Approaches to theology

[Fervent]

Often it seems that a lot of disagreements center around how one approaches the theological task so I would like to discuss some methodologies and their strengths and weaknesses, beginning with systematic theology.

In systematic theology a topic is selected and verses are collected that revolve around that topic in an effort to quickly examine and create an easily digesible position. This methodology is perhaps best seen in something like Calvin's institutes and certainly has a lot to recommend it since it creates the appearance of a breadth of evidence. Yet there is a major danger in it which is routinely demonstrated by people with voluminous addresses for doctrine that are opposed to each other, especially on issues where there is an internal tension in the text as controversies are harmonized and resolved in order to align with a given position. Often this makes the theologian a judge of Scripture rather than a student of it since various verses will be given more or less weight. Another major danger is that external influences are likely to shape how verses are viewed, especially if it is a verse that is routinely used to make a point or has some other cultural attachment.

Contrasting systematic theology is what is often called Biblical theology, which examines the Bible as sub-units. Rather than seeking to create a doctrine that covers the whole Bible this sort of theology looks at a specific section and seeks to understand the major theological implications and statements within that section. For example, one may speak of the sotiorology of Romans or Paul, the hamartiology of the Pentateuch, or some other closely examined piece. This methodology has the benefit of treating the text in its entirety, reducing the influence of cultural lenses or the need to weigh contrasting Scripture against one another. Though, of course, the goal is not to isolate the unit but to see what that unit contributes to the greater thrust of the Bible. One of the major weaknesses is that it is time consuming to do appropriately and often the requisite discussion makes its insights less immediately persuasive as seeing long lists of isolated texts especially if the audience lacks the sophistication necessary to understand the various threads of argumentation.

What other approaches to the Bible in theology might be beneficial? What other strengths or weaknesses of these two approaches do you see? Do you have a preference for one method over the other, and why?

 

[GallagherM]

Fervent, for one to seek and test anything that anyone may say or try to prove against what the bible does say by and through extensive looking and checking through the entirety of the bible prayerfully, and by the spirit would prove the most beneficial along with the allowance of suggesting that one may be wrong and to go and see and test what scripture has to say would be the most beneficial.

As you said; its work... and it is time consuming to go and do these things.

From my perspective a biblical approach to scripture ; along with why, what, how, when, where, and how are all to be exposed to the context of scripture starting from Chapter 1 of whatever it is a person may be going through to understand the total message of any book a person may read.

 

[Fervent]

Fervent, for one to seek and test anything that anyone may say or try to prove against what the bible does say by and through extensive looking and checking through the entirety of the bible prayerfully, and by the spirit would prove the most beneficial along with the allowance of suggesting that one may be wrong and to go and see and test what scripture has to say would be the most beneficial.

As you said; its work... and it is time consuming to go and do these things.

From my perspective a biblical approach to scripture ; along with why, what, how, when, where, and how are all to be exposed to the context of scripture starting from Chapter 1 of whatever it is a person may be going through to understand the total message of any book a person may read.

What I'm looking at is practical methods for synthesizing what is written into something digestible and understandable. What does "a biblical approach to scripture" mean to you, exactly?

 

[GallagherM]

Context. Meaning who it was written to; when it was written, why was it written, what was the purpose of it being written, what are some of the things going on in the letter itself, what are some of the problems that the people may dealing with in the letter, or what are some of the things going on in the gospels.

For example : The Gospel of Mark was written to mainly Roman and Gentile Christians back in that time around 50 ad or a little bit before 70 ad before the destruction of Jerusalem.

A biblical perspective also notes all that was said above. A true perspective of who, what, when, where, why and how.

(Even with notification from the presenter that they might be wrong but will present their view and encourage you to go check it out for yourself.), This is what biblical approach and perspective means to me Fervent.

 

[Fervent]

Context. Meaning who it was written to; when it was written, why was it written, what was the purpose of it being written, what are some of the things going on in the letter itself, what are some of the problems that the people may dealing with in the letter, or what are some of the things going on in the gospels.

For example : The Gospel of Mark was written to mainly Roman and Gentile Christians back in that time around 50 ad or a little bit before 70 ad and the destruction of Jerusalem.

A biblical perspective also notes all that was said above. A true perspective of who, what, when, where, why and how.

