Feeds:
Posts
Comments

From Charles Hadden Spurgeon:

“Ah, sirs! there may have been a time when Christians were too precise, but it has not been in my day.  There may have been such a dreadful thing as Puritanic rigidity, but I have never seen it.  We are quite free from that evil now, if it ever existed.  We have gone from liberty to libertarianism.  We have passed beyond the dubious into the dangerous, and none can prophesy where we shall stop.  Where is the holiness of the church of God to-day?”

In response to Spurgeon’s challenge let us prayerfully consider 2 Corinthians 7.1 (ESV), “Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.”

Thomas Watson(1620-1686), a 17th century Puritan, stated:

If the Scripture be of divine inspiration,
Then be exhorted to,
Study the Scripture.
Prize the written Word.
Believe it.
Love the written Word.
Conform to it.
Contend for it.
Be thankful to God for it.
Adore God’s distinguishing grace, if you have felt the power and authority of the Word upon your conscience.

From “A Body of Divinity”

Focus in Prayer

‘When Luther’s puppy happened to be at the table, looked for a morsel from his master, and watched with open mouth and motionless eyes, he [Martin Luther] said, “Oh, if I could only pray the way this dog watches the meat! All his thoughts are concentrated on the piece of meat. Otherwise he has no thought, wish, or hope.
Luther’s Works, Volume 54, Table Talk (Philadelphia: 1967), pp. 37, 38. May 18, 1532

A few weeks back I read the article “Thinking Theologically” for Introduction to Theology (Systematic Theology 1). Here is a brief overview of the key points:

Cole, Graham. “Thinking Theologically.” The Reformed Theological Review 48, no. 2 (May-Aug. 1989): 51-62.

What is it to think theologically?  Unfortunately, many studying theology do not think theologically as theology and its methods have been so watered down.

At it’s core – theological thinking is biblical thinking. The Bible needs to be central.  This involves two levels – agreement with biblical content and an understanding that the Bible is revealed revelation.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer stated, “We must learn to know the Scriptures again, as the Reformers and our fathers knew them . . . . It is not our heart that determines our course, but God’s Word. But who in this day has any proper understanding of the need for scriptural proof? How often we hear innumerable arguments ‘from life’ and ‘from experience’ put forward as the basis for the most crucial decisions, but the argument of Scripture is missing.”

Theological thinking is also historical thinking.  We are fortunate to have 2,000 years of Church history to help us understand and interpret Scriptures.  We need to leverage the minds and thinking of all those who have gone before us to come to clearer arguments and understanding of Scripture.

Theological thinking is existential thinking. The theologian needs to apply Scripture and doctrine to the present.  This includes an eschatological view as we see the unfolding of God’s plan, our role in it’s pattern, and the time of Christ’s return drawing closer.  The true Christian theologian is one that is moved to service and is interested in the world around him/her.

Theological thinking is thinking philosophically.  Theology holds the answers for the questions that philosopher’s pose. What is the meaning of life is found in Scripture. Philosophy can be a friend of foe.  When philosophy is seen as an activity (not doctrine) and trains our mind to think clearly it is a friend of the theologian. We need to clearly understand our presuppositions and how they influence us.

The activity of thinking theologically falls to pastors, lay leadership, theological educators, modern commentary writers.  In another sense – it applies to everyone in the Church, but at varying levels of Christian maturity and understanding.

Thinking theologically is done before God (coram deo).  It is something to be approached with humility and prayer.  J.S. Whale warns: “Instead of putting off our shoes from our feet because the place whereon we stand is holy ground, we are taking nice photographs of the burning bush, from suitable angles: we are chatting about theories of atonement with our feet on the mantlepiece, instead of kneeling down before the wounds of Christ.” Theological thinking involves the interconnection between thinking, praying, and serving.

I have so much catching up on blogging to summarize everything that is happening in Seminary.

This past week I handed in my first written paper for seminary on Christ’s View of the Authority of the Old Testament.  Below is the beginning synopsis of the paper:

The four Gospels contain over 119 references to the Old Testament – either direct reference or implied reference to individuals or events taught there.  Christ himself is attributed to referencing the Old Testament on at least 92 occasions.

