Introduction to Theological Study

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

I. The Meaning of Systematic "Theology"
<p>
- "Systematic" comes from the Greek 'sunistano' meaning, "to stand together", "to organize"
- "Theology" (<font face="symbol">qeos logos</font> 1 Peter 4:11) may be simply considered as the science of God. It has been defined in various ways for example:

"Theology is a science that is concerned with both the Infinite and the Finite, with both God and the Universe. The material, therefore, which it includes is vaster than that of any other science. It is also the most necessary of all the sciences." - Dr. W.G.T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol 1, p 16

"Christian theology may be defined in two ways: in a broad sense it is the whole scope of Christian doctrine, revealed in the scriptures; in a narrow sense it is the christian doctrine of God - Theology Proper." - Dr. F.H. Barackman, Practical Christian Theology, p.2.

". . . that discipline which strives to give a coherent statement of the doctines of the Christian faith, based primarily upon he scriptures, placed in the context of culture in general, worded in a contemporary idiom, and related to issues of life." - Dr. Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, p. 21.

". . . to descibe the whole science of God's being and nature, and relations to the creature." - Dr. Robert L. Dabney, Systmatic Theology, p. 5.

"Systematic Theology may be defined as the collecting, scientifically arranging, comparing, exhibiting and defending of all facts from any and every source concerning God and his works." - L.S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, p. 6.

Dr. Alva Hovey defines Christian Theology as, "The science of the Christian religion, as the science which ascertians, justifies and systematizes all attainable truth concerning God and His relation, through Jesus Christ, to the universe and especially to mankind." - Manual of Christian Theology, p 3.

1 Peter 4:11 - If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

II. Types of Theology

A. Exegetical Theology: This sort of theology is concerned withthe study and understanding of the biblical text. The languages, culture, archaeology and hermaneutics of the Bible are of key interest.

B. Biblical Thelogy: this kind of theology focuses attention on the revelation of God and His will relative to various time periods in either or both Testaments, i.e. the Mosaic era, the time ofthe kings, or the collective revelation given through Paul, John, Luke, etc. biblical Theology is foundational to Systematic Theology.

C. Polemic Theology: is involved with exposing and refuting false theological views, such as may be held by cults, non-christian religions and sometimes "erring brethren in Christ."

D. Historical Theology: includes the history of the church, of missions, of doctrinal thought and of the rise of Christianity. Various church creeds and confesions are of key importance.

E. Systematic Theology: This is the area of study before us in which all that God revealed on any given topic (i.e. sin, Christ, etc.) in all the varous Bible books is compiled in an orderly and thorough manner. Systematic Theology has been divided into many different sections by various theologians, but usually into the folowing: Bibliology, Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology, Angelogy, Anthropology, Hamartiology, Soteriology, Ecclesiology, and Eschatology. Apologetics and ethics are also sometimes considered under this heading. Dogmatic Theology (the expression of beliefs and doctrines[dogmas]) is usually considered under the topic of Systematic Theology today.

F. Practical Theology: Practical Theology seks to take the fruit of study from other theolgical systems and relate it to life and ministry. This field of study includes Christian Education, Homiletics, local church administration, worship, missions and pastoral theology.

G. Liberation Theology: is a current termwhich describes a movement which seks to unite theology, sociology and political concerns. It is not actually a school of theological theory. It is generall associated wit Roman Catholics, especially in a Latin American context.

H. Other fields of Theology are: New Testament, Old Testament, Pauline, Johannine, Petrine, Lucan, Speculative and Natural.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

III. The Goals of Systematic Theology

A. To reconize what God has declared on Specific themes in the Bible.

B. To percieve the realtionships between revealed facts and the corresponding principles.

C. To compile in order what God revealed regarding specific doctrinal themes. Our goal in studing this branch of Theology is to know these facts and to relate them to other believers in a local church or mission-field context.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

IV. Reasons Why Systematic Theology is needed Today

A. Christians need to know more than facts . . they need to know the inter-relations of those facts. a unified body of truth is vital to godly living and witness.

B. A systematization of Biblical truth is a major help in understanding the over-all message of the Bible and the over-all persepctive of specific doctrines.

C. A thorough collection of Bible Teaching on specific toics will greatly assist the believer in presenting answers to serious questions proposed by the world . . . i.e. creation/evolution etc.

D. Systematic Theology provides a major help in living a life of true spirituality. It will provide the Chrisian with teaching, motivation and correction.

