Evidence for God from Science

I put up a status on facebook today that was spurred by my reading a passage from Jesus Manifesto, by Leonard Sweet and Frank Viola.

Every systematic theology breaks down somewhere. Verses arise that just won't fit the system. It's then we have to decide if we're committed to the system and making the verses fit, or if we're willing to live with some mystery and learn what faith is all about. Beware the person whose system bears no ambiguity. Christ is not necessary there

.

I thought it might be worth putting up here. What is the role of systematic theology in terms of a believer's life and approach to the Scriptures? Does it matter?

Systematic Theology is usually seen as an academic tool and preparation for ministry. If it's important is it something that the average believer should be focusing upon?

When does Systematic Theology become more about building and supporting a philosophic framework with Scripture being made to fit in? Is it possible for there to be a purely Biblical Systematic Theology where the structure itself is drawn out of Scripture and if so, how?

Just throwing it out as a conversation starter.

blessings,

bart

Canuckster1127 wrote:I put up a status on facebook today that was spurred by my reading a passage from Jesus Manifesto, by Leonard Sweet and Frank Viola.

Every systematic theology breaks down somewhere. Verses arise that just won't fit the system. It's then we have to decide if we're committed to the system and making the verses fit, or if we're willing to live with some mystery and learn what faith is all about. Beware the person whose system bears no ambiguity. Christ is not necessary there

.

I thought it might be worth putting up here. What is the role of systematic theology in terms of a believer's life and approach to the Scriptures? Does it matter?

Systematic Theology is usually seen as an academic tool and preparation for ministry. If it's important is it something that the average believer should be focusing upon?

When does Systematic Theology become more about building and supporting a philosophic framework with Scripture being made to fit in? Is it possible for there to be a purely Biblical Systematic Theology where the structure itself is drawn out of Scripture and if so, how?

Just throwing it out as a conversation starter.

blessings,

bart

Systematic Theology is like any knowledge gained from any College - It has its purpose to ground a person to his/her respective profession but life application in the real world is something that can't be taught in school.

Guess that is why John 14:26 and John 6:45 is important...

Step of faith...
-
-
-

Every systematic theology breaks down somewhere.

I suppose then that they have studied every systematic theology and have listed these breakdowns?

What does the whole bible teach on say, prayer? That would be a systematic approach. I don't know how this breaks down in and of itself.

It doesn't have to break down in practice if the person employing it remains constrained by the text itself and asserts no more than the text itself. There's a tendency however within systematic theology to posit deductive reasoning to extrapolate and reconcile all elements and therein lies the danger of using the method to reach conclusions that go beyond what the text itself may support in any given area. The danger exists I would say even in an area as seemingly benign as prayer.

An example off the top of my head in that regard would be the use of tongues and a "prayer language" that some traditions use a form of systematic theology to arrive at. It's my opinion, but I think that represents a conclusion arrived at through the systematic aligning of certain passages while diminishing others. It demonstrates an excess possible that is inherent in the system and must be recognized and guarded against by those using the methodology.

You cannot escape some deductive reasoning, since before one can even open the Bible to read and understand it one has certain preconditions that necessarily exist to be able to practice theology.

Some systematic theologies do go further and add more than a topical analysis of Biblical subjects. I have studied many Systematic Theology works from different authors and perspectives. Like with any theological work, one will be hard-pressed to find one which cannot be faulted on some level, as Canuckster says.

One piece of advice I can give is to not start Biblical studies with systematic theology, but with a survey/overview of the Testaments that puts Scripture in its historical context. That helps minimize the dangers of accepting prooftexting to demonstrate a-priori positions, and helps with following topics in context through Scripture.

I like that August. I agree with you. I'm not opposed at all to systematic theology. I just am more convinced than before of the need to recognize it's limitations and be wary (not in an absolute sense) of equating extrapolated conclusions with Scripture itself, especially when there is no one passage that encapsulates the doctrine or conclusion being derived.

That being said, the easy example to raise up of an instance of that where I do believe it does come to a conclusion appropriately in an instance like that is the Trinity. Even then, however, there's a temptation to attempt to technically define things too far and too neatly when I think it's appropriate to draw the general conclusion and admit that there is an element of mystery and unknowableness that should remain, or God Himself could have been more specific if He wanted us to be engaged in understanding at that level.

August posted -

One piece of advice I can give is to not start Biblical studies with systematic theology, but with a survey/overview of the Testaments that puts Scripture in its historical context. That helps minimize the dangers of accepting prooftexting to demonstrate a-priori positions, and helps with following topics in context through Scripture.

I'm a bit late getting to this thread but this sounds like good advice to me also.

This morning we were studying 2 Peter and Peter said about Paul's letters - 'His letters contain some things that are hard to understand' and I was glad to know that even Peter acknowledged that scripture is not all easy to understand. Often today I hear that the Bible was written to be easily understood. Really ? Doesn't seem to jive with what Peter said.

I would pose that much in the Bible was NOT written to be interpreted literally. The Bible is full of parables, metaphors, and symbolism that represent some deeper, hidden meaning. And I think theologians like to pick and choose which verses to interpret literally—and it’s usually to help give more credibility to their own theological slant.

Would it be fair to say many Bible truths, no matter how obvious and clear-cut they appear to be, cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt through Bible study methods. There will always be other passages that appear to contradict.

Good topic.

I would pose that much in the Bible was NOT written to be interpreted literally. The Bible is full of parables, metaphors, and symbolism that represent some deeper, hidden meaning. And I think theologians like to pick and choose which verses to interpret literally—and it’s usually to help give more credibility to their own theological slant.

