A Plea for Theological Literacy

Reprinted with permission from Dan Miller’s book Spiritual Reflections. The text appears here verbatim.

I was born in Minnesota, and this great state has been my home for many years now. But I was raised near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and I am not slow to acknowledge that growing up in one of the most history-rich regions in America has deeply influenced me.

An exceptional Junior High history teacher was pivotal in the nurture of my affections for history. But my interest was also fueled by repeated visits to the very sites I read about in the history books. These places were more to me than abstract concepts found in dry books. They were locations where I played and picnicked and listened on warm summer days to guides retell the fascinating stories of important people and key events from our nation’s past.

My family picnicked routinely on the banks of the Delaware River near where George Washington crossed to defeat the Hessians on that memorable Christmas night in 1776. I spent more than one summer afternoon running across the rolling fields of Valley Forge where General Washington’s troops lodged in crude log huts during the long winters of 1777-1778. I have toured Washington’s headquarters at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, and his home at Mount Vernon, Virginia. I have visited our nation’s capital, looked often through the crack in the Liberty Bell, and sensed the ghosts of Franklin and Jefferson as I stood in the room where the Declaration of Independence was signed. I have visited the Old North Church, Betsy Ross’ house, and stood by the bed where Stonewall Jackson died in 1863. I have hiked through the fields of Gettysburg and stared in wonder at houses still scarred by bullets from the pivotal conflict waged there in July of 1863.

From Boston to D.C., I have been privileged to visit many of the places where American history happened. Among other reasons, I love American history to this day because as I read about past events I can see in my mind’s eye where they took place. I have been there and so the stories come alive as I read them.

Familiar theological places

I say all of this to propose that it would be commendable if a similar experience were pursued by those who attend churches where the Bible is taught. Bible teaching becomes far more engaging when basic theological themes are familiar “places” to us. When a church-goer has “visited” a certain doctrine in personal study, when a parishioner has read up on a theological theme or considered an interpretive issue, a biblically based sermon can explode with significance because, in part, you have “been there.” By contrast, when a person brings little or no experience to the scene, a biblical sermon can predictably prove less than titillating.

Living as we do in a culture where biblical literacy is in steep decline, churches are forced to bridge the chasm between the Bible and the parishioner. As I observe this phenomenon, it is disappointing that the movement is so one-directional. Sermons are dutifully simplified, shortened and stripped almost clean of theological weight in order to “put the cookies on the lowest shelf.” Lonely indeed are the dissenting voices calling upon the hearers to do a little sightseeing, as it were. Rather than yielding to the downgrade, church-goers should be challenged to nurture their theological literacy and pastors encouraged to reward such diligence with substantial biblical content in their sermons.

To those who listen to biblical sermons week after week, you might do well to think of theological reading as visiting a historical site. Then think of the Sunday sermon as a history book which aids you in better understanding what you saw. Do a little reading on your own and you may be thrilled to see sermons come alive. The preacher will consider theological themes such as the baptism of the Spirit, substitutionary atonement, depravity, redemption, etc., and you will say, “Hey, I’ve been there! I’ve considered the debate between Pelagius and Augustine concerning human depravity. I’ve visited the site of Luther’s view of the Eucharist and compared it with Calvin’s. I’ve stood at the place where martyr blood opened the door for ‘such and such’ a doctrine.” And you may well discover in the process that theology is not a dry, meaningless discipline, but a most thrilling and relevant enterprise.

A few words then to those who deliver sermons. Yes, I realize biblical literacy is at an all-time low and I also realize people do not rush into church longing to learn more about the Moabites or lapsarianism. But I also think we need to take seriously our job to improve our flocks rather than confirming them in their ignorance.

I’ve read the books. I know we are told by the experts to preach 20-minute sermons peppered with human-interest stories, heavy on practical application, and sprinkled with affirming sentiments. But what about systematically teaching a church the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27)? What about consistently and effectively feeding the flock God’s truth (Acts 20:28)?

I’m all for relevance. I believe the Bible is the most relevant, practical book ever written. But I also believe that relevance flows from deep theological truth (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). There is nothing in life that has proven more helpful to me in dealing with finances, marriage, child raising, suffering and death than the doctrines of Scripture. If it is God’s Word, it is utterly relevant. If we do not see this relevance in the doctrines of the Bible, it is not the Bible that has missed the mark, it is we who have failed to see the transforming power of God’s truth.

