Why Study Systematic Theology?

[tdrew777]

Study of systematic theology gives people a chance to evaluate the logical system they use and compare theirs to the systems other Spirit-filled people have constructed and used. Those who don't study systematic theology simply adopt a personalized system unconsciously - one that often lacks logical consistency. When you read many places in scripture that there is only one God, in many places you also read that the Father is God, and in many other places that Jesus, the Son, is God and many other places you read that the Spirit is God, you will make sense of all that information by placing it in some kind of intellectual system that you, personally construct and use. It is not because the bible is primarily systematic (it is not), but because your human brain is primarily systematic that is the basis for the necessity of making logical theological systems (as opposed to adopting them haphazardly). The question is not IF the bible student will systematize biblical information in his/her mind, but to what extent will the system the brain adopts be accurate and true. Some students have adopted the easiest system possible to store conflicting information - build a wall between conflicting facts. They systematically forget one aspect of God (holiness) when they remember the other (love)! The meaning of the atonement is an intersection that resolves the conflict between the love of God and the holiness of God, but the theological system that some have adopted sub-consciously will not allow those two traits to exist together. What does the fruit of that look like?

 

[RedTent]

I don't think that is necessary at all. Thinking that is in tune with God thinking is often entirely different from the logical thinking we use in college courses. Very young children whose mind has not matured are often very mature spiritually.

Sometimes he material side of our nature gets in the way of understanding that God is our Creator, etc. Spiritual thinking and understanding, and worldly thinking and understanding are different.

I agree that using our logical mind when we read scripture can sometimes add depth, but I don't think it is necessary.

 

[mark54]

. What does the fruit of that look like?[/QUOTE]


Complicated!

At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
Luke10:21&22

 

[Abiding]

. What does the fruit of that look like?[/QUOTE]


Complicated!

At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
Luke10:21&22

I tend to agree. Although ignorance is not a virtue. There are several systems of theology
and some of the best systematic theologies are not any more than finely crafted heresies.

 

[crossnote]

Got a coin? I am somewhat torn on the issue and I suspect the answer lies in 'both' not either /or. I have read a number of systematics (they usually come from the Reformed side) but can't say they did much but give me a few 'pat' answers for those who asked. I am not a systematic thinker but rather more poetic in my expressions (this gets me in a heap of trouble with systematizers on the forums).
It seems that 'systematic systems' is a Greek invention, the Hebrew mindset just didn't go there. Paul a Jew with some Greco-Roman upbringing comes closest in his writing to presenting doctrine in a systematic/logical fashion...not so with the other Jewish authors.

 

[Abiding]

If you can study systematic theology i think you need to also study the opposing side.
Otherwise your not testing it. And can easily miss some bad logic and slight of hand.

 

[JGPS]

Because it's fun.

That's a good reason to me.

I'm going to quote my cousin: "I don't want systematic theology, I want practical theology" to which I readily replied "Systematic theology is practical if you apply it properly" to which I heard a "yeah I guess, but..." It was a funny conversation on the whole.

 

[Tommy4Christ]

Not sure what you mean by systematic theology, other than the reformation and all the confusion arising from it. such as original sin, substitution, or penal substitution, osas, Calvinism, etc, many, many errors to list here.

These false doctrines are not an in house debate, they are doctrines of demons, not some nice system of works by great men of God, who mixed truth with error such as Luther and Calvin, who were heratics!

What Did the Early Christians Teach? Part 1



First of all, What was their Bible? (there was no NT Cannon until forth Century) There Bible Consisted of: The Septuagint, a Greek Version of the Jewish Old Testament. AND:

The Epistles of Paul, Peter, James & John. (And the Gospel Accounts)

The Official Language of Scripture was: Common Greek. (this is ancient Greek)

Most of the Original Apostles were gone by the Year 50, except for John, who lived till 90-100 AD



From these evolved their Doctrines and Understanding of God’s Truth. They Did Not have a Systematic Theology, only a Doctrine Which is According to Godliness, as handed down to them from the Lord.



Basically their Doctrine Consisted of the following:

1) Jesus as a Teacher of Righteousness, Setting an Example to follow after

2) The Ransom Model, in that Christ Rescued us from the corrupting influence of sin

3) Reconciliation to God through Repentance Proven by Deeds. Sin had to STOP!

4) Faith Working by Love, Actively Obeying God

5) Contending earnestly for the faith to keep it Pure



Presently Christian Doctrine Does not Resemble the Primitive Model:

1) Substitution (Jesus took our place, suffered our Penalty, Became Sin & went to Hell)

2) Moral Transfer (imputed Righteousness)

3) Pre-forgiveness of future sins

4) Rewards System

5) Eternal Security (No further condemnation for ongoing sins) www.standingthegap.org

 

[Abiding]

most reformed theology went back to augustine
so if ya like a tad of gnosticism in your theology
then there ya go. systematic makes it a hundred times
easier to baffle you.

 

[Abiding]

Not sure what you mean by systematic theology, other than the reformation and all the confusion arising from it. such as original sin, substitution, or penal substitution, osas, Calvinism, etc, many, many errors to list here.

These false doctrines are not an in house debate, they are doctrines of demons, not some nice system of works by great men of God, who mixed truth with error such as Luther and Calvin, who were heratics!

