Theology: The bible and systems

[Yeshua1]

So you would see it as being each individual writer of the NT books would have his "individual theology", and by unifing the whole of them, would have the total NT theology for the Church?

 

[Greektim]

So you would see it as being each individual writer of the NT books would have his "individual theology", and by unifing the whole of them, would have the total NT theology for the Church?

No... I am saying that each writer has a theological agenda that he is trying to convey. Deciphering that is part of the role of biblical theology. Unifying them into the story it tells is biblical theology. Categorizing teachings within each is systematic theology.

 

[Yeshua1]

But isn't say the book of romans really Gods explanation pretty much all of NT theology?

 

[Greektim]

But isn't say the book of romans really Gods explanation pretty much all of NT theology?

Goodness gracious no!!! That is a systematic theological perspective which I loathe. Paul speaks on things not in the gospel accounts (where is Jesus' teaching on justification, present or future, by faith and etc.?). I would call the 4 accounts of the gospel the explanation of theology, NT & OT.

 

[Yeshua1]

Goodness gracious no!!! That is a systematic theological perspective which I loathe. Paul speaks on things not in the gospel accounts (where is Jesus' teaching on justification, present or future, by faith and etc.?). I would call the 4 accounts of the gospel the explanation of theology, NT & OT.

But wouldn't paul speak to those issues as he had the revelations granted him by christ regarding those deeper spiritual things?

Wouldn;t a proper study of Romans give one a full rounded view of essential all doctrines pertaining to us now?

 

[Greektim]

But wouldn't paul speak to those issues as he had the revelations granted him by christ regarding those deeper spiritual things?

Wouldn;t a proper study of Romans give one a full rounded view of essential all doctrines pertaining to us now?

No... I believe things like the doctrine of justification by faith is a subset of the theology set forth in the NT. This is also where I do interact with systematic theology in that it is a subset of salvation and not the gospel per se.

A proper study of Romans would give one a full rounded view of Pauline doctrine. But it is not all comprehensive by any means.

 

[Yeshua1]

No... I believe things like the doctrine of justification by faith is a subset of the theology set forth in the NT. This is also where I do interact with systematic theology in that it is a subset of salvation and not the gospel per se.

A proper study of Romans would give one a full rounded view of Pauline doctrine. But it is not all comprehensive by any means.

But isn't pauline Theology really the core of all NT Theology, as he was given the greatest of the revelation from God?

 

[Greektim]

But isn't pauline Theology really the core of all NT Theology, as he was given the greatest of the revelation from God?

Where is it said he was given the greatest revelation from God? He didn't even write the majority of the NT. Luke did! And if you analyze his theology in Luke-Acts, you come away with a great understanding of the metanarrative or redemptive-historical view of the OT and its connection with the NT. Thus you have a "core of all NT Theology" there in Luke-Acts. As I said, I lean toward a gospel account priority connecting the OT and NT as well as bringing to clarity what the OT was about and where the NT is going - the kingdom of God and the restoration of creation.

As a side note, NT Wright makes a good point that if the gospel accounts became the starting place for our NT theology instead of Paul, we probably would not have the over-reactionary debacle of the New perspective issue either. Justification would be in its rightful place, a subset of salvation and not the essence of the gospel.

 

[Yeshua1]

Where is it said he was given the greatest revelation from God? He didn't even write the majority of the NT. Luke did! And if you analyze his theology in Luke-Acts, you come away with a great understanding of the metanarrative or redemptive-historical view of the OT and its connection with the NT. Thus you have a "core of all NT Theology" there in Luke-Acts. As I said, I lean toward a gospel account priority connecting the OT and NT as well as bringing to clarity what the OT was about and where the NT is going - the kingdom of God and the restoration of creation.

Paul has "surpassing greatness of the revelations", as the Lord gave to Him the deep and hidden things that was not fully fleshed out in the Gospels or other Epistles!

Take away the letters of paul, and we would have a hard time seeing whatthe reformation was all about., as there probably would not even had been one!

And I tend to see the main message of the NT as being the Lord will bring all things back to full rrestoration as a general item, but specifically that he will restore back His peoples after His own name for all eternity to glorify Him!

As a side note, NT Wright makes a good point that if the gospel accounts became the starting place for our NT theology instead of Paul, we probably would not have the over-reactionary debacle of the New perspective issue either. Justification would be in its rightful place, a subset of salvation and not the essence of the gospel.

Justification/atonement is the very CORE and HEART though of the Gospel, for the death of Christ, is the very basis that all other points build upon!

 

[Greektim]

Justification/atonement is the very CORE and HEART though of the Gospel, for the death of Christ, is the very basis that all other points build upon!

So says a systematic theology. Yet it was only a topic of revelation later on in Pauline writings. But his concept of the gospel, as well as the entire canonical concept of the gospel, is God's kingdom, God's blessing the nations, and God restoring creation (all of which are Pauline as well). To reduce the gospel to justification or atonement is to miss the bigger picture as well as center it on man rather than all of God's creation. This is where I find much greater value in biblical theology, because it lends the story of Scripture to bear out a comprehensive gospel that covers the gambit and not reduce it to a reductionist level of post-reformation/post-enlightenment theology.

 

[jonathanD]

Any Sailhammerites in here? I haven't read much of him, but others on staff seem to really appreciate his work.

 

[Greektim]

Any Sailhammerites in here? I haven't read much of him, but others on staff seem to really appreciate his work.

Pick me! I actually haven't read all of his stuff, but I know much of what he represents through other Sailhamerites. I plan on reading his 2 major works on Torah this fall (busy summer): Pentateuch as Narrative and The Meaning of the Pentateuch.

