What systematic theologies do you use?

cubanito said:

The following will seem as a personal attack on David, but if you read further, you'll realize it is NOT.

Mr. Waffen, you are correct that you do not need someone to pervert the Scriptures for you, as you do a terribly perverse job of misundertasndaing and misaplying them yourself.

Save Christ and possible those in Heaven, we ALL pervert Scripture, despite the indwelling Spirit and even when we are being as honest and studious as we can.

One of those perversions is to think yourself above all teachers in the Church, and that is clearly laid out in multiple Scriptures. Mr. Waffen, I wrote caution against the frequent idlolatry of elevating a systematic theology, any single man (save Christ) or group of men (councils, the RC curia, the Watchtower Society ect) above Scripture.

Now a warning to the very many in our day that think it better to be a "biblicist" and eschew all forms of organised assemblies: you sir are making an idol of your own self.

It is very rare I do not "blow up" a Sunday school class by pointing out an error some teacher is saying, and backing it up from general or special revelation so vociferously that either the teacher admits his error or I am asked to be quiet. Often I start an insurrection and the class turns against what is being taught or breaks up into civil war. Several elders refer to these as "JR" moments, a term coined by the head of the religion dept at UM, Dr David Kling, and elder in my former Church when, again, I totally blew up his lesson plan with a Biblically based point that he had never heard or read. When I informed one of the elders at my current Church who is very tight lipped and mild mannered I had chosen to go to the other guys class he thanked me loudly and was visibly relieved.

Yes I am an arrogant, self centerd man, and have never been accused of following the herd. I am a very loose canon on board my Church, and plan to continue that. Somebody needs to blow up error, and I both like and am very good at it.

But I am also a member of a confessional Church, and have publicly stated many times my willing submission to authority. In those few better moments when my arrogance is not on hyperdrive, I account them better than myself, and thank them for their efforts. I have learned much from these men, as I have from others.

The path is very narrow, and we all sin often to the left or the right.

Mr Waffen, you seem to be off the path. Go back and read your Scriptures about the deference we ought show out God ordained elders.

JR

Click to expand...

Please excuse my harshness, but it seems inapproiate for some people to accuse God-fearing men like Charles Hodge, of perverting the scriptures.

Its a slap in the face to me.

God Bless

Till all are one.

On Systematic Theology: Rather than making a long presentation on this matter; I choose to ask some simple questions to provoke thought.

1) How much scriptural knowledge to we obtain from Systematic Theology a Proper? (That is, through the direct application and practice of Systematic Theology.)
2) How much scriptural insight has been passed on to future generations by those who used Systematic Theology in addition to their daily time in the scriptures, by sharing their knowledge via commentaries, and the like; such as CH Spurgeon, OB Greene, and Matthew Henry, just to name a few.

Jack

DeaconDean said:

Please excuse my harshness, but it seems inapproiate for some people to accuse God-fearing men like Charles Hodge, of perverting the scriptures.

Its a slap in the face to me.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Click to expand...

DD, you acknowledge that C Hodge does at times pervert Scripture to some extent because we ALL do. That does NOT detract from the usefulness of systematic theology, of the godly character and intent of Dr Hodge.

As the old Roman "catholic" proverb goes: do not put the candle so close so as to burn the saint's statue, nor so far as you can not see well enough to venerate.

I think that DD, Jack and I agree here: respectful learning from the labors of men greater than us is worth doing. But we ought not forget they are secondary and fallible sources. One can sin by missing the mark in either direction.

JR

cubanito said:

DD, you acknowledge that C Hodge does at times pervert Scripture to some extent because we ALL do. That does NOT detract from the usefulness of systematic theology, of the godly character and intent of Dr Hodge.

As the old Roman "catholic" proverb goes: do not put the candle so close so as to burn the saint's statue, nor so far as you can not see well enough to venerate.

I think that DD, Jack and I agree here: respectful learning from the labors of men greater than us is worth doing. But we ought not forget they are secondary and fallible sources. One can sin by missing the mark in either direction.

JR

Click to expand...

Agreed.

SeventhValley said:

What systematic theologies do you all recommend?

Click to expand...

Pray and trust God to guide you. Take any commentary "with a grain of salt". For every scripture, there is the love meaning . . . not only explanation, but how love has us discovering with our Father how to live. God's grace and peace bring us to how love has us be in our character and how we live > notice how a number of New Testament scriptures start with ministering God's grace and peace which have us discovering His love meaning in us, of what we study > good teaching includes demonstration, in this case of how grace and peace have us living His meaning

So, I would stay mainly with studying what has us finding out how to love with God. And this will include correction (Hebrews 12:7-11); so actively seek how our Father corrects us.

