A well explained difference between the two theological approaches. Is it possible that the two of these approaches can compliment each other and still allow the Holy Spirit to reveal truth?
I’m not sure his characterization of Systematic Theology is entirely accurate. If you are interested in a different take, listen to RC Sproul, specifically in the last five minutes of this clip. He takes great effort to describe Systematic Theology as fully supporting the unity, coherence, and consistency of the entire Bible. ua-cam.com/video/bIRbcmVC1Q0/v-deo.html
Interesting video, you have clearly thought about the topic quite a bit and have great teaching ability. There are some challenges to consider in some of the conclusions of Biblical Theology as proposed. The abiding validity of the Ten Commandments is today's choice. Consider that, by claiming that Adam was merely under one positive law regarding eating and no antecedent natural law regarding moral action since none had yet been revealed literally, we implicitly say that Adam could have murdered Eve and bowed to Satan, and God could not have held him accountable because he had as yet had no interest in the fruit. Reductio: there is a natural law which bound Adam qua man prior to any verbal revelation of positive law. In fact, a sound biblical-theological approach to the Ten Commandments impresses that they are a clear expression of this natural moral law which, just as natural physical laws bind all physical beings, binds all moral beings in this world (including the Sabbath law, except for the particular day. The reason all societies have cycles of work and rest, and include this in their cultic practices, is because the Sabbath law is natural to man.). When man fell, our access to these constitutive principles was blurred, hence their externalization (not first-time introduction) on the Tablets. But the Gentiles always had access to the moral law even when they did not have God's literal revelation of it (Rom 2.14). The promise of the New Covenant is that they will be written once more on our hearts with clarity, and our progress in life is to be made more like the morally pristine Christ, the pre-eminent keeper of the Commandments. But what of being under grace not law? This obviously has nothing to do with the rule of moral conduct since Christ Himself points to the Commandments as such a rule. It simply means we have failed to keep the law, but Christ's law-keeping is graciously given to us: we will no longer be judged on account of our failure. Wait, what law have Gentiles failed to keep? It has to be the universal moral law, lest Paul's teaching be inapplicable. This is simply what is digested in the Ten Commandments. Even after conversion, the Commandments retain their purpose of pointing the Christian to his inability and his need of Christ (an accidental purpose), as well as pointing to the Good. On the flip side, a rejection of the universality of the Ten Commandments proves completely impractical: now the Christian has nothing formally to say to the pagan world which will not convert other than what can be extracted from the Noahic covenant, which is not very much. Anything else is imposing your religion (indeed, believing the Noahic covenant is real and applies to all men is imposing your religion, but you didn't speak of this). It is also a radical departure from Christianity as it has ever been understood. It has little to do with the Reformation or Sola Scriptura. It seems like a feature of recent American evangelical retreatist theologies which have acknowledged Christianity's loss of cultural vigour, and taken the modern deformation of their unusual national system as divinely ordered, and rested in readings of Scripture which validate both. By underscoring that this approach uniquely makes everything about Christ, it sprinkles a little apparent virtue on top, but it is hardly convincing.
@14:20 - Systematic Theology - the bible reveals the character/attributes/glory/great truths/ expectations/ of God aka the revelation of God to mankind // Biblical Theology - the scripture is given to us primarily to teach us about Jesus // I'm confused, aren't these the same thing?
Systematic Theology breaks Scripture and general revelation of God into different categories whereas Biblical Theology is the grand narrative of the Bible. Too brief bit but best I can do here
To find the truth of Gods word begins with love! But to learn love means you must take on a teacher! Any teacher you do not fear is one that can’t teach you! All wisdom begins with the fear of God. Seek truth and you shall find it, read the book with hate and you will find it, read the book with disbelief and you will end in disbelief.
Very nice! Systematic Theology is so wrong on so many levels. You have shown me how they got it wrong. I love your example of law, although I don't remember seeing a reference to the law of Christ in the Bible. In Romans 8:2 the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus sets me free from the law of sin and death. The law of the Spirit of life was based on the New Commandment - love one another as I have loved you. You seem to be referring to the Great Commission as the law of Christ. This law is a subset of the New Commandment which is applicable under the New Covenant. You have added value to me, and for that I am grateful.