(Even with notification from the presenter that they might be wrong but will present their view and encourage you to go check it out for yourself.), This is what biblical perspective means to me Fervent.

I'm a fan of context as well, though it seems part of what you are looking for requires external knowledge not contained within the text itself and ultimately what is most important is what the text says. How do you determine Mark's audience, for example?

 

[hedrick]

The systematic theology I know uses the results of the Biblical investigation you describe. There are certainly people who start with a conclusion and try to assemble support, but that applies mostly to defenses of tradition. Calvin was the best exegete of the 16th Century. The Institutes tried to synthesize what he had found in exegesis. In fact it was intended to provide an orientation for people before looking at Scripture in detail, outlining its themes.

I mostly read what you call Biblical theology. Dunn, Wright, etc. Biblical. But the systematic works I read are based on Biblical theology. That means they tend not to be entirely traditional. Indeed Calvin wasn’t, for his time.

 

[Fervent]

The systematic theology I know uses the results of the Biblical investigation you describe. There are certainly people who start with a conclusion and try to assemble support, but that applies mostly to defenses of tradition. Calvin was the best exegete of the 16th Century. The Institutes tried to synthesize what he had found in exegesis. In fact it was intended to provide an orientation for people before looking at Scripture in detail, outlining its themes.

I mostly read what you call Biblical theology. Dunn, Wright, etc. Biblical. But the systematic works I read are based on Biblical theology. That means they tend not to be entirely traditional. Indeed Calvin wasn’t, for his time.

Yes, you're right these aren't mutually exclusive and the best of either is going to use both to some degree. Calvin certainly was ingenious and meticulous, yet the fundamental approach he had to Scripture largely treated it as a uniform body rather than recognizing more complex contextual issues such as genre and historical tropes.

 

[GallagherM]

Ill put it to you like this: (Owning a Bible Overview booklet that can be found at hendericksonrose publishers website.)

Audience: If Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, as many scholars think, it is possible his intended audience was Roman. The theme of suffering, power of God, and hope for the future, as well as the explanation of Jewish customs, suggest that Marks audience could have been a community of Gentile believers under persecutions and suffering, such as the church in Rome.

Is it true? You have to decide for yourself I might be wrong.

Enough about me though.

What is a biblical approach to you ?

 

[GallagherM]

@hedrick, and @Fervent what are some of the faults you see when it comes to systematic theology? Are there any dangers to forming doctrine with just a selection of selected text against all of context of scripture?

 

[Fervent]

Ill put it to you like this: (Owning a Bible Overview booklet that can be found at hendericksonrose publishers website.)

Audience: If Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, as many scholars think, it is possible his intended audience was Roman. The theme of suffering, power of God, and hope for the future, as well as the explanation of Jewish customs, suggest that Marks audience could have been a community of Gentile believers under persecutions and suffering, such as the church in Rome.

Is it true? You have to decide for yourself I might be wrong.

Enough about me though.

What is a biblical approach to you ?

To me, a Biblical approach is to do our best to recover the original voice. Largely, this means beginning by identifying our personal biases and cultural influences, getting acquainted with the historical picture, trusting the Spirit. There is no one catch-all to it, though ultimately it comes down to resisting the urge to go beyond the text.

 

[hedrick]

Yes, you're right these aren't mutually exclusive and the best of either is going to use both to some degree. Calvin certainly was ingenious and meticulous, yet the fundamental approach he had to Scripture largely treated it as a uniform body rather than recognizing more complex contextual issues such as genre and historical tropes.

Right. That was just at the beginning of the move to current critical scholarship. He showed some signs of it, but it was limited. Still, if you read his commentaries you’ll find that he tried to avoid using interpretations that didn’t do justice to the text just because he agreed with their implications.

 

[Fervent]

Right. That was just at the beginning of the move to current critical scholarship. He showed some signs of it, but it was limited. Still, if you read his commentaries you’ll find that he tried to avoid using interpretations that didn’t do justice to the text just because he agreed with their implications.

Yeah, though Calvin's strength is one of the greatest weaknesses of his commentaries. He is entirely too devoted to a rigorous logic that often led to philosophy dominating through complex relationships. He exegeted like the lawyer that he was.

