Thread: Emphases of scripture

Would people agree or disagree with the following: Not only should we be able to defend our doctrines and practices from scripture, but the overall emphasis of our doctrines and lives should reflect the scriptural emphases. Examples:
1. While an ethic that demands simple living along with generosity to the poor is scripturally defensible, it should not be the sole focus of our lives to the exclusion of other ethical principles. Some Hutterite/Amish groups are a case in point.
2. While spiritual warfare and possibly also the existence of territorial spirits are scriptural principles, making this the sole focus of one's prayer life and ministry (the new apostles, for example) is not legitimate.
3. While systematic theology may be helpful, one should retain the scriptural focus that the essence of covenant being a relationship with the person of God, revealed in the Hebrew thought forms of stories.

I tentatively think this may be right but am not sure and am open to correction.

I think Vern Poythress wrote a book about differing emphases called Symphonic Theology, I remember it being very good. We all get out of wack I think and I do think that a "Group Think" sometimes develops if we only gather in groups that all read the same people, etc...

I recently heard Al Martin say, rather forcefully, but very well, that we must never let one aspect of Biblical truth drive out another. The Bible is not in tension; the Holy Spirit has no internal issues. It is we who have a hard time holding together all of Biblical truth in all of its aspects and forms at one and the same time.

Sister Leslie,

I'm not sure what you mean by #3. Could you please elaborate?

In Christ,
Andrew

Originally Posted by christianyouth

Sister Leslie,

I'm not sure what you mean by #3. Could you please elaborate?

In Christ,
Andrew

My number three point is hard to express—and it’s tentative on my part. Moreover, I’m reluctant to express it for fear someone will think me a heretic and kick me off the board. I was warned before when someone understood a post to say what I never intended it to say and it was impossible to register a reply to the warning.

To express my understanding by analogy: The purpose of the Bible and the incarnation is to bring us into relationship with God. It’s as if God is inviting us to move into a house with Him and incorporate into the family that He has provided for us. The Bible describes this house and family for us. This is the raw data, the revelation received, in the form that God chose to reveal Himself. We see how He related to the patriarchs, prophets, and NT saints; on this basis we interpret His providence in our own histories and lives and apply His law to our ethical dilemmas, learning to love Him and live by His law.

Systematic theology is a human endeavor. It’s as if some of the people living in this house crawl around on hands and knees retroactively creating a blueprint of the structure. “There must be a beam under here because the nails are all in a row,” and the like. “One evidence that the Spirit is a distinct person is that one cannot grieve an impersonal force.”

God never gave us the blueprint. The blueprint must be logically deduced by a careful inspection of the house/Bible. The scriptures are the data behind the blueprint but they are not the blueprint itself. The blueprint may be true and valid, but it’s not inspired. It’s not the same as living and moving within the house, in relationship to the Owner and within the family, incorporating the ethics of the home in our lives, growing to look a wee bit more like the family of God. Some of the past and current Ethiopian saints never heard of the concept of systematic theology, yet few of us will ever attain their levels of godliness. They lived in the house without realizing that there was a blueprint.

I realize full well that arguing by analogy is not valid and I’m not at all arguing that this view is correct. It’s just my current understanding that the scriptural emphasis is relational, not logical and not systematic theological and thus the emphasis of our lives and thinking should reflect this. It was at the point of grasping this that my spiritual life took a turn for the better. The guy who taught me this is a heretic on other issues; my impression is that on this he is correct but I’m open to discussion.

Leslie, look for threads on systematic theology versus Biblical theology...I think we just had one. I think the movement towards Biblical theology echoes much of what you say.

Systematic theology is a human endeavor. It’s as if some of the people living in this house crawl around on hands and knees retroactively creating a blueprint of the structure. “There must be a beam under here because the nails are all in a row,” and the like. “One evidence that the Spirit is a distinct person is that one cannot grieve an impersonal force.”

God never gave us the blueprint. The blueprint must be logically deduced by a careful inspection of the house/Bible. The scriptures are the data behind the blueprint

Having taken a class on "Christian thought," I am aware there are different ways theologians approach biblical intepretation.

Systematic theology (e.g. the Westminster Confession) is based on Scripture being intepreted by the whole of Scripture. I find it especially powerful that each statement and proposition is documented with "Scripture proofs."

It is based on what theologians call the doctrine of "perspecuity"- that God has made His Word clear, understandable. He intends it to be so.

I don't think it's quite right to say we are left to figure out a "blueprint."

In the Reformed understanding, God the Holy Spirit illuminates our understanding. As we read, study, and meditate upon God's Word, in cooperation with the eternal purposes of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit aids us in understanding God through His Word. John Calvin, who is sometimes referred to as "the theologian of the Holy Spirit" helped bring this to the forefront of the Church's understanding.

It was helpful for me to read Dr RC Sproul's book, "What is Reformed Theology?" to get an overview of all this.

