# Biblical Theology & Systematic Theology



## HoldFast (Mar 5, 2010)

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


----------



## rbcbob (Mar 5, 2010)

Joshua, I think I could use a little help in better understanding your question.


----------



## HoldFast (Mar 5, 2010)

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.


----------



## Bookmeister (Mar 6, 2010)

Ok, being a seminarian I will comment. You have set up a false dichotomy, so to answer your question, yes.


----------



## MW (Mar 6, 2010)

Joshua_B said:


> 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.


 
Perhaps Geerhardus Vos (Biblical Theology, 15-16) can shed some light on the proper distinction between the two:



> There is no difference in that one would be more closely bound to the Scriptures than the other. In this they are wholly alike. Nor does the difference lie in this, that the one transforms the Biblical material, whereas the other would leave it unmodified. Both equally make the truth deposited in the Bible undergo a transformation: but the difference arises from the fact that the principles by which the transformation is effected differ. In Biblical Theology the principle is one of historical, in Systematic Theology it is one of logical construction. Biblical Theology draws a _line_ of development. Systematic Theology draws a _circle_. Still, it should be remembered that on the line of historical progress there is at several points already a beginning of correlation among elements of truth in which the beginnings of the systematizing process can be discerned.



On this definition it is not a matter of choosing one over the other. A balanced and integrated approach to theology will be tracing the progress of revelation in the canon, acknowledging the process of interpretation and formulation in the history of the church, using logic to systematise the truth into a conceptual framework, and demonstrating how this impacts on the faith and life of the Christian in the world. Any approach which denigrates one of these disciplines to the exaltation of the other is naive of the way theology develops and produces imbalance in the thinking of its proponents.


----------



## Calvinist Cowboy (Mar 6, 2010)

I can only agree with the comments of those above. Both biblical theology and systematic theology affect how I study the Bible.


----------



## CharlieJ (Mar 6, 2010)

Perhaps what the OP is getting at is that you do not simultaneously do both biblical and systematic theology to the same extent. Yes, each impinges on the other, but it's also easy to tell the difference between the two disciplines. That's why you can have a work by Vos entitled _Biblical Theology_ and one by Hodge entitled _Systematic Theology_. 

So, to perhaps rehabilitate the OP somewhat, we could certainly ask people on which approach they focus more of their attention, or if they have any specific guidelines to balance their study.


----------



## Jack K (Mar 6, 2010)

I think of myself as a biblical theology sort of guy, especially when I prepare a lesson to teach. BUT... I realize that my systematics is constantly in the background, so that the biblical theology observations I'm making are being tested by the systematics. It seems to me that this is important. Without it the biblical theology approach could easily lead me down some wrong paths.

In short, "both" is the right answer. Personally... biblical theology excites me. Systematics keeps me grounded.


----------



## HoldFast (Mar 6, 2010)

Bookmeister said:


> Ok, being a seminarian I will comment. You have set up a false dichotomy, so to answer your question, yes.



Could you elaborate on how I have set up a false dichotomy? And if I correctly see the route you are going, specifically why Biblical Theology cannot exist outside of Systematic Theology.





armourbearer said:


> ...using logic to systematise the truth into a conceptual framework, and demonstrating how this impacts on the faith and life of the Christian in the world.



This is an area that I find difficulty with. I disagree with the notion that a BT approach MUST incorporate the discipline of Systematic Theology in order to possess a framework of truths found in the text. While I agree that ST cannot exist without a strong BT presence I disagree that BT is dependent upon ST in order to understand the text in it's fullness.



CharlieJ said:


> ...but it's also easy to tell the difference between the two disciplines.



I would agree.



CharlieJ said:


> ...we could certainly ask people on which approach they focus more of their attention, or if they have any specific guidelines to balance their study.



Again, I believe the assumption that BT cannot exist without ST is incorrect. I understand that ST must be balanced by BT, but what imbalance does BT have that it must rely on ST?