I also think we need to realize that while people may not be asking for deep theology at the front door, this does not mean they are incapable of developing a taste for it over time. And this, in the end, is our job (Acts 20:28), and not at all a thankless one.

A case in point

I formulated a lecture recently for our adult class that described a theological battle over the doctrine of human sinfulness which was waged in the fifth century between a chap named Pelagius, and a theologian named Augustine. As I prepared, I worried. It was an intriguing topic to me personally, but I feared it might not be well received by the church. It did not exactly meet the popular criteria for “practical relevance.” I was pleasantly surprised, however, by the very positive response. After receiving confirming feedback, I was thrilled to realize, “Hey, we can do this!”

Certainly, not every church attender will respond favorably to theologically oriented teaching and preaching. But in the final analysis, may we who are biblical preachers and teachers not be found guilty at the bar of God for contributing to the biblical illiteracy of our day by simply meeting expectations. May people open their Bibles during our sermons because they actually need to! May we not merely “put the cookies on the lowest shelf where all can reach them,” but may we invite the flock up to the table where there awaits a substantial and nutritious meal—week in and week out. And may we also grow in our personal love for biblical theology to the end that the sermons we preach are alive within us as they pass with power from us to the flock of God.


Dan has served as the Senior Pastor of Eden Baptist Church since 1989. He graduated from Pillsbury Baptist Bible College with a B.S. degree in 1984 and his graduate degrees include a M.A. in History from Minnesota State University, Mankato, and the M.Div. and Th.M. from Central Baptist Theological Seminary. He is nearing completion of D.Min. studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Dan is married to Beth and the Lord has blessed them with four children: Ethan, Levi, Reed and Whitney.

Discussion

If ST is the division and organization of scriptural answers to questions, at least the second half of that is conditioned by society. I think that when ST can answer questions that are relevant, it thrives. Pelagius vs Augustine is very relevant if taught well. Some parts of ST teach well because it answers contemporary questions, some ST is outdated, not in accuracy of Biblical teaching, but 1) Answering questions no one asks anymore 2) not answering questions people are asking. This for me is the challenge of teaching Theology. This brings the reward of literacy.

_______________ www.SutterSaga.com

[ssutter] If ST is the division and organization of scriptural answers to questions, at least the second half of that is conditioned by society.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a definition of systematic theology phrased quite that way. In fact, I see two problems with it. First, something could rightly belong to systematic theology because it is taught by the Bible regardless of whether or not anyone cares to ask about it. Second, not all questions can receive an answer from systematic theology. Many potential questions are beyond the scope of revelation. In other words, as you stated it, systematic is anthropocentric. You didn’t learn that definition at WTS, did you? (I just looked at Chafer, Enns, Hodge, Grudem, Erickson, Van Til, and Dabney, and none of them say anything like that.)

However, I think it is a great way of teaching to raise the question and show the consequences of how it is answered before simply launching into doctrine.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

(yeah, and I didn’t even start talking about how pedantic ST guys are and how that’s sometimes that’s a turnoff to lay people - thus contributing to theological illiteracy lol) - I’d go with something like Grudem’s “Systematic Theology is any study that answers the question, “What does the whole Bible teach us today” about any given topic.” - it assumes that someone is asking that question. Oddly…. yeah, a little people centric. I’d lay that criticism at Grudem if I thought of it first. BUT, it is people that organize ST. that part is pretty undeniable.

I do think that based on reading too much historical theology, that the emphasis of topics is conditioned on what questions people are asking. (Calvin’s Institutes for example were written to King Francis I of France who had very specific concerns and questions. - sometimes I read them and am bored, because I’m not overly concerned about French politics). I read all of Francis Turretin’s Institutio Theologiae Elencticae - and he does his task well, but clearly some of his topic/questions are contextualized to the 17th century… if he were writing today, I suspect he’d have more topics relating to globalism than Amyraldism.

But, having said all that, I think that people are - or need tobe asking - questions that the Bible proclaimed. So I always formulate my ST instruction with that assumption, even though I follow a classic approach. - I think about what the institutes would be like if Calvin was writing with equal determination to a member of my congregation.