The Old Testament provides the foundation for Christ’s teaching and ministry in the New Testament.  On several occasions Christ attacked the traditions of the Pharisees but not once did he question the validity of the Old Testament Scriptures.  In fact, he specifically teaches us in Matthew 5:17-20 that he has not “come to abolish the law and the prophets” but to “fulfill them.”

Through Christ’s use of the Old Testament we learn that Christ believed the Old Testament Scriptures:

  1. Authority.
  2. Historicity.
  3. Authorship.
  4. Prophecy.

Biblical Theology

OK, it is going on four weeks of classes and I have not really begun consolidating my thoughts on this blog.  A lot to catch up on.  So far a lot of reading and trying to figure out the proper methods of taking notes to survive and succeed in seminary.  Your thoughts are welcome . . .

It is my goal to take each chapter, article, and lecture and provide a summary of what I have learned.  This is to share with others, but also to systematize and apply my learning.  Writing and teaching a subject are the best ways to learn a subject.

This is the summary of my thoughts on reading an assignment for Introduction to Theology (the first systematic theology class).

The assignment is to read:  Rosner, Brian. “Biblical Theology,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, T. Desmond Alexander et al., eds. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000, 3-11.

It took me a bit to separate the differences of Biblical and Systematic Theology.  At first they appear to be the same thing – just slightly different angles.  The truth they are closely related – systematic theology depends and thrives on Biblical theology.

Biblical theology is the science of understanding the meaning of a text, book, collection of books, or the Bible as a whole.  There is a macro and a micro level to Biblical theology.  At the micro level it is looking at a particular text to understand what the author is stating to the audience he is writing to.  At a macro level it is about looking at large sections of Scripture or the entire Bible to see themes and what is being communicated.

Biblical theology comes before systematic theology.  Systematic theology is the categorization and summarization of Biblical truth into logical areas.  This is done to apply theology to contemporary issues and thoughts that are relevant to a given culture or intellectual context.  While Biblical theology is understanding the text in the context of the author and original audience, systematic theology takes these weaves and builds organized patterns of Scripture to define doctrines built out in the Bible and applied to the context of the current/modern setting.

Without good Biblical theology there cannot be good systematic theology.  Therefore Biblical theology is the primary focal and starting point for all other branches of Christian theology – the Biblical text is the core. Sola Scriptura.

However, how you approach Biblical theology influences systematic theology tremendously.  It is essential that we start with a frame of reference that the Bible is inspired and inerrant in the original writings.  Without a firm foundation of faith in the integrity of the Bible then Biblical and systematic theology can go anywhere.

It is also essential that we do not get stuck in just word/grammatical studies.  These are extremely important in Biblical theology but the broader context of the text, book, literature genre, and the Bible as a whole needs to be woven together for fruitful Biblical theology to be done.

My doctrinal and theological convictions have been a journey.  I started my adult life pursuing a Bachelor degree in Pastor Studies at North Central Bible College (now North Central University).  Life never allowed me to complete this degree and moved me on into business and law.  The Lord worked through this change in direction.  At the time I was part of the Assemblies of God.  Over the course of ten years (until the year 2000) the Lord brought me to greater convictions and doctrinal understanding.  I moved away from the Charismatic/Pentecostal world into the Baptist world.  I moved from an Arminian system of belief into being a 5-point Calvinist. From aDispensational system of theology into a Covenant system of theology.

For the past ten years I have held to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith as the confession that best summarizes my system of doctrine.  However, for the past two years I have found that I am leaning more and more toward a Presbyterian view of the world.  The 1689 Confession was largely based on the Westminster Confession of Faith (Presbyterian) with some minor changes.

Logic and reason demands that we hold to something so we can test and validate the truth against it.  We need propositions and hypothesis to make claims we can validate.  As I journey through seminary I am holding my hypothesis around the specific elements of the Westminster Confession to test each element for validity.  My goal is to have a more solid understanding of my own doctrinal convictions and differences from a stated confession.

My views in general:

Unresolved matters:

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.