Featured Theology: The bible and systems

There are many non-Reformed systematic theologies out there. Some examples include:
Thomas Aquinas
Duns Scotus
Desiderias Erasmus

More recently
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Richard Niebuhr
Donald Bloesch
Thomas Oden
Norman Geisler
Wolfhart Pannenberg

It is damaging to think of theology as Reformed or not, instead most sensible scholars think more in terms of the ecclesiastical tradition.

Just because you don't think it exists, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

Foolish statements of faux intellectual hubris have a way of bringing out the rhetorical side.

 

I have to agree with this. Systematic theologies abound. A person doesn't have to agree with them, but they exist nonetheless. I've been able to find areas of agreement with Ryrie and Scofield even though I am not a dispensationalist. To the extent we believe salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone, then we share some common truth.

 

My reason for editing: n/m... read the post wrong... I'm an idiot.

 

Geisler is the only one on this list who seems to me to represent the kind of beliefs most often espoused by the "non-cals" on BB.

But you did not answer my questions.

What do you CALL your systematic theology?

"Non-cal" is so vague it is meaningless. Satan worshipers are "non-cal"- in other words they are "not Calvinists". Jehovah's Witnesses are "non-cal".

Non-cal does not describe what you are; it just says what you are against.

What systematic theology books might I pick up that champion your systematic theology? (besides Geisler's who calls himself a CALVINIST)

 

He is, admittedly, a mild Calvinist. I believe in the introduction to his systematic theology he outlines this position.

 

In post #21 he refers to "non-Reformed systematic theologies".

 

I'm curious, can you give example of these 'terms of the ecclesiastical tradition'. When I think of C. Hodge, I think 'Reformed'; when I think of Chafer, I think Dispensational; When I think of Clarke, I think Arminian; is this what you mean?

 

Then you haven't spent enough time with the theologians I've listed. There are more than these out there, this was just a list off the top of my head.

This shows the shallowness of your understanding of other systems.
1. Theological systems don't need names or monikers. Real theologians don't worry about these kind of incidentals.

2. There are names out there and just because you don't know them doesn't invalidate the system.

For instance:
- Aquinas' systematic theological category is known as Thomism
- Erasmus category is known as humanism (which is different than contemporary understandings of that category.)
- Bonhoeffer would be the believer's church theology
- Bloesch would be in the Arminian category
- Neibuhr (whom I don't agree with on many things) would be existentialist
- Pannenberg is post-foundationalist theology
- Thomas Oden would be paleo-orthodox
- I can also add plenty of others, one which might be worth considering is Stanley Horton who has a systematic theology based in Pentecostalism

Also don't discount other categories such as:
- Amyraldian
- Covenantal
- Dispensational
- Liberation
- Neo-Orthodox
- Natural theology
- Pentecostalism
- Anabaptist
- Quaker

I can go on and on. Just because you don't know about these categories doesn't mean they don't exist and doesn't mean you get to mischaracterize them.

Don't use heretical sects to define what other, completely orthodox, faithful believers posit theologically. That is a failing argument.

This is a crap claim. Look above and I can define a ton things by looking at the major category.

I'd challenge you to not worry about my specific beliefs but start growing in your own categories. One challenge is to pick up a guy like Pannenberg and work through his ontology or eschatology. Maybe go over to a philosophical theology and work through the epistemology of Alsidair MacIntyre. Or handle the theodicy of Richard Swinburne.

Though I am happy to read through guys like Barth and Pannenberg and find truth in both I am not bound by Barth's view of election nor Pannenberg's view of hamartiology. Besides, i don't think you've done enough heavy lifting to distinguish their views. Barth is, generally, very helpful as are others in the list. I'm admittedly a bit of a peeping thomist myself.

 

Yes I erroneously added Geisler. I don't care much for his theology and such but added him. I'm happy to remove him and add someone like Clark Pinnock (particularly his earlier work) or Alister McGrath. Maybe I meant to add McGrath but forgot.

 

I mean categories like:

Roman Catholic
Eastern Orthodox
Presbyterian
Methodist
Anglican/Episcopalian
Baptist
Pentecostal

and so forth.

 

Systematic theology is simply looking at several topics based on the total biblical view, rather than looking at one biblical verse or passage or book and discerning what it says about all the topics. In sum, one is a top down approach, and the other a bottom up approach.

They would conflict when we have a mistaken view from either end.

One recurrent problem with systematic theology is to over generalize based on many of the scriptural statements but not all. For example Jesus is God and is co-equal with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. But does this mean they all have exactly the same attributes, or do they perform different roles? Lots of the stuff written long ago was on the right track but did not address the topic in view exhaustively.

 

I don't think you are representing biblical theology well at all. At least not its current, modern form.

 

ROFLOL

Good one!!

Reminds me of the "how to preach" method of deciding what we want to say and then looking up all the verses that seem to support it.

 

Yes, you are no doubt correct. I certainly did not use your definition of the term, and more than one can be found in the literature.

Here is one that looks at it sorta like me, but of course way better because scholars wrote it:

"Biblical Theology

Study of the Bible that seeks to discover what the biblical writers, under divine guidance, believed, described, and taught in the context of their own times.

Relation to Other Disciplines: Biblical theology is related to but different from three other major branches of theological inquiry. Practical theology focuses on pastoral application of biblical truths in modern life. Systematic theology articulates the biblical outlook in a current doctrinal or philosophical system. Historical theology investigates the development of Christian thought in its growth through the centuries since biblical times."

 

interesting that I would see Calvinism in the DoG as better in Sotierology, but also would see Dispy in eschatology as being more "biblical!"

 

Both are certainly in the realm of systematic theology and not biblical theology.

But I would argue that only the former is the "biblical" system.

Thus this demonstrates my aversion to the title "biblical theology" and desire a new label to avoid confusion.

 

Do you subdivide the bible as say NT theology, with each one of the 4 Gospel authors having own seperate theologies?

 

The 4 definitely have their own theological voices and agendas. But when you deal w/ the 4, I admit that I kind of place them as a canon w/in the canon. But that's not what you are really asking is it?

Now if you are asking if their theology is different in the sense that it conflicts; then I would say no. They are complementary to one another.

And I would even say that doing things like OT theology and NT theology is not necessarily biblical theology unless it deals with metanarrative and the overarching theme of redemptive history. This is what sets G. K. Beale's NT theology book apart from others like Schreiner and THeilman. His is a NT biblical theology in that it deals with the story of Scripture as it finds its culmination and completion in the NT. It is outstanding.

Some NT theologies are nothing more than a systematic theology of the NT. THere is a great distinction there. NT theology as a discipline within biblical theology cannot be done apart from its connection to the story of the OT.