I have decided that I am going to post my study notes in segments here on the blog. I, unlike some of my fellow bloggers, do not have a ready flow of great and interesting reading material so you will have to settle for my brooding about my education. As a word of warning, I tend to be long-winded. So far I have made it through the introduction and half of the first chapter of the above book and I noticed that at page 8, or so, I had 9 pages of notes! I am not a brilliant individual and I am really trying to understand what I am reading while putting it into a usable context. Hence, my tendency to run down any loose ends in my mind. Hope it isn't overwhelming. I am sure that I will get better as I enter my training on writing...soon...and that my note taking will improve. Until then you will have to suffer through my long-winded approach. Here are the first portion of notes that I have. They are not edited and are the first impressions that I am having of this work. I cannot recommend the book enough. Having read a few classical Systematic Theologies, I am very much enjoying this one. Hope you do.
Notes from reading of “ A new systematic theology of the Christian faith “, by Dr. Robert L. Reymond
Introduction:
After reviewing the argument set forth, I have become convinced that I would benefit from what is commonly known as a classical divinity curriculum, as opposed to the increasingly common specialization of each subject. The classical system involves the use of 4 departments as follows: exegetical ( or biblical), historical, systematic, and practical theology.
Richard A. Muller’s, The Study of Theology: From Biblical Interpretation to Contemporary Foundation, is cited as a discussion of the need for this approach. There is an excellent review of this book @ , the blog of Mr. Stephen Notman. The blog is call ed Precis.
I hope to develop an eclectic approach to my mentor guided study that will allow the use of this pattern as an answer for a fellow who is ’starting late’ upon his training. This will eliminate some of the confusion that can result from the overwhelming amount of specialized information that seems to grow more vast daily in our age. It also limits the field, so to speak, to the essential matter and gives a unifying view of the minister’s task.
Updates on the progress of developing a proper curriculum here will be given periodically.
Systematic vs. Biblical, ( or chronological), Theology
For some time I have been arguing, ( Christian debating, or conferencing), for using a Biblical Theology as opposed to a Systematic approach. The reasons were not even clear to myself aside from the somewhat fuzzy fear that a Systematic approach would lead to a scholasticism that was detached from true spiritual development. I have always maintained that this idea had developed from my early exposure to the heresy found in the Pentecostal and Charismatic churches that I attended as a youngster, but was unable to lay aside without a reasoned response from the Reformed faith. I believe that Dr. Reymond has given me that response now. Following, I will set forth my notes from his book that give the answers I have been longing for, along with my interjection of the former view that I held. In addition I note that although my former fear of scholasticism has been laid aside, there now arises some new considerations of which form of theology is to be preferred above the other, or if both are to be held in equal esteem. This new approach differs substantially from my former view, in that it is, as stated, not from a fear of scholasticism, but rather from an embracing of my mandate, ( as Reymond soon calls it), to prove, show forth, and reason concerning the hope that is within me. I am far from resolving this debate over which method is superior, if indeed either is, at this early stage of my studies. I am simply noting the distinction and going forward on my assigned task with a new love for the orderly setting forth of God’s truth, in the hope that further study may shed a better light on these perceived differences and help to further unite all efforts to worship Him “in spirit and in truth”.
Biblical Theology
Simply stated, Biblical Theology is nothing more than Chronological Theology. The main difference between the two views, S.T., ( Systematic Theology), and B.T., ( Biblical Theology), is that B.T. understands the Scriptures as an unfolding revelation, ( not to be confused with an on-going revelation), and S.T. sees the Scriptures in terms of the completed revelation and seeks to understand holistically the plan, purpose, and didactic intention of God, and further seeks to arrange that matter in an orderly and coherent fashion as articles of the Christian faith. B.T. has the same stated goal with the exception that there is an emphasis on allowing the full revelation and intent of God to develop as an integrated ‘story’ rather than as abstract details. As stated by Graeme Goldsworthy in his work- Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture the organic nature of B.T. allows a unique point of view:
“From the evangelical preacher's point of view, biblical theology involves the quest for the big picture, or the overview of biblical revelation. It is of the nature of biblical theology that it tells a story rather than sets out timeless principles in abstraction. It does contain many timeless principles, but not in abstract. They are given in an historical context of progressive revelation. If we allow the Bible to tell its own story, we find a coherent and meaningful whole.” taken from Monergism.com-
The goal of both systems is clearly stated as one and the same; To find the unifying theme of Scripture and to express that theme in a Christocentric frame. Each discipline appropriates many shared methods for reaching their desired goals and certainly both are valid and approved disciplines within the Reformed faith, and yet there are some distinctions between them which seem to be at the heart of some of the most prevalent discussions in contemporary theology. The rub seems to come mostly from the B.T. camp, and it’s insistence that B.T. is somehow an answer to the call to keep reforming. It seems to me that they view the writings of Geerhardus Vos , (which I am not yet familiar with in my studies), as a new and better view of what they term as the Redemptive-Historical perspective. It seems that over against this is Reymond’s Five Arguments for the Unity of the Covenant of Grace, addressed later in the book I am studying. I hope to give better insight when I get to that point. For now, I do want to note some general observations that I have of the subject matter to serve as a point of reference for the more informed position I hope to develop. The point here is simply to serve as a reminder to me of these early days of my conception and should not be held as any real endorsement of one view over the other.
