Biblical Theology & Systematic Theology

[VictorBravo]

I was hoping to receive more feedback on the original post topic but it appears not too many folks are familiar with the discipline of Biblical Theology. Which is interesting because the PB Theological Forum's subheading is "Systematic Theology, Biblical Theology and just plain Theology discussions".

I appreciate your replies and all the others. I'm not sure how I was ungrateful in my replies, maybe you could point me to something I said that was rude or demeaning. I do have questions as to why some think what they think but I would expect the same from other members in regards to my thoughts.

Secondly, my statement about the lack of discussion on this thread is not a dig or punch at anyone. I just thought it was funny, in light of the name of this specific forum, to have over 400 hits and only a handful of folks discussing. From now on I will be sure to check my humor at the door (or log-in screen).

Joshua, sometimes humor doesn’t translate over the web. It was pointed out that there may be other reasons people haven’t posted on the thread. Many of those reasons likely have nothing to do with being unfamiliar with Biblical Theology.

Since you asked, I will try to point out why it seems your replies rubbed wrong: Whether you intended to or not, coupling laughter with the comment assuming that people don’t respond to a request because they are ignorant does not encourage much discourse.

I’m not accusing you of any transgression. I’m hoping in gentleness that you can see how tone matters.

 

[rbcbob]

Bob,

Biblical Theology approaches the Bible with strict regard to the order of the canon and the progression of the text, while Systematic Theology approaches the Bible by focusing in on certain points in the Bible and extracting themes and ignoring the overall composition and canonical formula in order to organize/systematize doctrines and ideas from the Bible.

I was hoping some seminarians would comment on this topic.

Joshua, I have been following your thread and appreciating the sagacious responses that learned men have provided for you. I will not weigh in as I am apparently unqualified.

 

[HoldFast]

I use a systematic approach. I began many years ago with a grounding in Biblical Theology and then moved towards systematics. That said, I remain ever-mindful of the historical organic development of doctrines within Scripture.

Why? It is where I feel my gifts lie as I enjoy synthesizing various doctrines from a large body of content into a coherent whole.

Why do you ask?

AMR

Thanks AMR. I ask because I have recently met some folks who exclusively use a BT approach to the Bible. I was curious if anyone on this forum held to using BT exclusively or used both ST and BT but maybe in different settings or situations.

Since you asked, I will try to point out why it seems your replies rubbed wrong: Whether you intended to or not, coupling laughter with the comment assuming that people don’t respond to a request because they are ignorant does not encourage much discourse.

I’m not accusing you of any transgression. I’m hoping in gentleness that you can see how tone matters.

Thank you for pointing that out. Although my attempt at failed humor was posted after the original post had received over 400 views so I don't think that that comment in particular has discouraged discourse.

Thanks for the heads up.

 

[HoldFast]

Bob,

Biblical Theology approaches the Bible with strict regard to the order of the canon and the progression of the text, while Systematic Theology approaches the Bible by focusing in on certain points in the Bible and extracting themes and ignoring the overall composition and canonical formula in order to organize/systematize doctrines and ideas from the Bible.

I was hoping some seminarians would comment on this topic.

Joshua, I have been following your thread and appreciating the sagacious responses that learned men have provided for you. I will not weigh in as I am apparently unqualified.

Bob, I'm sorry you feel as though you are unqualified because I mentioned I would like "some" seminarians to comment. I did not put a qualifier on the original post or any of my latter ones. I simply stated I hoped "some seminarians" would post. Again, I am blown away by the miscommunication going on here.

I am a brother in Christ. I did not come here to cause trouble but to learn from fellow followers of Christ. If learning is defined as not disagreeing with anyone then count me out. Learning comes from discussions wrapped in agreement and disagreement. I have tried to reconcile the perceived lack of "gratefulness." Can we all move on now?

 

[rbcbob]

Secondly, my statement about the lack of discussion on this thread is not a dig or punch at anyone. I just thought it was funny, in light of the name of this specific forum, to have over 400 hits and only a handful of folks discussing

Joshua, my last post was to give some partial explanation for why there may have been so many viewings compared to the number of postings. There are many qualified and gracious folk on this board who, while pointing out where we are mistaken, can be very helpful to us. Patience brother.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Thanks AMR. I ask because I have recently met some folks who exclusively use a BT approach to the Bible. I was curious if anyone on this forum held to using BT exclusively or used both ST and BT but maybe in different settings or situations.

Well I have seen some folks who post in other forums, in a negative and uninformed manner, to the effect, "Don't tell me about your systematics, I am a Biblicist!".

I have yet to get anyone who adopts this tone to explain what exactly they mean. I understand the term to mean that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and life, but when most folks use this tactic, outside of PB, I generally see them demonstrating a "just me and my Bible" attitude.

I think anyone who exclusively adopts one methodology is going to deprive themselves of the richness of the Scriptures. I can no more practice ST while ignoring BT than a person could practice BT and ignore ST. In fact, I believe that systematic theology is the hand-maiden to Biblical theology.

AMR

 

[timmopussycat]

Thanks AMR. I ask because I have recently met some folks who exclusively use a BT approach to the Bible. I was curious if anyone on this forum held to using BT exclusively or used both ST and BT but maybe in different settings or situations.

Well I have seen some folks who post in other forums, in a negative and uninformed manner, to the effect, "Don't tell me about your systematics, I am a Biblicist!".