_______________ www.SutterSaga.com

I can remember in college survey discussing with my my OT\NT teacher the number of students who seemingly flunked Sunday School. Mind you the courses were freshman classes and many couldn’t correctly place Jerusalem and Nazareth on a map.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

ssutter’s got an interesting point. I think I’d want to expand the purpose of ST a bit though, because arranging theology to answer current questions is extremely important but also there is value in doing ST in anticipation of likely questions in the future. And some of these are the same ones over and over. Couldn’t hazard a % but I have to think a chunk of ST is in that category… so sometimes we’ll test people’s patience a good bit by providing answers to questions they are not asking yet but might be when a JW comes to their door, etc.

In that case, being “interesting,” involves helping them see the potential value. A little imagination.

But part of the problem, too, is a lack of interest in what we ought to be interested in. A problem of affections. There are just some believers who have an amazing lack of curiosity about their God!

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

I agree with both points - imagination is needed to connect old problems with current controversies (i.e. Arianism and JWs). But yeah, I think part of illiteracy is also a worship problem.

_______________ www.SutterSaga.com

ST is based on the questions people are asking. For instance, not much was written about the work of the Holy Spirit before the 20th - Century. Now, most ST texts contain lengthly discussions about the personhood, deity, work, spirit baptism, etc.

Many think of ST as dry and dusty, and only for the ivory towered academic. As a result they know little about the God they profess to love and serve. How would your spouse feel if you knew as little about her as you knew about God? If you desired to know as little about her as about God? When we truly love someone, we want to know everything about them. The more ST I learn, the deeper my love for my Savior grows, as I understand in a new way what He has done for me. We need to increase the theological literacy of our fellow Christians, if for no other reason than to increase their love for their God.

Dave Sugg Semper Lectio

[ssutter] “2) not answering questions people are asking. This for me is the challenge of teaching Theology. This brings the reward of literacy.
The reason so many think ST does not answer the questions they are asking is that they know so little ST they don’t even know what they don’t know! They don’t have questions because they don’t realize that the Bible does address the real issues of life. The more theology I have learned, the more I realize how little I know - and that leads to a new round of questions I need to find answers for. Instead of spending our time on today’s passing fad, if we taught people the “whole counsel of God” we would create a greater hunger for a deeper understanding of the things of the Word.

Dave Sugg Semper Lectio

i have to confess that i don’t like ST.

I feel like we make a system to answer a question that God does not answer in the way we ask it. Its like looking in the Bible for what God has not written there. Is it better to read the Bible, look at that information, and develop our questions from the answers given?

Also, i guess ST is helpful in the face of error; truth is clarified in the face of error. But even then, i feel like ST sometimes, in answering the error, becomes an error in creating a system which is more than what God actually says.

does that make ANY SENSE AT ALL?

:D

Which is why ST should be viewed as a tool (and a very effective one in many cases) for organizing and presenting Scripture and not equivocal to Scripture itself. And not all systems are equal either. That is some answer or approach some subjects in a superior manner to others, some give inadequate attendance to various topics, and others have embedded presuppositions which force their system toward certain interpretations instead of the interpretations forcing the system.

But even with such inevitable foibles, orthodox systems are properly constructed so as to reflect the appropriate practice of assembling all relevant portions of Scripture on a given subject and treating them with hierarchical measure, from the most pertinent to the least. And from that ST provides a platform and means of answering questions and addressing issues regardless of the time in history and the particular issue at hand.

Personally, I have about six feet of shelving of theology. It is heavily slanted toward systematics. I still have MUCH to learn out of them. I have read only one or two through. I usually use them for reference.

I’m beginning to question how to deal with the whole thing, though.

I’ve spent over a year teaching an abbreviated form of systematics on Sun PM meetings. Educating the people in basic Bible doctrine has been my goal. Some positive response along the way. Mostly when I attacked a few old traditions that people intuitively “felt” was wrong, but couldn’t quite pin down why. There’s a limit to what you can do with ST, though. It seems to provide a framework, foundation, and background for future learning and growth.

Expository preaching serves a good purpose, too. There’s a limit to that, too. That limit is time. One cannot cover all of the Bible in an expository fashion in the amount of time that is needed to ground young believers in the truth.