 

[GallagherM]

Wasn't John Calvin someone whom formed the doctrine of people were going to burn in hell forever and ever in their flesh? That only the elect are the only ones who will go and be with God? That God was totally happy and content with this decision ? Only limited atonement that Jesus Christ did not pay for the sins of all the world? Or am I miss representing Calvin (God rest his soul)? My apologies if so.

If anyone has any other points to Fervent Original post please feel free to post and share your view and comments with others friends!

 

[hedrick]

Ill put it to you like this: (Owning a Bible Overview booklet that can be found at hendericksonrose publishers website.)

Audience: If Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, as many scholars think, it is possible his intended audience was Roman. The theme of suffering, power of God, and hope for the future, as well as the explanation of Jewish customs, suggest that Marks audience could have been a community of Gentile believers under persecutions and suffering, such as the church in Rome.

Is it true? You have to decide for yourself I might be wrong.

Enough about me though.

What is a biblical approach to you ?

Yes. A better example is comparing Matthew and Luke, because they use many of the same sources. Matthew is interested in getting his community to be faithful, likely in the context of at least some persecution. He emphasizes Jesus as a new Moses. You can see that in the birth story, which is a parallel to Moses, as well as the sermon on the mount. A new law on a new mountain. And he has way more about judgement than Luke. Luke tends to emphasize the universality of the Gospel. In several episodes he gives a more optimistic impression. That’s not to say that one is right and one is wrong, of course, but I tend to gravitate to Luke.

 

[Fervent]

Wasn't John Calvin someone whom formed the doctrine of people were going to burn in hell forever and ever in their flesh? That only the elect are the only ones who will go and be with God? That God was totally happy and content with this decision ? Only limited atonement that Jesus Christ did not pay for the sins of all the world? Or am I miss representing Calvin (God rest his soul)? My apologies if so.

If anyone has any other points to Fervent Original post please feel free to post and share your view and comments with others friends!

The doctrines associated with Calvin are the result of the Synod of Dort and Calvin's actual agreement with them is often debated. One peculiarity is Calvin fixated on the sovereignty of God as the defining characteristic by which all other attributes are to be understood. His work highlights both the usefulness and many of the pitfalls of treating the Bible systematically, as there is a succinctness to it yet it can also contribute to major divisions as Biblical tensions are necessarily resolved. (God's sovereignty in electiono vs man's acceptance of the gospel as a moral obligation, for example).

 

[hedrick]

The doctrines associated with Calvin are the result of the Synod of Dort and Calvin's actual agreement with them is often debated. One peculiarity is Calvin fixated on the sovereignty of God as the defining characteristic by which all other attributes are to be understood. His work highlights both the usefulness and many of the pitfalls of treating the Bible systematically, as there is a succinctness to it yet it can also contribute to major divisions as Biblical tensions are necessarily resolved. (God's sovereignty in electiono vs man's acceptance of the gospel as a moral obligation, for example).

I think that’s a later interpretation. I think the key to his theology is our mystical union with Christ. This is what Paul calls being in Christ., the result of faith.

 

[Fervent]

Yes. A better example is comparing Matthew and Luke, because they use many of the same sources. Matthew is interested in getting his community to be faithful, likely in the context of at least some persecution. He emphasizes Jesus as a new Moses. You can see that in the birth story, which is a parallel to Moses, as well as the sermon on the mount. A new law on a new mountain. And he has way more about judgement than Luke. Luke tends to emphasize the universality of the Gospel. In several episodes he gives a more optimistic impression. That’s not to say that one is right and one is wrong, of course, but I tend to gravitate to Luke.

I'd like to highlight that a lot of these audience differences come from internal evidence in the text rather than external sources. We know Matthew's audience was largely Jewish because Matthew routinely makes use of Jewish names, refers to prophecy, presents lists in a Jewish fashion(beginning with Abraham) and generally seems to carry the theme of fulfillment of prophecy while Luke is more likely to use Greek names for places and people, as well as the portrayal of the Jewish opposition within the different books. The text itself is sufficient for identifying relevant context issues.

 

[GallagherM]

Yes. A better example is comparing Matthew and Luke, because they use many of the same sources. Matthew is interested in getting his community to be faithful, likely in the context of at least some persecution. He emphasizes Jesus as a new Moses. You can see that in the birth story, which is a parallel to Moses, as well as the sermon on the mount. A new law on a new mountain. And he has way more about judgement than Luke. Luke tends to emphasize the universality of the Gospel. In several episodes he gives a more optimistic impression. That’s not to say that one is right and one is wrong, of course, but I tend to gravitate to Luke.