I have yet to get anyone who adopts this tone to explain what exactly they mean. I understand the term to mean that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and life, but when most folks use this tactic, outside of PB, I generally see them demonstrating a "just me and my Bible" attitude.

I think anyone who exclusively adopts one methodology is going to deprive themselves of the richness of the Scriptures. I can no more practice ST while ignoring BT than a person could practice BT and ignore ST. In fact, I believe that systematic theology is the hand-maiden to Biblical theology.

Would you also believe that BT is the handmaid to if not the foundation for ST? While deeply appreciating ST myself and I use it to provide the framework for my BT work (as one of my instructors said many moons ago, the history of the church's attempts to understand Scripture are a commentary on Scripture provided by the Holy Spirit that we ignore at our peril), I can never afford to forget that all attempts at a systematic theology must be founded on accurate biblical exegesis and that, when challenged, particular points in all ST's must be capable of being shown to be truly Scriptural teaching instead of being exegetically unfounded.

 

[Bookmeister]

Joshua,
You asked for some seminarians to give input and I did so, but you have ignored what I said. I think both are necessary but I ground ST in BT. I believe there is an overreaction against BT today because there are those who think BT excludes ST. I ground my St in BT, I think this is the proper way it should be. BT looks at theology in the way it is revealed to us in Scripture. We can then synthesize our doctrines making proper use of BT. There are also those who ignore BT because of the abuse it has received over the last century. I hope I have made myself clear, I still think you and I are on the same page, let me know if you agree.

 

[HoldFast]

Joshua,
You asked for some seminarians to give input and I did so, but you have ignored what I said. I think both are necessary but I ground ST in BT. I believe there is an overreaction against BT today because there are those who think BT excludes ST. I ground my St in BT, I think this is the proper way it should be. BT looks at theology in the way it is revealed to us in Scripture. We can then synthesize our doctrines making proper use of BT. There are also those who ignore BT because of the abuse it has received over the last century. I hope I have made myself clear, I still think you and I are on the same page, let me know if you agree.

Alan,

I have not ignored what you said. I read your previous post and thought much of it. Thank you for contributing! I agree with you almost completely except for your statement that ST is "necessary" in approaching and studying the Bible. While I think BT is certainly necessary for ST, Biblical Theology is self sufficient outside of the discipline of ST. I notice in your previous post you said you think BT can stand on it's own but you don't think it should, could you speak more on why the BT approach is not sufficient by itself?

 

[Bookmeister]

I did seem to contradict myself, actually I didn't realize what I was saying. I don't think ST is necessary, but I find it quite valuable.

 

[Wayne]

Alan:

If you will think that position through, I think you'll have to agree on the necessity of ST, since creeds and confessions are at heart systematic expressions of theology.

 

[Bookmeister]

I wonder if we are splitting hairs over the word "necessary," I don't see how creeds and confessions show the "necessity" of ST but I certainly do not want to do without ST, creeds, or confessions. I just think everything should be grounded in BT.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Thanks AMR. I ask because I have recently met some folks who exclusively use a BT approach to the Bible. I was curious if anyone on this forum held to using BT exclusively or used both ST and BT but maybe in different settings or situations.

Well I have seen some folks who post in other forums, in a negative and uninformed manner, to the effect, "Don't tell me about your systematics, I am a Biblicist!".

I have yet to get anyone who adopts this tone to explain what exactly they mean. I understand the term to mean that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and life, but when most folks use this tactic, outside of PB, I generally see them demonstrating a "just me and my Bible" attitude.

I think anyone who exclusively adopts one methodology is going to deprive themselves of the richness of the Scriptures. I can no more practice ST while ignoring BT than a person could practice BT and ignore ST. In fact, I believe that systematic theology is the hand-maiden to Biblical theology.

Would you also believe that BT is the handmaid to if not the foundation for ST? While deeply appreciating ST myself and I use it to provide the framework for my BT work (as one of my instructors said many moons ago, the history of the church's attempts to understand Scripture are a commentary on Scripture provided by the Holy Spirit that we ignore at our peril), I can never afford to forget that all attempts at a systematic theology must be founded on accurate biblical exegesis and that, when challenged, particular points in all ST's must be capable of being shown to be truly Scriptural teaching instead of being exegetically unfounded.

Well, I did say that BT is foundational, since ST is the handmaiden to BT. I think your statement "BT is the handmaiden to..." has confused the term, "handmaiden", no? For you assert in that statement that BT is foundational to ST, which is what I have also stated. Hence, we appear to be in violent agreement once you understand the term "handmaiden".

AMR

 

[timmopussycat]

Just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly.

 

[py3ak]

Helm's Deep: Analysis 3 - Systematic and Biblical Theology

 

[Reformed Rush]

One cannot claim to be "Confessional" and deny ST at the same time.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

What approach (Biblical Theology or Systematic Theology) do you use in your study of the Bible and why?

Yes.

For a great example of one who interweaves both, try Economy of the Covenants by Herman Witsius

---------- Post added at 03:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:50 PM ----------

You can be saved by believing the teaching of Scripture, even if you haven't read the Shorter Catechism. However, you still have to somehow comprehend the doctrines of specific passages of Scripture in light of the whole teaching of the Bible as you comprehend it. Therefore at some level even then you are "systematizing", however imperfectly.