I’m wondering if a thematic approach that looks at Scripture through the lens of God’s ultimate purpose in all that He does, and how He accomplishes that purpose would drive us toward a well-rounded education of the person in the pew. One could make that as long or short as necessary. Personally, I’m doing something similar to that, but it’s not very structured. In fact, I digress quite often to explain the relevance of some issues along the way, and I also take the time to notice various attributes of God along the way. In so doing, I’ve spent a little over a year in Genesis, and that’s not even doing verse by verse studies.

What do you all think would be the best all around approach for leading the people into truth and showing them the relevance of truth to situations that may not have yet arisen in their lives?

Jason

I feel like we make a system to answer a question that God does not answer in the way we ask it. Its like looking in the Bible for what God has not written there.
I wonder if there is not a misunderstanding of what systematic theology is here, or at least a different definition. Systematic doesn’t really deal with answering questions per se. It deals with correlating truth. It takes verses on the same topic and shows how they relate to one another.

It is impossible not to do systematic theology. Any time you show how the teaching of one verse on, say, salvation fits with another verse on salvation, you are doing systematic theology, and the only question is “How do these two verses relate to each other?” Then add a third verse, a fourth, a fifth, etc, until you have them all.

We can do systematic theology poorly, of course. But that is still doing systematic theology.

I’m wondering if a thematic approach that looks at Scripture through the lens of God’s ultimate purpose in all that He does, and how He accomplishes that purpose
How is this different than systematic theology? Systematic theology take the major doctrinal themes of the Bible and looks at what the Bible says about them. It certainly would be in that line to relate it to God’s ultimate purpose (his self glory).
What do you all think would be the best all around approach for leading the people into truth and showing them the relevance of truth to situations that may not have yet arisen in their lives?
Systematic expository preaching and teaching with personal discipleship.

[Larry]
I’m wondering if a thematic approach that looks at Scripture through the lens of God’s ultimate purpose in all that He does, and how He accomplishes that purpose
How is this different than systematic theology? Systematic theology take the major doctrinal themes of the Bible and looks at what the Bible says about them. It certainly would be in that line to relate it to God’s ultimate purpose (his self glory).

I was thinking (but not expressing it well enough) about doing it as a sort of combination of ST and BT. Instead of simply taking one doctrine at a time, show it as it is revealed in Scripture. ST seems to take a structured approach that normally begins with God, then Creation, man, sin, redemption, etc. BT begins with Genesis and goes in a somewhat consecutive manner. I was thinking of the marriage of the consecutive manner beginning with Genesis and demonstrating the doctrines as they are revealed in time and in their various contexts…..if that makes any sense.
What do you all think would be the best all around approach for leading the people into truth and showing them the relevance of truth to situations that may not have yet arisen in their lives?
Systematic expository preaching and teaching with personal discipleship.
I agree. What is on my mind is the issue of their getting a well-rounded knowledge of truth relatively quickly in a context where they’ve not had it. What is the best approach to give a sort of crash course in doctrinal and practical understanding of Scripture? How would one do that?

Jason

[Larry]
I feel like we make a system to answer a question that God does not answer in the way we ask it. Its like looking in the Bible for what God has not written there.
I wonder if there is not a misunderstanding of what systematic theology is here, or at least a different definition. Systematic doesn’t really deal with answering questions per se. It deals with correlating truth. It takes verses on the same topic and shows how they relate to one another.

It is impossible not to do systematic theology. Any time you show how the teaching of one verse on, say, salvation fits with another verse on salvation, you are doing systematic theology, and the only question is “How do these two verses relate to each other?” Then add a third verse, a fourth, a fifth, etc, until you have them all.

We can do systematic theology poorly, of course. But that is still doing systematic theology.
this is interesting, and i see your point. i’ll put my statement in a context. like arminianism and calvinism. My question becomes: Does God in the Bible approach the issue of eternal security IN THE WAY that these two systems approach it? Does God definitively answer OUR question about eternal security IN THE WAY that we ask it and demand to find an answer through our ST?

(caps aren’t yellin’, i just caint figger out how to do italics) :)

[Anne Sokol] Does God in the Bible approach the issue of eternal security IN THE WAY that these two systems approach it? Does God definitively answer OUR question about eternal security IN THE WAY that we ask it and demand to find an answer through our ST?
The nature of God’s revelation to man has come over many centuries. Hence, it is not given by God to man in a succinct and systematic way. And so, God himself has left us with the properly duty to “search the Scriptures”. The way the two systems approach it is fundamentally correct. They take the entire Bible and from Genesis to revelation attempt to identify and organize all relevant passages to “eternal security”.