E. It is vital to minstry for the Lord.

F. It is essential to missionary activity and soul winning.

G. It enables believers to give an apologetic for Christianity.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

V. The Basis of Theological Study
There are two basic foundations upon which Theology rests:

A. The Scriptures: The scriptures provide the overwhleming foundation for Scriptural truth. This excludes "Continuing progressive revelation" by the false prophets who have leaved through out the history of the church.
<FONT SIZE="-1">*No progressive revelation
*once the door to progressive revelation is closed it is hard to close</font>

B. Nature: God has been pleased to reveal something of himself through the testimony of His creation. By creation man may know that God exists. This basis of theological study is minor by comparison with the scriptures.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

VI. Tools to Assist the Student of Theology

A. A Clear conviction of the inspiration, authority, suffiency and reliability fthe complete Word of God.

B. A recognition of Methods:
1. deduction: the development of a theme into details of expression
2. induction: the asmebling of all statments bearing one specific theme into one exahustive statement.

C. Great care of details concerning the meaning of specific words used in the original languages.

D. Acknowledge finite, human, personal limitations.

E. Holy Spirit illumination . . . necessary and available.

F. Active Faith. see Hebrew 11:3

G. Careful and diligent study.

H. Commitment to note and proclain every detail.

I. Application of correct principles of hermeneutics.


*Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

VII. Current Attitudes Toward Biblical Theology

A. Rationalism

1. Hyper-rationalism: denial of any divine revelation . . . in the bible or in nature. This is the theological stance of the atheist.

2. Moderate Rationalism: recognizes revelation, but limits it to whatever portion of Scripture is deemed by man to be "revelation." Thisis the theological position taken by "liberlas" today.

B. Mysticism

1. Pseudo-mysticism: This school of tought olds various views of the Bible, but its key feature is continuing revelation . . . usually in the form of aditional "inspired" literature and/or continuing revelation to special people, i.e. present day prophets. This attitude is held by Mormonisn, spritism, New Thought, Christianscience, Swedenborgianism, Seveth Day Adventist and the Quakers. Extreme Mysticism is known as Quietism.

2. True mysticism: teaches that the Holy Spirit indwels all true believers, and that He may provide ilumination concerning the Written Wordof God . . Which was given "once for all" (Jude 3).

C. Romanism

The Roman Catholic Church has long ago taken the position that it alone had the right to interpret Scripture. Tradition has been added to Scripture as authoritative directives for life and belief. Other reigious systems have taken similar doctrinal positions.


*Jude 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

 

[Andreina]

do you need a hug?

Halo

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

do you need a hug?

Halo

I have no objections to one of those

 

[daedalos]

Todd,

As always, I enjoy reading your theological manifestos.
Below are some thoughts concerning one aspect of your post. Respond or not as you wish.

VII. Current Attitudes Toward Biblical Theology

C. Romanism

The Roman Catholic Church has long ago taken the position that it alone had the right to interpret Scripture. Tradition has been added to Scripture as authoritative directives for life and belief. Other reigious systems have taken similar doctrinal positions.

Yes, in the Roman Catholic Church, and in the various eastern orthodox and Anglican churches as well, tradition is considered authoritative and therefore a source for theological truth. It seems to me that the method for theological studies you have layed out, and, in fact, your whole theological system as you have been occasionally publishing it here, is just as much dependent on tradition as is the Roman approach. What you have been presenting for the Lit community is an expression of a theological tradition of biblical interpretation and dogma. You are constantly quoting from other theologians and fashioning a catena of authorities for your positions. You are, in a sense, harkening to a tradition to confirm that your approach is correct.

You might be interested to know that this approach is a very medieval and Catholic thing to do. There was a whole genre of theological works from the early and medieval church that used the cut and paste method: proposing a theological idea and then quoting from various authorities to prove it as true. Thus relying on tradition.

I do not intend this as an attack, but I am simply wondering how you would respond if I were to say that you also rely on tradition as a source for your theology. Despite what Protestants have historically said and what current evangelicals say, and I am speaking as one who grew up in this theological world, it is not purely sola scriptura. It seems to me that tradition has always been an authoritative source for theology even among those who deny it.

all the best,

daedalos

 

[daedalos]

do you need a hug?

Halo

It is a beautiful Saturday afternoon where I am.

Hugs all around

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Todd,

As always, I enjoy reading your theological manifestos.
Below are some thoughts concerning one aspect of your post. Respond or not as you wish.

