charge of the apostle, who have never, before the NT, had a relationship with God and did not know him in the previous 4000 years of human history. I quote the will of God according to Paul;

Eph 1:15 Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,
16 Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;

Here it is, what God wants for us.

17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him [to be] the head over all things to the church,
23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

There is nothing ambiguous about that.

Look here:

Read what provoked this prayer above for the cause:

14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,
21 Unto him (God the Father) be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

Look at this one:

Check the cause out in the verses before the prayer:

Col 1:9 For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;
11 Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness;
12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Here is another prayer:

3 I thank my God upon every remembrance of you,
4 Always in every prayer of mine for you all making request with joy,
5 For your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now;
6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:
7 Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace.
8 For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ.
9 And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment;
10 That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ;
11 Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God.

Paul in all of these prayers is praying for an increasing knowledge of God. This cannot be achieved by looking in a crystal ball but by learning from the source that God has given us to increase learning and that is the holy word of God enlightened by his Spirit who lives in us. I am in wonder that some would pooh pooh the careful study and the comparison of words of scriptures to be the answer to these prayers of Paul for us.

A man can be saved from his sins and the Spirit of God abiding in him but the responsibility to study the word of God is individual for saved people. These prayers cannot become a reality without a careful study of the words of God. The Bible is an infinite source of knowledge of God.

Joh 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
Joh 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

 

[37818]

@JonC,
This is an important topic. Everybody has a theology. You have something or things in mind to discuss on this topic. I know I do. One question I think, a good Systematc Theology is where it should begin.

1) Epistemology.
2) The identity of God (Theology),
3) Soteriology.
4) . . .

In it's apologetics, the know so salvation should come first.

Jon, where do you want to take your discussion?

 

[JonC]

@JonC,
This is an important topic. Everybody has a theology. You have something or things in mind to discuss on this topic. I know I do. One question I think, a good Systematc Theology is where it should begin.

1) Epistemology.
2) The identity of God (Theology),
3) Soteriology.
4) . . .

In it's apologetics, the know so salvation should come first.

Jon, where do you want to take your discussion?

I agree. Where you start determines a lot about where you end.

I'm not sure where to take the discussion. It concerned me that Systematic Theology was being used to mean a collection of verses on a topic, so I thought it a good idea to offer a definition.

 

[DaveXR650]

These prayers are particularly for gentiles, the charge of the apostle, who have never before the NT had a relationship with God and did not know him in the previous 4000 years of human history. I quote the will of God according to Paul;

You are beginning here, like the definition Salty posted to arrange and evaluate scripture and put it in context. That is the beginning of systematic theology.

This cannot be achieved by looking in a crystal ball but by learning from the source that God has given us to increase learning and that is the holy word of God enlightened by his Spirit who lives in us. I am in wonder that some would pooh pooh the careful study and the comparison of words of scriptures to be the answer to these prayers of Paul for us.

You are right. A careful study of the comparison of the words of scriptures is what forms the basis of systematic theology. Simply reading the scriptures, starting almost anywhere, will give you what you need to be saved. Thank God. But without an understanding of why a verse is there or what it means can lead to big problems. Now you could argue just as well that it is systematic theology that leads to big problems and you know what? You'd probably be right also.

 

[JonC]

The doctrine of the Trinity is developed under Systematic Theology.
Systematic Theology is built upon the text of Scripture, this is good, a strength.
Its strength IMO is also a weakness. Some practitioners rely upon “proof texts” (passages that seem to prove or support a doctrine) without exploring what a passage really means or what it really says.
A reader always needs to check the references to see if the supporting Scriptures really uphold the position an author is conveying.

Rob

I think the doctrine of the Trinity is the best example.

If we look at passages in Scripture we can develop a basic doctrine of the Trinity simply with the text. We can hold that the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit, God is One, the Son and Father are One, and the Father, Son, and Spirit while being One are not the same.