Fundamentally all ST seeks to identify and organize, via a hierarchical system (from most pertinent to the least), all biblical references relevant to a given topic. It is not the identification and grouping of these portions of Scripture wherein the inevitable weakness lies, rather it is in the successive process of interpreting these passages and coming to conclusions.

Here is what I mean:

Take Calvinism and Arminianism (by the way, I use these reluctantly since they are commonly used as the two theological polar ends regarding soteriology with all other systems subordinate or a derivative of one of the two which could not be further from the truth).

Both Calvinists and Arminianists would and do gather passages in the Bible they consider relevant to the doctrine of “eternal security”, as would any system, including ourselves. This particular process is universal, not just for ST but all Bible study on a topic.

However, the successive steps in both systems is where the difference is found. Because once each system has identified and gathered all the relevant passages (again something you and I would do if we, ourselves studied a topic), they now must begin the process of “interpretation”. And this is where certain practices, findings, determinations and varying influences involve themselves and where one school interprets differently than the other.

Why do they do this? For many reasons. Some begin with embedded suppositions (a priori), some with rationalistic influences from philosophy, some from certain forms of biblical criticism, some from denominational causes, some from internal distresses and needs and hopefully most of the time, from the influence of acquiescence to God’s Spirit in humble submission to findings that are accepted for what they are in spite of its validation or invalidation of our theology.

Every school of ST has weaknesses and strengths. The wise student learns to behave better than those with a cult mentality who regularly will simply categorically dismiss the contributions of teachers and/or systems simply because they have been too conveniently vilified by others who may contend with the teacher or school. The unwise student hears a name of a teacher or school of theology that his school of theology takes issue with and instead of investigating, they react because such names have been taught as verboten or theologically scandalous, hence the student simply remains unable to move beyond a strict adherence to only one system and is never enlightened beyond it.

I am a former Calvinist who held to many Reformed positions. In my walk I came to a point where I discovered what I believed to be failures and weaknesses of Calvinism and Reformed Theology. However, it was important to remember that while I came to the conviction that Calvinism was quite wrong on some matters of theology, particularly “eternal security” it did not give me license to simply cast aside a rather illuminating body of work that John Calvin and Reformed Theologians provide; meaning simply because they, to me, err in some areas, I also must accept that I also identified areas in which they excelled. So, even now, as I study, I still avail myself always to the works of these men because they have much to provide in the way of teaching and good doctrine.

And that challenge is often the primary challenge for students to advance in their theological development. There often is a rather distasteful sophomoric stage one goes through where they identify a certain teacher or ST and become blind adherents, unable to admit to even glaring departures or weaknesses in such. But, if you can get beyond that, you can benefit from all orthodox ST while maintaining your own spiritual integrity. Hence, they become very effective tools.

I realize I went far beyond your question and engaged in a bit of pedagogy, and if taking this liberty is offensive please forgive me, my intention is purely good and always, as a teacher, I wish to inform with the greatest thoroughness.

Regards,

Alex

Does God in the Bible approach the issue of eternal security IN THE WAY that these two systems approach it? Does God definitively answer OUR question about eternal security IN THE WAY that we ask it and demand to find an answer through our ST?
Not sure what you mean by this. I am not sure how the question would be different. ST only answers one question in this regard: What does the Bible teach about eternal security? In other words, there is not one question for Calvinists and one for Arminians. The answers differ for a variety of reasons.

But, Calvinism and Arminianism aren’t really about eternal security, per se. That is a relatively small part of it that usually is argued to depend on what precedes it.

Alex appears to make a fundamental mistake however, in asserting that “interpretation” begins after assembling the passages. The identification of passages as speaking about a particular topic already involves interpretation. The minute you decide a passage talks about topic X, you have already interpreted it. You then need to compare and refine your interpretation based on Scripture. And “systems” do inevitably play a role in this. Don’t believe anyone who tells you they don’t believe in a system.

[Larry]
Does God in the Bible approach the issue of eternal security IN THE WAY that these two systems approach it? Does God definitively answer OUR question about eternal security IN THE WAY that we ask it and demand to find an answer through our ST?
Not sure what you mean by this. I am not sure how the question would be different. ST only answers one question in this regard: What does the Bible teach about eternal security? In other words, there is not one question for Calvinists and one for Arminians. The answers differ for a variety of reasons.
In the example of eternal security, i mean this:

We ask: Can a person lose his salvation? (or as you wrote: What does the Bible teach about eternal security?)