What Did the Early Christians Teach? Part 1



First of all, What was their Bible? (there was no NT Cannon until forth Century) There Bible Consisted of: The Septuagint, a Greek Version of the Jewish Old Testament. AND:

The Epistles of Paul, Peter, James & John. (And the Gospel Accounts)

The Official Language of Scripture was: Common Greek. (this is ancient Greek)

Most of the Original Apostles were gone by the Year 50, except for John, who lived till 90-100 AD



From these evolved their Doctrines and Understanding of God’s Truth. They Did Not have a Systematic Theology, only a Doctrine Which is According to Godliness, as handed down to them from the Lord.



Basically their Doctrine Consisted of the following:

1) Jesus as a Teacher of Righteousness, Setting an Example to follow after

2) The Ransom Model, in that Christ Rescued us from the corrupting influence of sin

3) Reconciliation to God through Repentance Proven by Deeds. Sin had to STOP!

4) Faith Working by Love, Actively Obeying God

5) Contending earnestly for the faith to keep it Pure



Presently Christian Doctrine Does not Resemble the Primitive Model:

1) Substitution (Jesus took our place, suffered our Penalty, Became Sin & went to Hell)

2) Moral Transfer (imputed Righteousness)

3) Pre-forgiveness of future sins

4) Rewards System

5) Eternal Security (No further condemnation for ongoing sins) www.standingthegap.org

You had a few good points but what you said about Jesus seemed less than what ive heard from muslims.
In fact the more i look at what you wrote im starting to feel sorry for you.

 

[Abiding]

Tommy when you get hammered for what you just wrote dont go
getting proud because you stood the gap.

That was the poorest testimony of who Jesus is than ive ever read
in a Christian forum.

 

[shawntc]

I'm actually in the process of (slowly) developing a systematic theology. It's not going to be very fancy, but it will clearly explain what I believe, and I'll probably learn a lot in the process. My theology is broadly confessional Lutheran, with some Old Earth and maaaaaybe just a smidge (just a smidge! XD) of Pentecostal in it.

People seem not to like the idea of a systematic theology. I actually think it's a pretty good idea. After all, it allows you to study your faith and figure out what it is you believe. When you understand your beliefs and see they are logically coherent (as much as you can with Christianity, since some things are simply left unexplained by God - the specifics of the Trinity, Jesus Christ's dual nature, etc.) it can edify your faith. It gives you confidence that what you believe makes sense and you can answer those who question.

 

[tdrew777]

Tommy, your description of Christ would lead you to a Moral Influence theory of Atonement, Jesus setting the example that inspires us. If He were active in providing an atonement, your description of Him is deficient. Ransom Theory??? Do you mean that Jesus ransomed us from Satan? This is the atonement model proposed by Origin, a very ancient model. Not very scriptural and it does not fit with your description of who Jesus is. You have a theological system going in your mind, but the logic is deficient. As you study more to make your personal theology more systematic, more consistent with scripture, please be influenced more by scripture than by defending your thoughts as posted here. Try not to refer to founding fathers as heretics (even when their doctrines seem outside of what scripture teaches) because once you start throwing that word around, it easily comes back at you.

Theology matters- Good practices only come from good doctrine. No one here debates that point, do they?

No one here likes "systematic". It is more than "reformed". A reference I have at hand: Grider, J. Kenneth (2011-01-01). A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology Beacon Hill Press. Kindle Edition.

"Systematizing" theology is nothing more than writing it out and publishing it. If no one - not even your leaders - wrote out what you believe and had it criticized by Christian brothers, you may end up with strong convictions about illogical (and unscriptural) theology. There are many in Christian ministry whose grasp of theology is on a par with the worst expressed in this thread. What kind of Christian practice and teaching can we expect as a result? We could all benefit by reading theology that has been reviewed by the Christian public. We read theology like we eat fish - swallow the good parts and spit out the bones.

 

[tdrew777]

Shawn, I found no place to "like" your post. Which is OK because what I really wanted to do was <love>. You are hitting the nail squarely on the head.

 

[crossnote]

I'm actually in the process of (slowly) developing a systematic theology. It's not going to be very fancy, but it will clearly explain what I believe, and I'll probably learn a lot in the process. My theology is broadly confessional Lutheran, with some Old Earth and maaaaaybe just a smidge (just a smidge! XD) of Pentecostal in it.

People seem not to like the idea of a systematic theology. I actually think it's a pretty good idea. After all, it allows you to study your faith and figure out what it is you believe. When you understand your beliefs and see they are logically coherent (as much as you can with Christianity, since some things are simply left unexplained by God - the specifics of the Trinity, Jesus Christ's dual nature, etc.) it can edify your faith. It gives you confidence that what you believe makes sense and you can answer those who question.

Just a quick question (and I refuse to Google this)but what is 'Old Earth?

 

[shawntc]

Just a quick question (and I refuse to Google this)but what is 'Old Earth?

Generally speaking, Old Earth Creationism is the belief that Genesis 1-11 is not literal, i.e., the Earth wasn't made in 6 literal days, etc. I accept the notion that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, and that evolution is how modern organisms came about - on the condition that all these things were directed by God's will.

 

[crossnote]

Generally speaking, Old Earth Creationism is the belief that Genesis 1-11 is not literal, i.e., the Earth wasn't made in 6 literal days, etc. I accept the notion that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, and that evolution is how modern organisms came about - on the condition that all these things were directed by God's will.

oh ok, i didn't realize it was in connection to creation. I thought for a second you were going to join the Hobbits or something.