Systematic theology: Difference between revisions

From 2nd Book
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''[[Systematic theology]]'''
{{bl| Systematic theology }}
|
 
Systematic theologies are men's attempt to formulate orderly, rational, and coherent accounts of the teachings of the Bible. They immediately go off-course being influenced by church history and historical theology; that is... tradition. The academic practice of determining a systematic theology is also influenced by the academic disciplines of dogmatics, ethics, apologetics, and philosophy. It is thoroughly steeped in the works and rationale of men.
 
How is a systematic theology derived which is absent these influences? The interpretive methods taught by the apostles have no room for human invention, merely observation of self-validating teachings. The rules guiding these observations have been hinted at previously, and will be examined more closely in future discussions. They can be seen in the [[ Rules ]].
 
What is left to the interpreter in forming a systematic theology?  Merely to organize it and explain the observations so they may be reproduced. This we will endeavor to do.
 
If we will know what God intends to make known we must start with what he says. The letters of the Hebrew alphabet create the meaning of the words in scripture. The words create the meaning that God intended. Each letter is a metaphor whose meaning is a topic for God's systematic theology. As we observe the explosion of the letter meaning into word meanings and then into theology, it will be apparent that knowledge of the cross is required to discern it.
 
The cross is the key to interpreting God's intended meaning in the letters, words and doctrine. Formal proofs of the meanings become tedious to read; their consistent use will be sufficient proof that human invention is impossible.
 
Next [[ Natural catechism ]]
 
Future topics:
:[[Topical index]]
:[[Apologetics]]
:[[Reformed theology compared]]

Latest revision as of 17:52, 19 October 2024

Systematic theology []


Systematic theologies are men's attempt to formulate orderly, rational, and coherent accounts of the teachings of the Bible. They immediately go off-course being influenced by church history and historical theology; that is... tradition. The academic practice of determining a systematic theology is also influenced by the academic disciplines of dogmatics, ethics, apologetics, and philosophy. It is thoroughly steeped in the works and rationale of men.

How is a systematic theology derived which is absent these influences? The interpretive methods taught by the apostles have no room for human invention, merely observation of self-validating teachings. The rules guiding these observations have been hinted at previously, and will be examined more closely in future discussions. They can be seen in the Rules .

What is left to the interpreter in forming a systematic theology? Merely to organize it and explain the observations so they may be reproduced. This we will endeavor to do.

If we will know what God intends to make known we must start with what he says. The letters of the Hebrew alphabet create the meaning of the words in scripture. The words create the meaning that God intended. Each letter is a metaphor whose meaning is a topic for God's systematic theology. As we observe the explosion of the letter meaning into word meanings and then into theology, it will be apparent that knowledge of the cross is required to discern it.

The cross is the key to interpreting God's intended meaning in the letters, words and doctrine. Formal proofs of the meanings become tedious to read; their consistent use will be sufficient proof that human invention is impossible.

Next Natural catechism

Future topics:

Topical index
Apologetics
Reformed theology compared