@@chunter123 - Systematic Theology was extremely valuable to me. Before reading that, I had no idea what we as Evangelicals were expected to believe. Preaching was always vague, but Systematic Theology was explicit. Reading that book is the main reason I no longer consider myself an Evangelical. That is the baby I have not thrown out: exposing Evangelical theology. Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Complete faith has two parts: substance and evidence. The substance is the things hoped for. The evidence is the works of the one not seen, the Holy Spirit. Evidence is the work part of faith. Every instance of the heroes of faith in Hebrews 11 include substance (looking for a country of their own) and evidence - a deed done. Abraham was justified three times as recorded in Hebrews 11. James says he was justified when he offered Isaac on the altar. Paul says he was justified when he was uncircumcised, and was talking about when he left Ur. Wayne Grudem insists the justification is an instantaneous act of God, declaring a person to be just. He gives no clue as to the timing of that act, and claims that, in the case where someone leaves the faith, that just shows they were never justified - so much for blessed assurance. All their definitions are wrong: truth, sin, repentance, grace - to name a few. Look up the Greek. Truth and sin both begin with an alpha, a negative participle. You do not know what they are until you understand what they are not. If you buy what they are selling, you probably already swallowed the blue pill.
To anyone who feels we should follow the instructions of Jesus in the flesh given in Matthew please send me $100 on the basis of our Lord's following instruction. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Matt.5.42 KJV
I have taken Systematic Theology classes at a Reformed seminary and do appreciate it, but it certainly has its limitations. As does Biblical Theology. Neither system is perfect
When you did this teaching 3 years ago you never knew how much of an impact it would have on my understanding of the Word of God, thank you so much!!!
You're welcome! Thanks for the encouraging words.
Great teaching
Very informative and insightful. Thanks
You're welcome!
A well explained difference between the two theological approaches. Is it possible that the two of these approaches can compliment each other and still allow the Holy Spirit to reveal truth?
Amen
I’m not sure his characterization of Systematic Theology is entirely accurate. If you are interested in a different take, listen to RC Sproul, specifically in the last five minutes of this clip. He takes great effort to describe Systematic Theology as fully supporting the unity, coherence, and consistency of the entire Bible.
ua-cam.com/video/bIRbcmVC1Q0/v-deo.html
I am well-acquainted (and appreciative) of Dr. Sproul’s teaching. Stick around and you will see what I’m talking about.
Did the school he was referencing ever get started up? I’d be interested in checking it out.
Sorry, missed this comment. Yes, it ran from 2010-2022.
Theology in the university of NW
His story ✝️🩸🕊️
Interesting video, you have clearly thought about the topic quite a bit and have great teaching ability. There are some challenges to consider in some of the conclusions of Biblical Theology as proposed. The abiding validity of the Ten Commandments is today's choice.
Consider that, by claiming that Adam was merely under one positive law regarding eating and no antecedent natural law regarding moral action since none had yet been revealed literally, we implicitly say that Adam could have murdered Eve and bowed to Satan, and God could not have held him accountable because he had as yet had no interest in the fruit. Reductio: there is a natural law which bound Adam qua man prior to any verbal revelation of positive law.
In fact, a sound biblical-theological approach to the Ten Commandments impresses that they are a clear expression of this natural moral law which, just as natural physical laws bind all physical beings, binds all moral beings in this world (including the Sabbath law, except for the particular day. The reason all societies have cycles of work and rest, and include this in their cultic practices, is because the Sabbath law is natural to man.). When man fell, our access to these constitutive principles was blurred, hence their externalization (not first-time introduction) on the Tablets.
But the Gentiles always had access to the moral law even when they did not have God's literal revelation of it (Rom 2.14). The promise of the New Covenant is that they will be written once more on our hearts with clarity, and our progress in life is to be made more like the morally pristine Christ, the pre-eminent keeper of the Commandments.