But we will not have the doctrine of the Trinity as many hold it today. There were debates over the use of "person's". There were issues with "nature". There was a philosophy to be worked out on how these "person's" existed within the One.

The Trinity is in the text of Scripture. The fuller doctrine is not.

 

[Deacon]

i think you have just stated your own personal systematic study of God. And you have offered your opinion, which is philosophy. I would love to have you prove your system from the scriptures seeing as how they are the only source we have to determine how and what God is thinking and what his end goal is and how he is going to get there.

I’m confused about what your point you are trying to make. We all read the Scriptures with our own preconceived notions. Sometimes these biases are good, other times they can simply be burdensome baggage.

You write of “philosophy” as if it is something to be avoided (am I reading you correctly?).
Philosophy is simply a systematized method of study. To say that you don’t have a philosophy of studying the Scriptures reveals an ignorance of what philosophy really is.

I’ve been reading through a relatively recent Systematic Theology Series, “Foundations of Evangelical Theology”, (edited by John S. Feinberg).
One particular volume in the series (TO KNOW AND LOVE GOD by David K. Clark) is devoted to explaining “how evangelical systematic theology is structured and how this discipline assists believers in understanding God more fully and worshipping him more completely”. The author provides a full volume describing the philosophy of evangelical theology. In light of this, to ask someone to “prove their system” seems fruitless.

The purpose of any Theology is to know God and how he works in our lives.

I presume, as students of our Savior, we all desire to know fully (1 Cor. 13:12) but for the present time we only see a reflection.

Rob

 

[JD731]

I’m confused about what your point you are trying to make. We all read the Scriptures with our own preconceived notions. Sometimes these biases are good, other times they can simply be burdensome baggage.

You write of “philosophy” as if it is something to be avoided (am I reading you correctly?).
Philosophy is simply a systematized method of study. To say that you don’t have a philosophy of studying the Scriptures reveals an ignorance of what philosophy really is.

I’ve been reading through a relatively recent Systematic Theology Series, “Foundations of Evangelical Theology”, (edited by John S. Feinberg).
One particular volume in the series (TO KNOW AND LOVE GOD by David K. Clark) is devoted to explaining “how evangelical systematic theology is structured and how this discipline assists believers in understanding God more fully and worshipping him more completely”. The author provides a full volume describing the philosophy of evangelical theology. In light of this, to ask someone to “prove their system” seems fruitless.

The purpose of any Theology is to know God and how he works in our lives.

I presume, as students of our Savior, we all desire to know fully (1 Cor. 13:12) but for the present time we only see a reflection.

Rob

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. The scriptures are very detailed and doctrinal truths are conveyed through words. Our philosophies are present and can be good but must always be subservient to the words of scripture. We must be able to be corrected by the words of scripture. This is why I am against multiple translations in the same language. The scriptures are not ideas, but they are words.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable .......for correction.

 

[37818]

1) Epistemology

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.

 

[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. . . .

I agree insofar as I believe that essential doctrines (do doctrines that help to define our faith, doctrines upon which we build other doctrines)should be present in the text of Scripture.

But even here you have an issue because words are not mere things. Words are symbols for ideas. They are vehicles intended to relate thoughts and events.

That s is where Systematic Theology relies on Biblical Theology. Yet even here there are disagreements.

Take "thou shalt not kill". That is not a very good translation, but if we take those words we would not kill (no killing animals, plants, incest).

Modern translations say "you shall not murder". But that conveys a more narrow idea than us expressed in the Law. Under the Law if you accidentally cause a human death then you are to be killed (unless you make it to a city of refuge and stay there).

So English words are often insufficient in communicating the exact idea the original word communicated.

Then we have word usage. Sometimes words are used in such a way as to communicate something other than is meant by that word itself. Jesus, for example, is not water or bread.

We rarely stand in awe over something we say is awesome. A word study 500 years from now would have many of us amazed at a good pizza.