Jack K said:


> ...so that the biblical theology observations I'm making are being tested by the systematics. It seems to me that this is important. Without it the biblical theology approach could easily lead me down some wrong paths.


 
Why must your BT observation be tested? Is the progression and revelation of the text insufficient by itself? This is the clear distinction I think is being missed. The idea that reading and understanding the Bible as a book with a definite canonical formula and progression is the basis of Biblical Theology and is viewed as sufficient within itself. The notion that BT must be tested by a system outside of BT declares that the text itself (in it's original language, original formula, original progression) is not sufficient. 

I hope I clarified things a bit. Thanks for being gentle!


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 6, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Joshua_B said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


In the Preface, Vos also offers a succinct summary that captures the differences between the two approaches:



> “Whereas Systematic Theology takes the Bible as a completed whole and endeavors to exhibit its total teaching in an orderly, systematic form, Biblical Theology deals with the material from the historical standpoint, seeking to exhibit the organic growth or development of the truths of Special Revelation from the primitive pre-redemptive Special Revelation given in Eden to the close of the New Testament canon.”(pp. v-vi in the Preface).



I like that.

AMR


----------



## Bookmeister (Mar 6, 2010)

Joshua,
Ok, now I have a much better idea of where you are comming from. I sat under Redemptive Historical preaching exclusively before I came to seminary. I thought that was what reformed preaching was. I found out otherwise comming to the deep south where it is discouraged and even looked down upon by most. I think I would agree with you, Biblical Theology can stand by itself and Systematic Theology cannot, or should not. Biblical Theology is the foundation for how I view all of theology, including systematics. While I think many do set up a false dichotomy I don't think that's what you were doing and if I understand your question correctly now I would have to answer Biblical Theology.


----------



## CharlieJ (Mar 6, 2010)

No, BT cannot stand by itself. The reason is simple. For us to be tracing any kind of development, or for us to assume that it is possible to trace such a development, requires that there is an underlying systematic coherence. To trace the historical development even from Gen. 1 to Gen. 6 requires an assent to such systematic propositions such as, "The Bible is inspired," "Because the Bible is inspired, all of its parts exhibit coherence," and "Mankind has the epistemic capabilites to understand the unfolding of Scripture." All of that must be in place before your eyes hit Genesis 1.

From a historic standpoint, Christianity is founded upon the teaching of Christ as the end-time revelation of God (Heb. 1:2). The preaching of the early church was the preaching of the gospel, which is both a series of redemptive-historical events and a coherent logical system of ideas. The NT writings often argue using logical, not just temporal, categories and therefore testify that they were written as expressions of an already existing system of theology. They also draw systematic conclusions from earlier texts. 

Really, this discussion is little different from the discussion in the scientific world about how science should be done. Logical positivists insist that science is simply the cumulative result of linear, empirical observation. This is analogous to a BT approach to the Bible. However, Michael Polanyi, Thomas Kuhn, and Alister McGrath have shown that such a view of science is naive. Which experiments are chosen, how they are weighted, how they are related, and what the results mean are all determined, not simply by an empirical process, but upon the pre-existing interpretive framework of the scientist. The experimental data and the interpretive framework can modify each other, resulting in a hermeneutical spiral. However, one is not possible without the other.

For a biblical hermeneutics text that shows how BT and ST are interrelated and mutually presupposed, I would direct you to _The Hermeneutical Spiral_ by Grant Osborne.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bookmeister (Mar 6, 2010)

Charlie,
I am not sure I agree. I think BT can stand on it's own, but I don't think it should. I am a huge ST fan but I let my BT inform my ST. If that helps at all. I have Osborne's book but have not read it yet. Maybe I can get to it over the summer, I will put it on "the list."


----------



## HoldFast (Mar 7, 2010)

CharlieJ said:


> No, BT cannot stand by itself. The reason is simple. For us to be tracing any kind of development, or for us to assume that it is possible to trace such a development, requires that there is an underlying systematic coherence.