There seems to be an idea that only the Chronological order of theology will give a proper doctrine and practice. That somehow the Systematic approach has a tendency to distort individual doctrine. I do not yet know the reasons for this view but some causes that I can think of are as follows:
1. The Systematic approach can easily become a proof text approach.
The same is true of any system.
2. Doctrines develop without historical context and therefore can be wrong in their exegesis.
Chronological approach may also have faulty hermeneutic and fail to see the unify individual doctrines properly.
3.The interjection of an individual’s view on a given doctrine is easier since he may obscure opposing texts which do not support his view.
The Chronological approach may fail to catalog doctrine as sated in 2 above.
4. The S.T. approach is a foreign element in that it is based on a very Greek model and the B.T. approach is a more natural Hebrew model.
This view is only given voice by some, but seems to be inferred often. This returns the argument to an almost mystical status of the deeper meaning movement and should be carefully weighed.
The overall lesson thus far seems to be: Do not proof-text-Keep the unity of the whole Scripture in view-Labor to exegete and cross reference properly-Catalog what is learned in either system.
Over against the Systematic study of Theology there is a quote offered by Klaus Bockmuehl taken from Perspectives on Evangelical Theology,1979, section on The task of Systematic Theology which seems to advocate iso-gesis as a model for systematizing. I realize that I am only taking one quote of a work which is probably a fine treatise on the subject, but it does go directly to the concern here. The qoute in question state that . “the systematic theologian should collect the different, dispersed propositions on essential themes or topics and put them together in an order that fit’s the subject matter at hand.” Now to be fair, he goes on to say that we must do this “ in light of the history of theology” , but the concern is obvious to my small mind here. My great concern is that we acknowledge at all points the pervasiveness of the theme of spiritual blindness in Scripture. I propose to myself a careful study of this theme along with a prayerful analysis of my study of Systematics to discern any area where we may fail to do justice to the plain reading and intent of the Word, or the conception that strong didactic demonstration necessarily translates into Reality with Christ. I pray that I am up to this task. It may seem simple to greater minds, but the thought of the immensity of the requirement that this oath places upon me is overwhelming. It also gives me a great appreciation for those few men within the Church of Christ who have made this same pledge and the remarkable difference it makes in the understanding of men.
Justification of Theology as an Intellectual Discipline.
For me, this is one of the most priceless discussions ever engaged in as it has demolished that unscriptural and crippling notion that I was formerly taught. The quote by Jaroslav J. Pelikan that the nearest equivalent to the word “theologian” in the New Testament are the “Scribes and Pharisees” is right on point with the concern. Reymond’s 5 Points of proof for the study of Theology are absolutely bullet-proof. He has forever demolished the “Let go and let God’ mentality of Sanctification, though this is not what he had in mind here. The 1st point is The Example of Christ. Here I somewhat differ in that Christ is unique in His ability to understand the Scriptures, but I concur that He also teaches that His observations were readily available to men’s understanding. Still there is a uniqueness which separates here. Point 2 is The Church’s Mandate to Disciple, which is much clearer. From this he draws 4Demands that are incumbent on the Church as a direct implication of Matthew 28:18-20 A.K.A. The Great Commission. They are the Intellectual, Evangelistic, Didactic, and Apologetic demands. He cites Titus 1:9 as the other reference to support him.
The 3rd example is by far the strongest in my mind and certainly covers the need for Scriptural reference that example 2 may have been weak upon. This has also been the most convicting portion as I consider that I am called to the examples laid forth here. The English reading of the Greek is especially beneficial at this point in my studies also. Beginning with Paul shortly after his baptism, we are given several paragraphs which firmly establish that the careful, shall I say…Systematic exposition of Scripture, is clearly laid forth. Here I cite only the references of the texts given as an example of the discussion. They will amply supply the flow of the argument.
Acts 9:20-22 Paul proved Jesus as Christ
Acts 17:2-3 he reasons, explains, and proves from Scripture
Acts 18:28 he again proves through debate
Acts 17:Reasoned in the marketplace
Acts 19:8 argued persuasively
Acts 20:20-21Dialogued daily, taught, declared
The entire book of Romans
This method is obviously not in opposition to the unction, or anointing of the Holy Ghost as Paul’s “inspiredness” is obvious in reference to this method: 1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Peter 3:15-16, and
Tim. 3:16
In Romans Paul uses this reasoning at least 10 times after stating a specific proposition he then asks: “ What shall we say then?” and proceeds to “deduce by good and necessary consequence” the conclusion he desired the reader to reach. ( Romans 3.5,9/ 4.1/ 6.1,15/ 7.7/ 8.31/ 9.14,30/ 11.17 ).
The concluding paragraph is too good to pass without citing:
“ The apostolic model of exposition of, reflection upon, and deduction from Scripture supports our engagement in the theological enterprise. If we are to help our generation understand the Scriptures, we too must deduce and arrange conclusions from what we have gained from our exegetical labors in Scripture and be ready to “dialogue” with men. Engagement in and the result of this task is theology”.
And finally, 4 is the Activity of the New Testament Church. Reymond here shows that the pattern of the theologizing process was begun in the Scriptures and that we can stand on good ground in declaring them as the model for our later creedal formulae and confessional development.
The next installment will begin with The Example of the Church and will finish of the Introduction.
No comments:
Post a Comment