Example: Calvinists (generally) say no way; Arminians (generally) say yes.

The Bible passages used by each: Are not written in answer to that question. The Bible does not approach the issue of eternal security the way we have come to approach it in these systems.

This is what is intriguing: What could we learn about the nature of salvation if we looked at it within the contexts and suppositions of what is actually written (and not)? I think these systems (cal/arm) think they are doing that. I don’t think they are.

That’s what I think I mean :) And I’m not arguing against systems, per se.

ST also asks and answers questions. That’s OK, in itself and can be very revealing of the truth.

Problem can be, though, that ST teaches us what questions to ask. And that can be too narrowing. it can be misleading even. it can answer questions in ways that they aren’t meant to be asked/answered.

for example, this focus on eternal security leads us to a lot of issues that we now talk about: salvation = fire insurance; easy-believism; statements like, “I didn’t want to pray with them [children] because I was afraid they would then have a false assurance that they were saved.”

How have we come to these topics being related to salvation? maybe because of how ST marches out the definition of “salvation” or makes “eternal security” a question, and gives it a yes/no answer.

i don’t know. i’m not really trying to accuse. i’m just thunking aloud with my little pooh brain.

[Anne Sokol]

We ask: Can a person lose his salvation? (or as you wrote: What does the Bible teach about eternal security?)

Example: Calvinists (generally) say no way; Arminians (generally) say yes.

The Bible passages used by each: Are not written in answer to that question. The Bible does not approach the issue of eternal security the way we have come to approach it in these systems.
Really? There are no Bible passages written to answer that question? The Apostles never thought about it? The Christians of the early Church never struggled with it? I find that hard to believe.

However, I do see your (more general) point. What questions we ask, how we ask them, and how we organize the answers all affect the way we view theology. So, if we ask a bad question such as, “Is God sovereign or does man have free will,” everyone loses. As I tried to point out near the beginning of this thread, ST has to be more than just “our questions.” The parameters of ST have to be what God says organized according to our understanding. I will also agree with you that every system of theology ever composed has potentially made errors in these areas. What is the alternative, though? Certainly we cannot stop thinking systematically, as Larry has pointed out. By nature (and by divine command) we have to think of ways how this fits with that, and what it all means together. So, we must do systematic theology. In your thinking, I think you need to distinguish more clearly between systematic theology and any individual system of theology.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

[Larry] Alex appears to make a fundamental mistake however, in asserting that “interpretation” begins after assembling the passages. The identification of passages as speaking about a particular topic already involves interpretation. The minute you decide a passage talks about topic X, you have already interpreted it. You then need to compare and refine your interpretation based on Scripture. And “systems” do inevitably play a role in this. Don’t believe anyone who tells you they don’t believe in a system.
To assist Anne, my objective is to give her the most general or schematic structure of the process. While, indeed, during the process of identifying relevant passages there is crude interpretation, it is a mistake to equivocate this or categorizing it as being on par with the actual interpretive process involving exegesis (and other elements), which is what is in view when referring to interpretation during the successive stage.

But since it is brought up, there are those that may and sometimes do, during the identification process, stop and thoroughly exegete and conclude on varying passages, but the fundamental structural process is to collect all possible evidence and then examine them part-by-part and make an interpretive conclusion. And this practice is not unique to ST but is rather universal for all disciplines involving research, discovery and conclusion. And there are those passages on which those engaging in the development of ST may have already concluded from previous work or accepted a certain interpretation and conclusion via biblical theology. thereby forgoing the successive exegesis for interpretation since one is already accepted. But even with this practice, a review always takes place and a reaffirmation of all parties for its acceptance gained which comes in the post-identification process.

So while there is a general structure, one must acknowledge it is not such a strict discipline that this general structure must be observed at all times and in all places…or else!
[Charlie] So, we must do systematic theology. In your thinking, I think you need to distinguish more clearly between systematic theology and any individual system of theology.
Anne, this may be worth noting. There is a distinct difference between systematic theology and an individual system of theology and it may be in your examining ST you are placing a certain expectation that it meet the demands of a personal or individual system of theology. And it is my opinion, again, that if ST is viewed properly as a “tool” then, it can greatly satisfy the formation of properly theological platforms on which to stand so that you, yourself, may build a personal system.