Yes, in the Roman Catholic Church, and in the various eastern orthodox and Anglican churches as well, tradition is considered authoritative and therefore a source for theological truth. It seems to me that the method for theological studies you have layed out, and, in fact, your whole theological system as you have been occasionally publishing it here, is just as much dependent on tradition as is the Roman approach. What you have been presenting for the Lit community is an expression of a theological tradition of biblical interpretation and dogma. You are constantly quoting from other theologians and fashioning a catena of authorities for your positions. You are, in a sense, harkening to a tradition to confirm that your approach is correct.

You might be interested to know that this approach is a very medieval and Catholic thing to do. There was a whole genre of theological works from the early and medieval church that used the cut and paste method: proposing a theological idea and then quoting from various authorities to prove it as true. Thus relying on tradition.

I do not intend this as an attack, but I am simply wondering how you would respond if I were to say that you also rely on tradition as a source for your theology. Despite what Protestants have historically said and what current evangelicals say, and I am speaking as one who grew up in this theological world, it is not purely sola scriptura. It seems to me that tradition has always been an authoritative source for theology even among those who deny it.

all the best,

daedalos

I do not take your notations as an attack in any sort.

I claim, well I tried to anyways that what I am posting is right for me.

I use quotes, well I try to, as some afterthought on the situation. In no way was I trying to insinuate that what I believe is because those i quote said it is so, but it appears i have insinuated that un apparant.

I think the issue with romanism I was trying to ditinguish is how for ages it was only the priest and popes even allowed to read the scriptures, let alone interpret what they meant, the common congreation member wasnt even allowed to read the bible let alone interpretwhat they thought it meant.

whereas the protestants, everyone reads it and inteprets it , hence the multitude of protestant denoms as opposed to one Romanish denom.

I try to assert a position, site the scriptures for that and tehn site quotes that fall into that line, not always do I succed in that pattern though.

thank you very much for your insight, I am glad you enjoy them, i look forward to you feedback

 

[Wolf_Song]

( bump for reading this thread at a more convenient time )

 

[RisiaSkye]

As always, an interesting read, Todd.
You know I back you in spirit, even if we disagree as to methodology and your conviction in the singularity of paths to enlgihtenment.

Be well, darlin'.

 

[phrodeau]

I think the issue with romanism I was trying to ditinguish is how for ages it was only the priest and popes even allowed to read the scriptures, let alone interpret what they meant, the common congreation member wasnt even allowed to read the bible let alone interpretwhat they thought it meant.

I'd like to know what ages this was true for. During the so-called Dark Ages it's true that literacy was low and bibles were rare, but that doesn't mean people weren't allowed to read them. Those with a strong interest in religious matters became monks and nuns, their literacy was encouraged and books were made accessible to them.

The two available translations of the time, Vetus Itala and Vulgate, were both in Latin. It was considered improper, not to mention impractical, to translate into common languages. But that does not mean ordinary people couldn't learn Latin and follow along.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

I'd like to know what ages this was true for. During the so-called Dark Ages it's true that literacy was low and bibles were rare, but that doesn't mean people weren't allowed to read them. Those with a strong interest in religious matters became monks and nuns, their literacy was encouraged and books were made accessible to them.

The two available translations of the time, Vetus Itala and Vulgate, were both in Latin. It was considered improper, not to mention impractical, to translate into common languages. But that does not mean ordinary people couldn't learn Latin and follow along.

You pretty much answered your own question.

Yes literacy was low.

Yes bibles were rare.

It would be far easier to produce one bible per congregational area in the common language than to expect people wanted to read it to learn a whole new language plus what sometimes would be thier own language as well.

If literacy was hindered and low it would be simpler to produce in the common language and to teach the people literacy of thier common language.

The way the laiety did it.

1. Keep the scriptures in a language the common couldn't understand
2. Don't aid the people in understanding thier own language.
3. make the people learn literacy in thier own language.
4. make the people learn a new language
5. make the people learn literacy in the new language.
6. then let the people read the bible in a second language that is not thier own,so that if they had difficulties understanding something they would have to as the laiety, and the laiety could tell the people what ever they wanted to, how could the common people really know if it was wrong, after all these were "holy men of god" who was to question them?

When they could have just

1. wrote the bible in the common language
2. help the people become literate in thier common language.

transation might take a while but it would be far easier.