I think you are confusing the discipline of Systematic Theology with a progressive textual coherence. Assuming that progressive textual coherence inside Biblical Theology IS itself Systematic Theology is inaccurate. Systematic Theology is far more than just textual coherence. A progressive coherence inside of BT is exactly what it is...coherence. It is not itself Systematic Theology.



CharlieJ said:


> Really, this discussion is little different from the discussion in the scientific world about how science should be done.



I strongly disagree. The study of science and the study of a God inspired book with particular canonical form and distinct progression are two completely different discussions.


----------



## jayce475 (Mar 7, 2010)

Pardon, but I've only ever been exposed to systematic theology. What exactly is biblical theology? Can someone give a simple enough explanation for it?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 7, 2010)

jayce475 said:


> Pardon, but I've only ever been exposed to systematic theology. What exactly is biblical theology? Can someone give a simple enough explanation for it?


See post #10 just above.

AMR


----------



## MW (Mar 7, 2010)

Joshua_B said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > ...using logic to systematise the truth into a conceptual framework, and demonstrating how this impacts on the faith and life of the Christian in the world.
> ...


 
Think for a moment upon what biblical theology is attempting to do -- it is tracing the development of revelation; it is looking at how the teachings of the Bible came to be revealed in process of time, at sundry times and in divers manners. The biblical theologian cannot even approach his subject without some conceptual framework as to what the Bible is. Is it a collection of folk stories, or is it a divine disclosure? Believing it is a divine disclosure, is the Revealer a God who is Himself in process of development or is He absolute? And understanding that He is absolute, how then could He reveal Himself in the thoughts of limited men without condescending and accommodating Himself to their capacity? And so on and so forth. Biblical theology from beginning to end not only should be dependent upon a conceptual framework to inform it, but it is by nature so dependent, and the person who denies this dependence simply fools himself and others.

The same applies to Historical and Practical Theology. No person approaches the text of Scripture in an historical vacuum. It is also the case that a person's understanding of Scripture has well and truly been shaped by his concern for practical Christian living long before he has heard anything about biblical theology. The study of theology is multi-faceted. It cannot and must not be restricted to a naive idea that an individual can immediately access the biblical revelation without the use of intellectual tools which have been shaped and moulded by numerous influences.


----------



## Jack K (Mar 7, 2010)

Joshua_B said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > ...so that the biblical theology observations I'm making are being tested by the systematics. It seems to me that this is important. Without it the biblical theology approach could easily lead me down some wrong paths.
> ...



My biblical theology observations need to be tested because I'm capable of being an idiot and jumping to conclusions that aren't supported by the entire context of Scripture. Systematics as I think of it is NOT an "outside" system. Good systematics comes from within the Bible itself and recognizes that the Bible is unified, non-contradictory and espouses a coherent view of God and his mighty works.

Like I say, I'm a biblical theology guy. I really like biblical theology. But I'm not brilliant enough to navigate through a particular thread of progressive revelation and still keep the context of all other scripture in mind without some good "systematic" theology to help me.


----------



## HoldFast (Mar 7, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Biblical theology from beginning to end not only should be dependent upon a conceptual framework to inform it, but it is by nature so dependent, and the person who denies this dependence simply fools himself and others.





Jack K said:


> Good systematics comes from within the Bible itself and recognizes that the Bible is unified, non-contradictory and espouses a coherent view of God and his mighty works.
> 
> Like I say, I'm a biblical theology guy. I really like biblical theology. But I'm not brilliant enough to navigate through a particular thread of progressive revelation and still keep the context of all other scripture in mind without some good "systematic" theology to help me.



I agree that Biblical Theology should certainly have a conceptual framework. I disagree that said conceptual framework is or must be the discipline of Systematic Theology. This point seems to be falling on deaf ears. I am confused as to why a coherent conceptual framework inside Biblical Theology is being automatically labeled as Systematic Theology when Systematic Theology is far more than just a coherent framework.