Without His correction of our own character, we can misunderstand the Bible, and misunderstand commentators, and misunderstand people we know. So . . . for one example . . . if I have a problem understanding the Bible, possibly I will have problems understanding John Calvin's original writings; and, for all I know, John's commentators might not understand the Bible or him. So, reading commentaries of John's commentaries possibly can give me some "slightly" second-hand or third-hand or underhanded information

Peter says, "nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3) So, God wants us to have example leaders whom I would say we know personally so we know their example. How a true leader is and lives is his or her real interpretation of the Bible, with his or her love example as the meaning.

And our apostle Paul says "clearly you are an epistle of Christ", in 2 Corinthians 3:2-3. So, in a way, we ourselves in Jesus are the Holy Spirit's "canon scripture"! How His love lives in us speaks more than words can tell.

"Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (Romans 5:5)

God in His love in us lives the Bible better than explanations can tell us. So - - - submit prayerfully to God and enjoy discovering > "lean not on your own understanding" (in Proverbs 3:5-8).

But God's word is good for helping us gain His correction and learn how to love > Jesus says, "learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls," in Matthew 11:28-30.

And for just one example, in studying the Trinity > note, right off, how God is called "Father" > not the "Judge" or "Bank President" or "Football Coach" or "General". And "God is love" (in 1 John 4:8&16). So, from this we can see how God is about family love. And we see how God made man in His image, and man is three basic persons . . . father, child, and helpmate, like how God is Father and Son and Holy Spirit. So, He who is about family created us humans to be family beings, potentially of family caring and sharing love. So, this is how He desires for us to relate with Him and one another, as family.

And Jesus has claimed this in prayer, how You our Father "have loved them as You have loved Me," in John 17:23. So, in family loving we all are loved the same - - - as our Father has loved us as He has loved Jesus.

I would say this needs to be included in a systematic theology . . . the love meaning of whatever is truly the Bible message.

And, talking about family loving, we have how a man needs to be first proven in his own home, before he qualifies just to be considered for ordination as "a bishop" > 1 Timothy 3:1-10. Why is it so important to see if he can take care of his own family well? Because this shows if he knows how to take care of people in our Father's family caring and sharing way. The qualifications, here, do not make much point about his "seminary" background, but mainly about how he is "blameless" . . . the way God's love maturing in us has us becoming so we are "examples" (1 Peter 5:3), and how he knows how to rule his own house. And, "of course", his wife his helpmate has helped him get the correction and maturing so he becomes "blameless" and successful in ruling his own home. So, this standard for selecting leaders fits with our Father being about family

So, in order to get the Bible right, with its love meaning and not only explanation, we need our example people whom God has provided as His living meaning and interpretation

If you study things of people you don't even know, you "might" not know what they really mean, since you do not have first-hand observation of how they apply what they write. How much is each writer ministering for you to become corrected and made alive to be living in God's own love? His examples minister His very own love to us.

David Waffen said:

No. Just bible doctrine

Click to expand...

The bible wasn't written in English so getting to know the original languages is a must to fully understand the Bible. Just with the word love' in Greek there are four different possible words that can be translated that way, the Bibe normally only uses two of them and a third, family love in the negative. So knowing which word is used for the English is vitally important.

classicalhero said:

The bible wasn't written in English so getting to know the original languages is a must to fully understand the Bible. Just with the word love' in Greek there are four different possible words that can be translated that way, the Bibe normally only uses two of them and a third, family love in the negative. So knowing which word is used for the English is vitally important.

Click to expand...

Oh no!

We have the King James Version.

That contains the "perfect word of God" or so we have been told.

No need for studying the Greek.

Dr. Evil said:

Yea, right.

Click to expand...

God Bless

Till all are one.

Please allow me to remind you of something:

DeaconDean said:

Let me quote something for you:


"When speaking about well-known, revered and highly regarded past or present leaders, theologians, saints (living or deceased) of other Nicene Christian denominations, please show a measure of respect. These public religious figures are respected by the members who belong to those denominations. Please avoid using inflammatory words or phrases in reference to these public religious figures."

Click to expand...

While I agree with the intent and message of the presented 'quote'; I would also remind you, that you yourself are guilty of the same offense, toward theologians who brought us the King James Bible. These men may not have been Presbyterian, but they were learned theologians nevertheless.

