Spending more time reading systematic theology?

Dr.Patterson is right on here.But I would add Church History as a requirement.

 

We can always learn from the great Christian minds of the past. God still uses their writings to teach us.

 

C.H.S. On Commenting And Commentaries

Need I after my previous lectures commend to you the judicious reading of commentaries! These are called "dead men's brains" by certain knowing people,who claim to give us nothing in their sermons but what they pretend the Lord reveals direct to themselves.Yet these men are by no means original,and often their supposed inspirations is but borrowed wit. They get a peep at John Gill on the sly.The remarks which they give forth as the Spirit's mind are very inferior in all respects to what they affect to despise,namely,the mind of good and learned men...So to rely upon your own abilities as to be unwilling to learn from others is clearly folly;so to study as not to judge for yourselves is imbecility.(pages 29,30)

 

Patterson is right. Too many people come up with bad doctrines because they don't correlate passages together. A systematic theology is a correlation of Scripture and prevents finding something in one passage that is contradicted by another.

 

I think we all believe that nothing replaces the Bible. It is, however, a scattered garden and can be a tough read for a novice,,,even some of us oldies have or hands full. A good theological text aligns the Bible into a cohesive and systematic order of doctrines. It helps to correlate the doctrines into an orderly thought. It relates each doctrine to the whole.

The first read I recommend is a good book on hermeneutics. This gives us an understanding on how to read the word.

Commentaries cannot be ignored as some have said. I love to pick the brains of other people who love and served the Lord.

I am not a Greek and Hebrew scholar. Yes I passed the grade and can read them, but I am not the most efficient with them. Hence, I depend on men who are trained in the original languages. I have seen men absolutely destroy a text with their use of Greek. To-day, there are enough translations in English to help us reach a firm conclusion in thought and interpretation aligned with that systematic theology.

I know how German helped me when studying the old German theologians because German is so often inserted in even their English books. So, I am not downgrading a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. I just think there are enough helps in English to put Greek and Hebrew aside for the average pastor.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Looking for more reasons to denigrate Dr. Patterson are you?

 

good article, good thread

One of the things I think we do (not anyone here in particular) is that we complain about not being taught about this or that doctrine. Actually I think it is our responsibility to hit the books and study these things for ourselves instead of blaming our teachers and pastors. Also, I don't think that any trully informed, well studied church goer is going to find any church or teacher that they agree with 100%. We should be willing to change our views if we can be shown by scripture that we are in error.

I understand and appreciate traditional teaching regarding beliefs but I don't think we need to be completly loyal to them in ever aspect if scripture study shows something different. The Bible is perfect, the creeds and statements of faith are not.

Tom

 

During my ministry, in the morning service I preached to a perceived need. A topical (s0-called) sermon addressing what I perceived as a need in the congregation or area where we lived. The message was always biblically based.

Quote: I think we all believe that nothing replaces the Bible...........In context this was in relation to us reading theological texts as a form of Bible study and not to the church services per se.

In the evening I generally spoke on a specific passage of scripture, not always a series or even a whole book verse by verse.

Wednesday night was always an in depth Bible study, chapter by chapter and going through a book.

It worked in my churches.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Are you mistakenly putting it in the singular form;or is it intentional?History (among many other things)shows the results of many varieties of theology and the practices of such.

 

I think you said that well.... I study views I know I don't believe in so that I can recognize it's teachings and explain why I don't agree. Nothing like seeing a guy trying to build a whole doctrine on one verse (out of context usually).

A guy came by the Church the other day with a pamphlet that took the "should not perish" in Jn 3:16 and tried to argue eternal security. I asked the guy if he read verse 17 and 18 and he responded, "I'm not the one who wrote the pamphlet". Needless to say, I invited him in so we could sit down and discuss this thing. Turns out this guy got these things from his Pastor whose got his whole Church going door to door with that trash.

Undoubtedly, another guy who gets his material directly from God... No need to study, God will bring to my remembrance what I never knew... </sarcasm>

 

To add, there are a lot of things to know about Bible times in order to understand the Bible. Taking everything literally might have you trying to put a camel through the eye of a needle.

 

How did he do on doctrinal issues? Like eternal security or the depravity of man?

 

Good to hear Brother, I know some exclusively Bible studiers who are great at quoting scripture but don't usually do well on doctrines. Glad this isn't the case.