----------



## jayce475 (Mar 8, 2010)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> jayce475 said:
> 
> 
> > Pardon, but I've only ever been exposed to systematic theology. What exactly is biblical theology? Can someone give a simple enough explanation for it?
> ...


 
It sounds really theoretical. I get the idea, but could we have some specific examples on how they are different? Maybe this will also clear up the debate on whether biblical theology contains a systematic theology framework.


----------



## MW (Mar 8, 2010)

Joshua_B said:


> I agree that Biblical Theology should certainly have a conceptual framework. I disagree that said conceptual framework is or must be the discipline of Systematic Theology. This point seems to be falling on deaf ears. I am confused as to why a coherent conceptual framework inside Biblical Theology is being automatically labeled as Systematic Theology when Systematic Theology is far more than just a coherent framework.


 
I haven't labelled it as systematic theology. I have only sought to show that our theological outlook is equally dependent upon all four disciplines. All four disciplines are legitimate transformative reflections on the biblical text and therefore no single discipline can claim an exclusive place in understanding the Bible.


----------



## HoldFast (Mar 9, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> The biblical theologian cannot even approach his subject without some *conceptual framework* as to what the Bible is. .....Biblical theology from beginning to end not only should be dependent upon a *conceptual framework *to inform it, but it is by nature so dependent, and the person who denies this dependence simply fools himself and others.


 


armourbearer said:


> I haven't labelled it as systematic theology. I have only sought to show that our theological outlook is equally dependent upon all four disciplines. All four disciplines are legitimate transformative reflections on the biblical text and therefore no single discipline can claim an exclusive place in understanding the Bible.



It appears you did label the "conceptual framework" inherent in BT as Systematic Theology. You speak of four distinct disciplines:

1. Biblical Theology

2. Historical Theology

3. Practical Theology 

4. This 4th discipline you did not outright name other than to allude to a "*conceptual framework*" within Biblical Theology. It is my understanding you are including Systematic Theology as 1 of the 4 disciplines and if you included all 4 disciplines in your previous post then the "conceptual framework" mentioned must be ST.


----------



## MW (Mar 9, 2010)

Joshua_B said:


> 4. This 4th discipline you did not outright name other than to allude to a "*conceptual framework*" within Biblical Theology. It is my understanding you are including Systematic Theology as 1 of the 4 disciplines and if you included all 4 disciplines in your previous post then the "conceptual framework" mentioned must be ST.


 
You are misunderstanding. The four disciplines are biblical, historical, sytematic, and practical theology. I spoke of a necessary conceptual framework in undertaking the study of biblical theology. The conceptual framework includes the individual's theological outlook, that is, the person's theology has already been shaped by all four disciplines as he comes to engage in his task. Therefore biblical theology cannot claim to come closer to biblical teaching than any of the other disciplines; a legitimate transformation of biblical teaching naturally takes place in all four disciplines.


----------



## HoldFast (Mar 9, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> I spoke of a necessary conceptual framework in undertaking the study of biblical theology.



Ok. Then you did not speak of Systematic Theology in that post as you stated. 



armourbearer said:


> ...the person's theology has already been shaped by all four disciplines as he comes to engage in his task.



I disagree. I have explained why in previous posts.



armourbearer said:


> Therefore biblical theology *cannot claim to come closer to biblical teaching than any of the other disciplines*; a legitimate transformation of biblical teaching naturally takes place in all four disciplines.



I never claimed that Biblical Theology is "closer to biblical teaching" than any other discipline. 

Thanks for your help armourbearer. I fully understand your position now. 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".


----------



## MW (Mar 9, 2010)

Joshua_B said:


> Thanks for your help armourbearer. I fully understand your position now. 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".