 

[Yeshua1]

Pick me! I actually haven't read all of his stuff, but I know much of what he represents through other Sailhamerites. I plan on reading his 2 major works on Torah this fall (busy summer): Pentateuch as Narrative and The Meaning of the Pentateuch.

What would be main difference between how a systematic theologian and a biblical one view Genesis and the Pentateuch then?

 

[Greektim]

What would be main difference between how a systematic theologian and a biblical one view Genesis and the Pentateuch then?

I'll demonstrate w/ a question.

What doctrine are you primarily taught in Genesis 3?

 

[Yeshua1]

I'll demonstrate w/ a question.

What doctrine are you primarily taught in Genesis 3?

man is a sinner now, and God will send forth a messiah to save him....

 

[Greektim]

man is a sinner now, and God will send forth a messiah to save him....

Now how much of that is read in from a synchronic understanding of the rest of the canon? Or to put it another way, how much of that is based on systematic theology?

The Israelite community probably did not go straight away to see this as the foundation for the "fall" of man. It served primarily to demonstrate the curse of disobeying God's law (removed from the "land" and presence of God). If we restrict this passage to the extent of revelation that was available at the time (Torah was pretty much it), then that is the main teaching of Gen. 1-3. God is the king and to be obeyed. This theme continues throughout Genesis and the rest of Torah, especially with Israel entering into covenant with YHWH. The formulation of that covenant, a vassal treaty, even demonstrates the king-to-subject relationship God had with Israel. Adam and Even serve to demonstrate that relationship as well.

The difference in this case is a diachronic unfolding of revelation rather than a synchronic approach. It is easy to identify the serpent as Satan based on later revelation, but how much of that was understood by the first community of saints? What lesson were they intended to learn? How does it relate to the Exodus event which they had just experienced and the covenant they had just entered?

 

[Yeshua1]

Now how much of that is read in from a synchronic understanding of the rest of the canon? Or to put it another way, how much of that is based on systematic theology?

The Israelite community probably did not go straight away to see this as the foundation for the "fall" of man. It served primarily to demonstrate the curse of disobeying God's law (removed from the "land" and presence of God). If we restrict this passage to the extent of revelation that was available at the time (Torah was pretty much it), then that is the main teaching of Gen. 1-3. God is the king and to be obeyed. This theme continues throughout Genesis and the rest of Torah, especially with Israel entering into covenant with YHWH. The formulation of that covenant, a vassal treaty, even demonstrates the king-to-subject relationship God had with Israel. Adam and Even serve to demonstrate that relationship as well.

The difference in this case is a diachronic unfolding of revelation rather than a synchronic approach. It is easy to identify the serpent as Satan based on later revelation, but how much of that was understood by the first community of saints? What lesson were they intended to learn? How does it relate to the Exodus event which they had just experienced and the covenant they had just entered?

except that we must read the bible from the perspective of a progressive revealtion unfolding from, so genesis would be seen in the light of the fuller revelation given by god to paul in how to interprete that book!

 

[Greektim]

except that we must read the bible from the perspective of a progressive revealtion unfolding from, so genesis would be seen in the light of the fuller revelation given by god to paul in how to interprete that book!

Then I will acquiesce and ask you to prove so with any Scripture, systematic approach or otherwise.

But this demonstrates my point. You are so committed to reading fuller revelation back. I'm not opposed to that. In fact, I am for that to a certain extent. But you do it to the point that you are missing some very important themes that develop the rest of the canon. I would say you are interposing small little features and missing the bigger picture. This is a big problem w/ systematic theology. Biblical theology will help you grasp the grander picture as you see these themes develop. But you can't even see themes develop at the beginning because you are only look at the end and how it can influence the beginning. Genesis 1-12 is probably the most vital portion of Scripture to build a biblical theology. Themes like kingdom, covenant, temple-presence, and etc. are all set at the beginning. We see these themes develop. If you miss this, then even reading the "fall" back into Gen. 3 will not be helpful in gaining a holistic understanding of Scripture.

That... and your interpretation was very likely never on the mind of Moses nor his original audience. Interpret the OT as Christian Scriptures. But do it reasonably realizing that there is more there. The text is a multi-layered entity. It has to be read in multiple ways to gain all of its many meanings.

 

[jonathanD]

I'm about half-way through JS's OT Theology. It seems that much of what he is reacting to is not something that I've encountered in my evangelical education. Granted, I'm a younger guy. It's interesting for sure.

 

[Yeshua1]

Then I will acquiesce and ask you to prove so with any Scripture, systematic approach or otherwise.

But this demonstrates my point. You are so committed to reading fuller revelation back. I'm not opposed to that. In fact, I am for that to a certain extent. But you do it to the point that you are missing some very important themes that develop the rest of the canon. I would say you are interposing small little features and missing the bigger picture. This is a big problem w/ systematic theology. Biblical theology will help you grasp the grander picture as you see these themes develop. But you can't even see themes develop at the beginning because you are only look at the end and how it can influence the beginning. Genesis 1-12 is probably the most vital portion of Scripture to build a biblical theology. Themes like kingdom, covenant, temple-presence, and etc. are all set at the beginning. We see these themes develop. If you miss this, then even reading the "fall" back into Gen. 3 will not be helpful in gaining a holistic understanding of Scripture.

That... and your interpretation was very likely never on the mind of Moses nor his original audience. Interpret the OT as Christian Scriptures. But do it reasonably realizing that there is more there. The text is a multi-layered entity. It has to be read in multiple ways to gain all of its many meanings.

because, due to the concept of progressive revelation though, and from the perspective of Christ throughout the OT...

have to read the accounts back in from present understanding!