There is an Amish proverb that says, "Keep you words soft and sweet; you never know when you might have to eat them".

Jack

DeaconDean said:

Oh no!

We have the King James Version.

That contains the "perfect word of God" or so we have been told.

No need for studying the Greek.



God Bless

Till all are one.

Click to expand...

I would like to be very clear on this subject, since it 'appears' as though posts such as this, are misrepresenting my position.

I believe the King James Bible is God's perfectly preserved "Word of God", in English, for English speaking people.

I do not believe the King James Bible corrects the original languages from whence it came.

I do not, nor have I ever spoken against the study of the original languages.

What I have said REPEATEDLY, is that person who's knowledge and/ or experience, that are not at least equal to those of Erasmus, and the King James translators,(in the original languages of the Bible), have NO authority to correct the work done by these men.

I have specifically, and repeatedly, asked my opponents if their knowledge of the original languages, surpasses that of the above mentioned. The only time I ever received a response to this question, was from JR (Cubanito), who stated:


Originally Posted by cubanito
"When it comes to the very core of the Gospel, YES, I am more qualified than those men in translating James 2:14 even though I know nothing of Greek."

I hope my position is now clear.

Jack

David Waffen said:

I don't need some man-made methodology to pervert the scriptures. I read them as they are and let God do the rest.

Click to expand...

Sir, with all respect, if you take your stance to its logical conclusion, you might as well become a hermit. Yes, Scripture alone is the only text we should revere as God's very words. However, Paul instructs us to exhort, encourage, teach, and admonish one another. God gives many people gifts of teaching. When they write systematic theologies they are not thinking that they are offering an alternative to Scripture, but rather they are offering their explanation and interpretation of the text. In the same way, when one reads a systematic theology, they are not replacing Scripture, but rather they are attempting to get an idea of what the text might be saying.

That being said, the only absolute truth is found within Scripture, not systematic theologies. I read systematic theologies but, like a good Christian should, I always check them against Scripture. Scripture always wins. That doesn't mean systematic theologies are some kind of evil.

TaylorSexton said:

Sir, with all respect, if you take your stance to its logical conclusion, you might as well become a hermit. Yes, Scripture alone is the only text we should revere as God's very words. However, Paul instructs us to exhort, encourage, teach, and admonish one another. God gives many people gifts of teaching. When they write systematic theologies they are not thinking that they are offering an alternative to Scripture, but rather they are offering their explanation and interpretation of the text. In the same way, when one reads a systematic theology, they are not replacing Scripture, but rather they are attempting to get an idea of what the text might be saying.

That being said, the only absolute truth is found within Scripture, not systematic theologies. I read systematic theologies but, like a good Christian should, I always check them against Scripture. Scripture always wins. That doesn't mean systematic theologies are some kind of evil.

Click to expand...

They are a "tool".

Just like a shovel.

God Bless

Till all are one.

i tend to read the bible in a geometrical manner in which there are weightier matters . and when i study deep i use KJV with strongs mostly .

David Waffen said:

I don't need some man-made methodology to pervert the scriptures. I read them as they are and let God do the rest.

Click to expand...

Coming from someone who has this as his signature:


"If my post sounds like Jesus, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly, it is because their wisdom has been imparted onto me!"

Smh

cubanito said:

The following will seem as a personal attack on David, but if you read further, you'll realize it is NOT.

Mr. Waffen, you are correct that you do not need someone to pervert the Scriptures for you, as you do a terribly perverse job of misundertasndaing and misaplying them yourself.

Save Christ and possible those in Heaven, we ALL pervert Scripture, despite the indwelling Spirit and even when we are being as honest and studious as we can.

One of those perversions is to think yourself above all teachers in the Church, and that is clearly laid out in multiple Scriptures. Mr. Waffen, I wrote caution against the frequent idlolatry of elevating a systematic theology, any single man (save Christ) or group of men (councils, the RC curia, the Watchtower Society ect) above Scripture.

Now a warning to the very many in our day that think it better to be a "biblicist" and eschew all forms of organised assemblies: you sir are making an idol of your own self.