Originally Posted by Leslie

Originally Posted by christianyouth

Sister Leslie,

I'm not sure what you mean by #3. Could you please elaborate?

In Christ,
Andrew

My number three point is hard to express—and it’s tentative on my part. Moreover, I’m reluctant to express it for fear someone will think me a heretic and kick me off the board. I was warned before when someone understood a post to say what I never intended it to say and it was impossible to register a reply to the warning.

To express my understanding by analogy: The purpose of the Bible and the incarnation is to bring us into relationship with God. It’s as if God is inviting us to move into a house with Him and incorporate into the family that He has provided for us. The Bible describes this house and family for us. This is the raw data, the revelation received, in the form that God chose to reveal Himself. We see how He related to the patriarchs, prophets, and NT saints; on this basis we interpret His providence in our own histories and lives and apply His law to our ethical dilemmas, learning to love Him and live by His law.

Systematic theology is a human endeavor. It’s as if some of the people living in this house crawl around on hands and knees retroactively creating a blueprint of the structure. “There must be a beam under here because the nails are all in a row,” and the like. “One evidence that the Spirit is a distinct person is that one cannot grieve an impersonal force.”

God never gave us the blueprint. The blueprint must be logically deduced by a careful inspection of the house/Bible. The scriptures are the data behind the blueprint but they are not the blueprint itself. The blueprint may be true and valid, but it’s not inspired. It’s not the same as living and moving within the house, in relationship to the Owner and within the family, incorporating the ethics of the home in our lives, growing to look a wee bit more like the family of God. Some of the past and current Ethiopian saints never heard of the concept of systematic theology, yet few of us will ever attain their levels of godliness. They lived in the house without realizing that there was a blueprint.

I realize full well that arguing by analogy is not valid and I’m not at all arguing that this view is correct. It’s just my current understanding that the scriptural emphasis is relational, not logical and not systematic theological and thus the emphasis of our lives and thinking should reflect this. It was at the point of grasping this that my spiritual life took a turn for the better. The guy who taught me this is a heretic on other issues; my impression is that on this he is correct but I’m open to discussion.

Sister Leslie,

I understand what you are saying now, I think. But I wonder if we have we have different things in mind when we are speaking about systematic theology. When I think of valid systematic, I just think, like, "What does all of the Bible say on the subject of prayer?". That's a valid example of using systematics that will actually help this relational aspect to Christianity that you are talking about.

But I think we've both seen invalid systematics. IE, Here are two truths, God's sovereignty and man's responsibility laid out side by side, now here is how I RECONCILE them. I think that's an invalid systematic. It's asking questions that the Bible doesn't answer. Another example would be how do we understand God's hatred for all sinners mixed with his love for all sinners? I don't understand it, and I don't think the Bible gives us the information to understand it. I think trying to reconcile those two is also an invalid systematic.

Sister Leslie, Do you think it's fair to say that you are saying that we are meant to have knowledge OF God, in a relational sense, and not just knowledge ABOUT Him?

In Christ,
Andrew

Originally Posted by christianyouth

Originally Posted by Leslie

Originally Posted by christianyouth

Sister Leslie,

I'm not sure what you mean by #3. Could you please elaborate?

In Christ,
Andrew

My number three point is hard to express—and it’s tentative on my part. Moreover, I’m reluctant to express it for fear someone will think me a heretic and kick me off the board. I was warned before when someone understood a post to say what I never intended it to say and it was impossible to register a reply to the warning.

To express my understanding by analogy: The purpose of the Bible and the incarnation is to bring us into relationship with God. It’s as if God is inviting us to move into a house with Him and incorporate into the family that He has provided for us. The Bible describes this house and family for us. This is the raw data, the revelation received, in the form that God chose to reveal Himself. We see how He related to the patriarchs, prophets, and NT saints; on this basis we interpret His providence in our own histories and lives and apply His law to our ethical dilemmas, learning to love Him and live by His law.

Systematic theology is a human endeavor. It’s as if some of the people living in this house crawl around on hands and knees retroactively creating a blueprint of the structure. “There must be a beam under here because the nails are all in a row,” and the like. “One evidence that the Spirit is a distinct person is that one cannot grieve an impersonal force.”

God never gave us the blueprint. The blueprint must be logically deduced by a careful inspection of the house/Bible. The scriptures are the data behind the blueprint but they are not the blueprint itself. The blueprint may be true and valid, but it’s not inspired. It’s not the same as living and moving within the house, in relationship to the Owner and within the family, incorporating the ethics of the home in our lives, growing to look a wee bit more like the family of God. Some of the past and current Ethiopian saints never heard of the concept of systematic theology, yet few of us will ever attain their levels of godliness. They lived in the house without realizing that there was a blueprint.

I realize full well that arguing by analogy is not valid and I’m not at all arguing that this view is correct. It’s just my current understanding that the scriptural emphasis is relational, not logical and not systematic theological and thus the emphasis of our lives and thinking should reflect this. It was at the point of grasping this that my spiritual life took a turn for the better. The guy who taught me this is a heretic on other issues; my impression is that on this he is correct but I’m open to discussion.

