Good question from my class...

It can't be helped. The more one sees God, the more he loathes himself.

Thou, O Christ, art all I want,
more than all in thee I find;
raise the fallen, cheer the faint,
heal the sick, and lead the blind.
Just and holy is thy name,
I am all unrighteousness;
false and full of sin I am;
thou art full of truth and grace.
—Charles Wesley

 

I loathe the flesh. I don't know about Charles Wesley, but I'm righteous in Christ.

 

Exactly. There is a difference between loathing one's being and loathing the flesh or one's sin.

 

I'd like to keep this thread from being derailed any further. I've noticed that, so far, only a few of examples of systematic theologies have been mentioned. What have you read? When I was in college I took a class in Paul Tillich's 3-volume Systematic Theology taught by one of his former students. One of the interesting facts we learned was that Tillich knew almost no English when he came to the U. S. in the mid-1930's to escape the Nazis. But, when he came to write his ST, he wrote the whole thing in English.

I have also read parts of Jurgen Moltmann's systematic theology which has been published in individual volumes: Theology of Hope, The Crucified God, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, et al.

Finally, I have read parts of James William McClendon, Jr.'s 3-volume Systematic Theology. It is a baptist systematics. The three volumes are titled Ethics, Doctrine, and Witness. McClendon is particularly interesting because he does not use the traditional order of topics which begins with the nature of God. He uses what I see to be the order in which Jesus' disciples' experience with him progressed. First, they acted to follow him. Second, they learned what he had to teach them. Finally, after his death and resurrection, they spread the gospel message.

These writers use their systematic theologies to describe their understanding of the relationship of the Christian faith to the world, the life of the people, its history, its current situation, its future. They all become dated after a time, but sometimes the issues they raise can become important again. For example, I see Tillich's warnings about elevating trivial matters and giving them an importance they do not deserve to be happening again. The real question for us is whether anyone has the vision, the will, and the stamina to write a systematic theology for today.

Tim Reynolds

 

I am all in favour of theological studies, but I should be extremely careful with studies in either Tillich, a liberal of the liberals, and existensialist at best, even to closely denying a personal God, and the like of Moltman, straight out of German Rationalism.

I should hold faithfully to the likes of the Hodges, Strong, and other Reformed theolgians of that era.

Tillich was a professor at seminaries like Union (NY) and University of Chicago, the most liberal schools in America, if not in the world.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I appreciate the warnings, but I don't accept anyone's thought "hook, line, and sinker." But I have a great appreciation of Tillich's concept of God as the Ground of Being and of his concept of faith as Ultimate Concern. Yes, he frames these concepts in existentialist terms, but he makes it clear that he is trying deepen our understanding of the concepts of God and faith. I adopted an existentialist viewpoint years ago, and I believe it has been very beneficial for me. (Note: that is existentialist with a small "e") For me the questions of existentialism concern the meaning of life, the purpose of humanity, my relationship to others, the nature of faith in God, my relationship to Christ. This may seem to be a strange way to describe my experience of Christian faith in light of the nihilistic views of Sartre, Camus, and Nietzsche, but I am not following them.

I did some graduate study in theological ethics in the academic side of the Vanderbilt Divinity School, but I did not finish a degree. I studied under a few very liberal professors and a few not so liberal. Overall, my experience was very good. The students were largely not as liberal as the professors, but I never felt that that we were belittled or thought less of because we were not willing to go to some of the extremes of the professors. When I read of the charges of liberalism levelled on the threads here, I usually chuckle because the views expressed here don't come close to the liberal views I encountered at Vanderbilt. :laugh:

Tim Reynolds

 

A systematic theology that becomes dated can't be a true theology. Truth is immutable and eternal.

 

While I agree with your basic idea, a systematic theology can become dated in terms of language and in addressing contemporary issues. These issues should be addressed with the eternal truth, but you can't know the future, of course.

 

Time does alter the use of language. It can also alter how one thinks. Calvin, for example, change his views considerably between writing his Institutes and the writing of his commentary on Romans. The essence did not change, but the order of events did change.

The King James Version has changed considerably since first penned, but it's essence has remained constant throughout the changes. So it is with Systematic Theology text; their essence has remained true to the original thought.

Cheers,

Jim

 

One can be arrogant and know all about God through a systematic theology and still not know God. To know God, one must study God and have a personal relationship with him. Christianity is about a relationship with God in which no can boast personally. We can be proud of our knowledge of God but never about our relationship with Him.

 

A systematic theology cannot help but become dated because it is the product of a human mind. That does not necessarily mean that it is totally false and without value. Any statement of theology may contain elements of truth that can be revealed over time. It can also contain errors that will be revealed the same way. Our desire to know God is a struggle to discern truth from error. That's why there is so much disagreement on fora like the BB.

Tim Reynolds

 

Systematic theology is simply the organization of the teachings of the Scriptures by subject: Christology, soteriology, ecclesiology, etc. A systematic theology that becomes dated is not true.

Is Christ dated? Is His teaching dated? Are his words dated? Then a true Christology can be dated.

But if these things do not change, then a true systematic theology does not change either.

 

You said in another thread that this was a "freedom to be exercised under the leading of the Holy Spirit."

So which is it, the product of a human mind, or a fruit of the Holy Spirit?

 

We can sincerely seek the leading of the Holy Spirit, but even that does not insure that we will completely understand what the Spirit is telling us. There is a human element in anything we do, and designating the degree to which we are following the Spirit's leading can change from one endeavor to another. So, the answer to your question is, "I don't know, but God does."

Tim Reynolds