It is very rare I do not "blow up" a Sunday school class by pointing out an error some teacher is saying, and backing it up from general or special revelation so vociferously that either the teacher admits his error or I am asked to be quiet. Often I start an insurrection and the class turns against what is being taught or breaks up into civil war. Several elders refer to these as "JR" moments, a term coined by the head of the religion dept at UM, Dr David Kling, and elder in my former Church when, again, I totally blew up his lesson plan with a Biblically based point that he had never heard or read. When I informed one of the elders at my current Church who is very tight lipped and mild mannered I had chosen to go to the other guys class he thanked me loudly and was visibly relieved.

Yes I am an arrogant, self centerd man, and have never been accused of following the herd. I am a very loose canon on board my Church, and plan to continue that. Somebody needs to blow up error, and I both like and am very good at it.

But I am also a member of a confessional Church, and have publicly stated many times my willing submission to authority. In those few better moments when my arrogance is not on hyperdrive, I account them better than myself, and thank them for their efforts. I have learned much from these men, as I have from others.

The path is very narrow, and we all sin often to the left or the right.

Mr Waffen, you seem to be off the path. Go back and read your Scriptures about the deference we ought show out God ordained elders.

JR

Click to expand...

Jack Koons said:

On Systematic Theology: Rather than making a long presentation on this matter; I choose to ask some simple questions to provoke thought.

1) How much scriptural knowledge to we obtain from Systematic Theology a Proper? (That is, through the direct application and practice of Systematic Theology.)
2) How much scriptural insight has been passed on to future generations by those who used Systematic Theology in addition to their daily time in the scriptures, by sharing their knowledge via commentaries, and the like; such as CH Spurgeon, OB Greene, and Matthew Henry, just to name a few.

Jack

Click to expand...

VCViking said:

Coming from someone who has this as his signature:


"If my post sounds like Jesus, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly, it is because their wisdom has been imparted onto me!"

Smh

Click to expand...

So you know I got it right

SeventhValley said:

What systematic theologies do you all recommend?

Click to expand...

I recommend that you don't pay SERIOUS attention to ANY "Systematics", and read the Bible for what it actually SAYS. The Holy SPirit is your guide, not Calvin, or Arminius.

I've been a "Free Range Non-Denominational Eclectic Charismatic (who happens to be a member of an Assembly of God Church) for the last 35 years, and it seems to work just fine.

I realize I'm new here, so I'm not gonna say too much.

One thing I try to remind the people in my bible studies is that Christianity isn't something any one of us invented in our basement. So just because I agree with so and so doesn't mean so and so is right. And just because I don't agree with so and so doesn't mean so and so is wrong.

And no one should go thinking too highly of themselves when they get a "new" idea. The church is nearly 2000 years old. It is the height of hubris to think someone has had an idea no one else has ever had in two THOUSAND years.

Now there are a lot of good brothers and sisters out there, and just because I'm not 100% in harmony with them doesn't mean that I'm NOT going to spend eternity with them in the presence of our Lord. So to go to someone that Christ loved enough to die for, and enough that he give that man the spiritual gift of Teacher, and tell them "I don't need you perverting my scripture" is a serious affront to the brotherly love were are called to.

At the same time, we ARE called to preserve the gospel, and hand it down in tact to the next generation. I teach my fellowship members to look to the great creeds of the church - The Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Creed of Athanasius.

If it is in the creeds, then it is central to the gospel. Abandon it at the peril of your soul. If it's not in the creeds, but doesn't contradict the creeds, then it is an area where good men can differ while remaining brothers.

SeventhValley said:

What systematic theologies do you all recommend?

Click to expand...

So now to get this thread back on track, let's look at OP's question.

As has already been recommended in this thread, I want to strongly encourage you to pick up the Moody Handbook of Theology. Stumbling across that book on the shelf of my local Christian book store was a major turning point for me as a serious student of scripture.

The Moody Handbook of Theology looks at the various sections of systematic theology, and does a good job of fairly presenting each major view without anointing any one viewpoint as the "correct" one.

This helps you to develop your own systematic theology, provided you have the intellectual honesty to entertain the other view points at least long enough to be able to come up with a cogent argument about why you don't agree with them.

I have a Systematic Theology book by Wayne Grudem but I've haven't used it much. I prefer well-written commentaries to supplement my bible reading. Unger's two volume set on the OT is excellent. The Bible Knowledge Commentary in two volumes and the Expositor's Bible Commentary are both worthwhile. Also, John MacArthur's Commentary, although not as deep, and R. C. Sproul's Commentary are also good. Older commentaries by Gill, JFB, Barnes and Calvin can be useful on troubling passages. I'm sure there are others. I do not believe Spurgeon ever wrote a commentary but his sermons cover a good portion of the bible.