 
Your OP asked, "What approach (Biblical Theology or Systematic Theology) do you use in your study of the Bible and why?" I believe your question sets up a dichotomy which folk have been concerned to remove in order to show that our approach to the Bible involves a complexity of disciplines. It might appear to you that folk are unfamiliar with biblical theology, but that would only be because they have adopted "reformed biblical theology," and have turned away from the liberal naivete with which the discipline was initially immersed.


----------



## Jack K (Mar 9, 2010)

Joshua_B said:


> 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".



My friend, I fear some have stayed away from this thread because it seems to have become an argument rather than a true inquiry as to how others study the Bible. The original question was interesting enough. I chimed in to share, not really advocating for a particular method but willing to let you know how my head tends to work. And there are plenty of other fine people here much better versed in the topic than I am. But I would suggest that to get responses to your question you might want to appear more grateful to those who share.

As for your challenges, might it just be that you and I differ a bit in what we mean by systematics? You call it "focusing in on certain points in the Bible and extracting themes and ignoring the overall composition and canonical formula." Well, if it were about ignoring the Bible I'd be opposed to it too. But I'm more likely to see it as a discipline that makes sure I _don't_ ignore the Bible's big picture. Systematics and BT both do this. Each in their own way, which is the beauty of it.

I'm _not_ ignoring the "canonical formula" if I'm doing biblical theology too, which I am. I'd never give that up. And both methods can be done badly if a theme or biblical thread is removed from the larger context of all Scripture. So I don't quite get the animosity. Have you had bad experiences with some less-than-honest, prooftexty systematics?


----------



## HoldFast (Mar 10, 2010)

Jack K said:


> My friend, I fear some have stayed away from this thread because it seems to have become an argument rather than a true inquiry as to how others study the Bible.



I apologize if this is this case. My replies are earnest inquiries and not meant to start a spitting match. I understand my lack of reputation on this board may obscure my good intentions.



Jack K said:


> But I would suggest that to get responses to your question you might want to appear more grateful to those who share.



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. 



Jack K said:


> Well, if it were about ignoring the Bible I'd be opposed to it too.



Friend, I never mentioned "ignoring the Bible" in this context. 



Jack K said:


> *So I don't quite get the animosity*. Have you had bad experiences with some less-than-honest, prooftexty systematics?



Where is the animosity in this thread? I have certainly inquired why certain things have been defined as such and why certain thoughts are held to but I don't see the animosity. 

I've never had any bad encounters with anyone regarding these disciplines. 

Again, my apologies if my frank replies have painted me as ungrateful or someone with an agenda.


----------



## Houston E. (Mar 11, 2010)

> Friend, I never mentioned "ignoring the Bible" in this context.





Joshua_B said:


> 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 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.





> 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".


----------



## HoldFast (Mar 11, 2010)

Houston E. said:


> > Friend, I never mentioned "ignoring the Bible" in this context.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The statement "ignoring the Bible", in the context it was used, does not carry the same meaning as my definition of Systematic Theology.

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).


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 11, 2010)

Joshua_B said:


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


 


Joshua_B said:


> 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.



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


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 11, 2010)

Joshua_B said:


> 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 (Mar 11, 2010)

Joshua_B said:


> 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 (Mar 11, 2010)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 
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. 




VictorBravo said:


> 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 (Mar 11, 2010)

rbcbob said:


> Joshua_B said:
> 
> 
> > Bob,
> ...



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 (Mar 11, 2010)

> 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 (Mar 12, 2010)

Joshua_B said:


> 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 (Mar 12, 2010)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Joshua_B said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Mar 12, 2010)

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 (Mar 12, 2010)

Bookmeister said:


> 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 (Mar 13, 2010)

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 (Mar 13, 2010)

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 (Mar 15, 2010)

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 (Mar 15, 2010)

timmopussycat said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> > Joshua_B said:
> ...


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 (Mar 18, 2010)

Just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 18, 2010)

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


----------



## Reformed Rush (Mar 19, 2010)

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


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Mar 20, 2010)

Joshua_B said:


> 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.


----------