But what of being under grace not law? This obviously has nothing to do with the rule of moral conduct since Christ Himself points to the Commandments as such a rule. It simply means we have failed to keep the law, but Christ's law-keeping is graciously given to us: we will no longer be judged on account of our failure. Wait, what law have Gentiles failed to keep? It has to be the universal moral law, lest Paul's teaching be inapplicable. This is simply what is digested in the Ten Commandments. Even after conversion, the Commandments retain their purpose of pointing the Christian to his inability and his need of Christ (an accidental purpose), as well as pointing to the Good.
On the flip side, a rejection of the universality of the Ten Commandments proves completely impractical: now the Christian has nothing formally to say to the pagan world which will not convert other than what can be extracted from the Noahic covenant, which is not very much. Anything else is imposing your religion (indeed, believing the Noahic covenant is real and applies to all men is imposing your religion, but you didn't speak of this).
It is also a radical departure from Christianity as it has ever been understood. It has little to do with the Reformation or Sola Scriptura. It seems like a feature of recent American evangelical retreatist theologies which have acknowledged Christianity's loss of cultural vigour, and taken the modern deformation of their unusual national system as divinely ordered, and rested in readings of Scripture which validate both.
By underscoring that this approach uniquely makes everything about Christ, it sprinkles a little apparent virtue on top, but it is hardly convincing.
@14:20 -
Systematic Theology - the bible reveals the character/attributes/glory/great truths/ expectations/ of God aka the revelation of God to mankind //
Biblical Theology - the scripture is given to us primarily to teach us about Jesus //
I'm confused, aren't these the same thing?
Systematic Theology breaks Scripture and general revelation of God into different categories whereas Biblical Theology is the grand narrative of the Bible. Too brief bit but best I can do here
To find the truth of Gods word begins with love! But to learn love means you must take on a teacher! Any teacher you do not fear is one that can’t teach you! All wisdom begins with the fear of God. Seek truth and you shall find it, read the book with hate and you will find it, read the book with disbelief and you will end in disbelief.
Very nice! Systematic Theology is so wrong on so many levels. You have shown me how they got it wrong. I love your example of law, although I don't remember seeing a reference to the law of Christ in the Bible. In Romans 8:2 the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus sets me free from the law of sin and death. The law of the Spirit of life was based on the New Commandment - love one another as I have loved you. You seem to be referring to the Great Commission as the law of Christ. This law is a subset of the New Commandment which is applicable under the New Covenant.
You have added value to me, and for that I am grateful.
But Systematic Theology is quite good on many levels. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water
@@chunter123 - Systematic Theology was extremely valuable to me. Before reading that, I had no idea what we as Evangelicals were expected to believe. Preaching was always vague, but Systematic Theology was explicit. Reading that book is the main reason I no longer consider myself an Evangelical. That is the baby I have not thrown out: exposing Evangelical theology.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Complete faith has two parts: substance and evidence. The substance is the things hoped for. The evidence is the works of the one not seen, the Holy Spirit. Evidence is the work part of faith. Every instance of the heroes of faith in Hebrews 11 include substance (looking for a country of their own) and evidence - a deed done. Abraham was justified three times as recorded in Hebrews 11. James says he was justified when he offered Isaac on the altar. Paul says he was justified when he was uncircumcised, and was talking about when he left Ur. Wayne Grudem insists the justification is an instantaneous act of God, declaring a person to be just. He gives no clue as to the timing of that act, and claims that, in the case where someone leaves the faith, that just shows they were never justified - so much for blessed assurance.
All their definitions are wrong: truth, sin, repentance, grace - to name a few. Look up the Greek. Truth and sin both begin with an alpha, a negative participle. You do not know what they are until you understand what they are not.
If you buy what they are selling, you probably already swallowed the blue pill.
bless you
To anyone who feels we should follow the instructions of Jesus in the flesh given in Matthew please send me $100 on the basis of our Lord's following instruction.
Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Matt.5.42 KJV
You've got a bias against systematic theology, I doubt you studied it.
I have taken Systematic Theology classes at a Reformed seminary and do appreciate it, but it certainly has its limitations. As does Biblical Theology. Neither system is perfect
Systematic theology is garbage!!
WRONG!! You have not taken Systematic Theology classes or you would not say this. I appreciate both Systematic and Biblical Theology and so should you