Sister Leslie,

I understand what you are saying now, I think. But I wonder if we have we have different things in mind when we are speaking about systematic theology. When I think of valid systematic, I just think, like, "What does all of the Bible say on the subject of prayer?". That's a valid example of using systematics that will actually help this relational aspect to Christianity that you are talking about.

But I think we've both seen invalid systematics. IE, Here are two truths, God's sovereignty and man's responsibility laid out side by side, now here is how I RECONCILE them. I think that's an invalid systematic. It's asking questions that the Bible doesn't answer. Another example would be how do we understand God's hatred for all sinners mixed with his love for all sinners? I don't understand it, and I don't think the Bible gives us the information to understand it. I think trying to reconcile those two is also an invalid systematic.

Sister Leslie, Do you think it's fair to say that you are saying that we are meant to have knowledge OF God, in a relational sense, and not just knowledge ABOUT Him?

In Christ,
Andrew

Your question in your last paragraph is exactly what I'm trying to say.

I don't think that systematic theology is invalid, it's just that it's not where a relationship with God is at. One can have the correct systematics without the relationship and one can have the relationship without the systematics. However, one probably cannot have the relationship with incorrect systematics, at least not incorrect on significant points.

Another analogy would be getting to know a person. One knows another person, be that human or divine, by spending time interacting, by reading what he wrote, by discussing his character and nature by means of stories. One does not know another person by analyzing the nucleotide sequence of his DNA (in the case of humans) or by precise definitions and logical cubbyholes for various concepts.

If this is the point of view of Biblical Theology, my appetite is whetted. I'll pursue it.

Sister Leslie,

This is something that J.I. Packer talks about in Knowing God, a really good book. I'm going to quote a small section of it since he says what I want to say much better than I could.

And this must be our attitude too. Our aim in studying the Godhead must be to know God Himself the better. Our concern must be to enlarge our acquaintance, not simply with the doctrine of God's attributes, but with the living God who attributes they are. As he is the subject of our study, and our helper in it, so He must Himself be the end of it. We must seek, in studying God, to be led to God. It was for this purpose that revelation was given, and it is to this use that we must put it.

(emphasis added is mine)

And then Packer tells us how we can turn our theoretical knowledge into relational, actual knowledge.

How are we to do this? How can we turn our knowledge about God into knowledge of God? The rule for doing this is demanding. It is simple. It is that we turn each truth that we learn about God into matter for meditation before God, leading to prayer and praise to God

And then he gives a great definition of what meditation is :

Meditation is the activity of calling to mind, and thinking over, and dwelling on, and applying to oneself, that various things that one knows about the works and ways and purposes and promises of God. It is an activity of holy thought, consciously performed in the presence of God, under the eye of God, by the help of God, as a means of communion with God. Its purpose is to clear one's mental and spiritual vision of God,and to let His truth make its full and proper impact on one's mind and heart.

I think he is right. We don't need to give up systematics, but we have to realize that knowledge about God isn't an end in itself. It's a means to communion with God, that relational aspect that you were talking about.

Thanks for the great discussion. I always need these reminders.

In Christ,
Andrew

Untitled Document
^
A great article by M.L. Jones that talks about this subject. It's an exposition of 1 Corinthians 8:1-3.

One does not know another person by analyzing the nucleotide sequence of his DNA (in the case of humans) or by precise definitions and logical cubbyholes for various concepts.

If I'm understanding correctly, you may be distinguishing between a "head knowledge" and a "heart knowledge" of God.

It would be easy to say, we should know God from the heart, not the head (like learning the systematic theology of the Westminster Confession) because the heart is more important.

But this is not the whole story.

It is possible to be aware of and assent to the fact of Jesus Christ being Lord but not be redeemed (a Christian). Scripture says there are many people like this. Here in the USA, surveys still show 90% of all the people think they are Christians. Not possible, or we would have a much different society and visible church. So, this is very real (not knowing God from the heart even though there is head knowledge).

However, when God saves a sinner, He changes that person by miraculously regenerating Him. Since God has made man an integrated being consisting of a mind, will, emotions, body and spirit, every aspect of man's being is effected in "knowing God." That includes the mind. Not only the mind, but it includes it. So we do get to know Him, partly through our minds because He has also made us "rational" beings.

God has ordained not only the ends (whether He redeems us from our sin) but the means. Primarily we get to know Him through the Word, prayer and the sacraments. He commands us to know Him as He has revealed Himself in Scripture, not as we imagine Him to be. In fact, He says it is great sin to worship Him according to our own imaginations. Much of the world does that and God's wrath is coming upon that.

Where did I learn most of these things about God? First from Scripture, then from systematic theology (the Westminster Confession of Faith, every single proposition documented by Scripture "proofs."). The Holy Spirit bears witness to the truth of them and this all part of "knowing" God.

Hope this is helpful.