[Charlie]
[Anne Sokol]

We ask: Can a person lose his salvation? (or as you wrote: What does the Bible teach about eternal security?)

Example: Calvinists (generally) say no way; Arminians (generally) say yes.

The Bible passages used by each: Are not written in answer to that question. The Bible does not approach the issue of eternal security the way we have come to approach it in these systems.
Really? There are no Bible passages written to answer that question? The Apostles never thought about it? The Christians of the early Church never struggled with it? I find that hard to believe.
well, i really don’t think they did, i guess the closest i see to that is hebrews where the author talks about the hardening and those who can’t be brought to repentance again. about this, i dated an arminian guy for a bit, and i looked at all those passages, and came to the conclusion, that if we are honest and not presuppositional (which may be impossible), the Bible really doesn’t deal with it the way we do. Maybe you have seen it another way.

eschatology is another area that makes me wonder. i think it’s more about how we deal with the prophesies about the future—and can we just be honest in living with the tensions and the unknowns of having unfulfilled prophesies before us and how that should effect our lives. but puting that into ST and creating systems that people then become more or less biased toward depending on a lot of factors, like current events, and not really focusing on what we know in the Bible. Why, for example, have we made the Lord’s return something we pretty much only think about when we study something like eschatology and haven’t made it part of the fabric of our days? is it because the systems have made it complicated, controversial and distant?

i’m not totally bummed on ST, i see that it is useful, for example, when i studied mormonism and had to have a lot of correct ideas about who the members of the Godhead are and are not.
[Charlie] However, I do see your (more general) point. What questions we ask, how we ask them, and how we organize the answers all affect the way we view theology. So, if we ask a bad question such as, “Is God sovereign or does man have free will,” everyone loses. As I tried to point out near the beginning of this thread, ST has to be more than just “our questions.” The parameters of ST have to be what God says organized according to our understanding. I will also agree with you that every system of theology ever composed has potentially made errors in these areas. What is the alternative, though? Certainly we cannot stop thinking systematically, as Larry has pointed out. By nature (and by divine command) we have to think of ways how this fits with that, and what it all means together. So, we must do systematic theology. In your thinking, I think you need to distinguish more clearly between systematic theology and any individual system of theology.
I do see your points and they are valid, but i think that like, alex wrote somewhere in his tomes of replies, it’s a tool and is limited in it’s application and helpfulness.

Although I do agree with Dan’s piece that lay people should have familiarity with it, too.

OK, ive been thinking about two intersecting things lately—this thread and gender groups. I guess it is valid to say that today’s systematic theology now includes views on gender, like patriarchy, egalitarian, complementarian (and maybe some others). Isn’t that an interesting idea? not that we study it yet in ST classes, but I think logically that is what these systems of gender beliefs are, they are exercises in systematic theology. I think these groups as we know it probably came into the limelight as a result of the feminist movement (error) and our reactions to it (the creations of these views).

clarifying views on the created natures of men and women, etc.

i need to think about this more.

Anne, I think you’re right. That is, the problems of the day have to at least result in shifts in emphasis in ST. But there are limits to that… and also the kinds of questions change over time, too, with the result that eventually it’s not really ST proper that we’re talking about.

What I mean is that systematic work in theology over the centuries has resulted in some questions being answered and settled as orthodoxy. So things like creation, depravity, incarnation, atonement, bodily resurrection… “hot” questions in early centuries now seem “dull” to many hearers today.

But they are matters about which the Scriptures clearly speak. Eventually, we run out of “new” questions that the Bible definitively answers. We have the sixty six books and they say what they say and no more. So, if ST is completely driven by “today’s questions,” it eventually degenerates into efforts to work out applications of Scripture to modern problems—clearly a valuable and important activity but not really ST in the ages-old sense.

And while all this is going on, the old questions are as vital as ever, as the recent popularity of The Shack shows. The fact that people are not asking “What does the Bible teach about the tri-unity of God?” doesn’t mean it is less important. Each generation will come up with new twists on how to attack and erode the faith once delivered.

So, in part, we have new questions, yes. In part, we have old questions that people are not as interested in as they should be.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.