Featured Biblical vs systematic theology

The Spirit of Truth may not, I say, may not, think it matters. I, am not sure.

 

There is no problem with post #3. Did I say they were or were not disciplines? Nope. Did I say I was providing a definition? Nope. I alluded to the possibility of a special definition existing.

So, since we are making suggestions, why not do a study on fault finding, using either discipline.

 

Long cut or cross-cut.

As JOJ might say, just because a person can talk the talk, i.e. inside baseball theology distinctions, does not mean they can actually study God word and arrive someplace other than their path of presuppositions.

 

No, I was and remain ignorant of "disciplines" taught in colleges concerning the study of God's word. But my presupposition is that it all fits together, so if the study is valid, it will end up in the same place.

We have all seen the "what we believe" statement of faith, where something is asserted, then a laundry list of verses is cited supposedly supporting the assertion. However, if each reference is looked at in context, the assertion is not supported and several cases actually refuted.

As one great theologian said, we should labor too long in the furrows of other men, but should plow our own furrows in the riches of God's word.

 

Yes another question calculated to suggest I ignore the scholarship of the past. Exhaustive concordances, Bible dictionaries, Lexicons, Interlinear translations, and of course commentaries. Even in this thread I have referenced the work of others. So your question seems disingenuous, like something out of middle earth.

However, I do not claim to be a mind reader, and giving you the benefit of the doubt, I rely on many of the methods and practices I learned in discipleship class, such as inductive bible study. In the first step, "observation" we learned to look at the passage as given at the time. Thus we asked questions like, what was the culture, the historical setting, the meaning of idioms at that time, and what what was the mind-set of the audience given the revelation at that time. (Sounds alot like an abbreviated "biblical theology" methodology, although that name was not presented or used.) Some of the aids were bible dictionaries, and the new manners and customs of biblical times.

The next step was called "principlization" where we tried to discern what if any timeless principles were being conveyed in the passage. We asked questions like, was this being addressed only to the apostles, or did this apply to any of Christ's disciples. And if the principle was derived from the Old Testament, we asked whether the principle had been embraced or superseded in the New Testament.

Finally, the third step is "application" where we consider how to apply the principle to our lives, such as never do wrong to get a chance to do right.

 

The book is topical, i.e. answering the question, what parts of the OT Law apply to New Covenant Christians. But that does not preclude looking at various scriptures as understood by the initial audiences.

 

Within that also would be how each particular author recorded down by the inspiration of the Spirit unto us the theology, such as how Luke and John and paul viewed certain doctrines?

And wasn't paul given by God the completeness of the revelation concerning us now under the new Covenant then?

 

Biblical theology concerns itself with the progressive revelation from God through the scriptures text themselves, while Systematic also involves interaction with other views outside the texts themselves...

 

So it would be considering each seperate writers views on each selectibe topic then?

Such as a Pauline as compared to a Peterine view on election ?

 

Except for "whole bible" biblical theologies, which are becoming more and more in vogue these days.

 

I say no. It would not be Paul's view of justification. It would be Paul's theology which happens to include justification among other things. Picking a topic is a systematic way to approach an author. Biblical theology would see the author's thoughts and theology develop and explain that. It would see how his theology and thinking are interlinked in the development, such as Paul's monotheism, election, and eschatology.