Hedrick that is very insightful. It is a wonderful thing that all people are able to go and check out each of the accounts, thank you for the descriptive emphasizes of Matthew and how there are some parallels there, of the coming of the Messiah as like Moses.

Where there more of these parallels of what Jesus would be like in the old testament?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Context. Meaning who it was written to; when it was written, why was it written, what was the purpose of it being written, what are some of the things going on in the letter itself, what are some of the problems that the people may dealing with in the letter, or what are some of the things going on in the gospels.

For example : The Gospel of Mark was written to mainly Roman and Gentile Christians back in that time around 50 ad or a little bit before 70 ad before the destruction of Jerusalem.

A biblical perspective also notes all that was said above. A true perspective of who, what, when, where, why and how.

(Even with notification from the presenter that they might be wrong but will present their view and encourage you to go check it out for yourself.), This is what biblical approach and perspective means to me Fervent.

I agree these are very important first steps we should take in biblical hermeneutics. I would also add that obscure texts should be vetted as much as possible using clear and fluid texts.

 

[The Liturgist]

Often it seems that a lot of disagreements center around how one approaches the theological task so I would like to discuss some methodologies and their strengths and weaknesses, beginning with systematic theology.

In systematic theology a topic is selected and verses are collected that revolve around that topic in an effort to quickly examine and create an easily digesible position. This methodology is perhaps best seen in something like Calvin's institutes and certainly has a lot to recommend it since it creates the appearance of a breadth of evidence. Yet there is a major danger in it which is routinely demonstrated by people with voluminous addresses for doctrine that are opposed to each other, especially on issues where there is an internal tension in the text as controversies are harmonized and resolved in order to align with a given position. Often this makes the theologian a judge of Scripture rather than a student of it since various verses will be given more or less weight. Another major danger is that external influences are likely to shape how verses are viewed, especially if it is a verse that is routinely used to make a point or has some other cultural attachment.

Contrasting systematic theology is what is often called Biblical theology, which examines the Bible as sub-units. Rather than seeking to create a doctrine that covers the whole Bible this sort of theology looks at a specific section and seeks to understand the major theological implications and statements within that section. For example, one may speak of the sotiorology of Romans or Paul, the hamartiology of the Pentateuch, or some other closely examined piece. This methodology has the benefit of treating the text in its entirety, reducing the influence of cultural lenses or the need to weigh contrasting Scripture against one another. Though, of course, the goal is not to isolate the unit but to see what that unit contributes to the greater thrust of the Bible. One of the major weaknesses is that it is time consuming to do appropriately and often the requisite discussion makes its insights less immediately persuasive as seeing long lists of isolated texts especially if the audience lacks the sophistication necessary to understand the various threads of argumentation.

What other approaches to the Bible in theology might be beneficial? What other strengths or weaknesses of these two approaches do you see? Do you have a preference for one method over the other, and why?

I think if we go back from the systematic theology of Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, Karl Barth, or Protopresbyter Michael Pomazanansky, to the proto-systematic dogmatic theology of John Damascene, Athanasius and Origen, and then blend that into the mystical theology of the Desert Fathers, the Cappadocians, and Psuedo-Dionysius the Aeropagite, this takes us to Symeon the New Theologian, whose work was defended by Gregory of Palamas, the Byzantine counterpart to Thomas Aquinas, and Nicodemus the Hagiorite and Macarius of Corinth, we get a systematic exposition of the mystical theology of Byzantine, Syrian and Coptic monasticism, in particular, the wonder at the incarnation of God who is in essence unknowable, making Himself known as a man, and the exploration of the concept of continuous prayer.

This mode of theology is not a substitute for systematic or dogmatic theology, but an additional dimension of theological exploration.

Additionally, I would like to thrown in apophatic theology, the via negativa, as a superior way of reasoning about God from revealed texts, since God is unknowable except through His energies, such as the acts of our Lord in the Incarnation, we can only think about the essence of God by using that which has been revealed in scripture to exclude erroneous statements. For example, we can say “God does not change” but not that “God is static.”