Hey Sudsy,

I think part of the problem in looking in these areas is what we mean by the word "literal".

I think there are some who believe that to understand the Bible you have to read it in the simplest sense and take what it says as non-metaphorical to the greatest extent possible.

I don't believe that. As you mention the Bible is full of all different types of literature. Some if it is historical-narrative, some of it is poetry, some of it is prophesy, some of it is parables. So when I think of "literal" what I think it means is to understand the text the way it is intended to be understood by God, by the original writer and the original hearers.

A good example is this passage,

“If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out…” Matt. 5:29

Taken in the most literal sense, the simplest without complications, that seems pretty clear. It's not what is meant in the context however. Jesus was using a speaking device called hyperbole, to make a point very strongly, by means of exageration. To take this passage and literally remove an eye to try and avoid sins of looking (like lust) would be a "literal" rendering but it would be dead wrong. Jesus was taking the logic of the Pharisees and taking it to it's logical extreme while noting that issues like this were really issues of the heart.

That's one of the problem too, I might add, with a lot of what systematic theology does. It pulls passages in single verses from around the Bible without taking into consideration the context of the original form. These then become units of thought, which are put together to draw conclusions.

Psalms in particular are often used to take superlative statements from poetry and then make them literal statement that are combined with thoughts elsewhere. It's subtle, but cumulatively it puts the power of interpretation into the hands of the one putting together a systematic theology to come to whatever conclusion they want to, based upon how they arrange things, what they emphasize and what they de-emphasize or ignore. It's the means by which some cults (I'm not saying all systematic theology leads to cults, I'm just using an extreme example) build their thoughts and doctrines and put them forwards, when no single passage teaches what they're saying.

This leads leads to what August is saying and I agree completely with him. Systematic theology is a tool. It's not an independent means of extracting truth. It requires a framework of Biblical theology as August says. I'd go one step further. I'd say it requires first and foremost a personal knowledge and relationship with Christ, to where He becomes the lens through which we examine and understand Scripture.

bart

I do not have a seminary background so I am quite a novice at understanding all the forms of speech in the scriptures. But I find it interesting how certain scriptures were used in the NT in quite a different way than how they were understood in the OT. For instance when Jesus refered to Isaiah 61:1-3 and said this was his mission. To the original hearers in Isaiah's time this had quite a current, literal and physical meaning but Jesus used the same text to have quite a spiritual meaning. He certainly wasn't going about letting people out of literal jail cells/prisons.

I have often thought also that texts like Joel 2:28 might not be an acceptable text that some of today's scholars would approve of to support the phenomena of what happened in Acts. Nothing in this text spoke about the speaking in tongues. That text would probably be dismissed as non-support by some scholars to what was obviously occuring. Or am I missing something.

Another area that always puzzled me was the camel going through the eye of a needle and I have read some pretty weird interpretations of what that supposedly meant in those days. Then I read where the original Armaric word that was translated as 'camel' was also the same word as used for 'rope'. Now if that was true, then this text would be quite easily understood. Makes you wonder.

Anyway, I'm enjoying reading these posts.

Sudsy, spot on, it is really a bit tragic to see that some believe in a completely "literal" reading of the Bible, when, as C1127 says, it is not that hard to at least get some indication of what literary device is intended by the author. I will admit though, that with the more ancient Scriptures, one has to be familiar with the literary devices of the time that the Scriptures were written. Not unknowable, but one has to be aware of it.

Knowing context really helps, and having a historical overview helps to set that context. It sets up the audience, the genre and how the audience would have had to hear the message for them to understand it. Also, it helps to know the surrounding history, as the Bible and the people in the Bible were part of the greater ANE community, which had a substantial body of religious myth, literature and social systems, all of which affected the way in which the people of the time would have understood the message.

Once one knows that, it is easier to know what the original message likely would have meant to the audience, and helps us read without the modern and post-modern bias.

It is not always easy to do that, since we want to believe we are so much more clever and advanced than the people of the Biblical times. But what was true for them needs to be equally true for us, and vice versa.

PS: The camel through the eye of the needle is a good example. There is no clear explanation, in my opinion. It could just be hyperbole, similar to the beam in the eye, or it could be the rope, or it may be the gate theory. Whatever the explanation, the message remains clear. If you are rich and love your earthly possessions too much, it is mighty hard to get to heaven.

Whatever the explanation, the message remains clear. If you are rich and love your earthly possessions too much, it is mighty hard to get to heaven.

I like to take this one step further in context - Matthew 19:24-26 - verse 26 especially - "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

I believe one of the areas that sometimes gets neglected in evangelism is reaching out to the marginalized rich people. Some may trully appear to be satisfied without God in their life and we just might not regard them as spiritually 'poor, naked and blind' needing to hear the Gospel clearly. Jesus certainly reached out to the marginalized rich such as Zacchaeus. The Holy Spirit is the one who convicts anyone of the guilt of sin and nothing is impossible with God so I think this text really offers us confidence that not even the rich are beyond hearing God's call.

Another text that has some interesting historical interpretation is in interpreting of the text regarding turning the other cheek Matthew 5:38-42. A previous youth leader spoke one Sunday on the 'literal interpretation' as more historically correct than the 'straightforward interpretation' as viewed here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek. This really didn't go over too well with some in our Anabaptist/Mennonite, pacifist congregation.

I'm new here but I see various scriptures being used here on this forum that I would challenge as to being a valid use to support certain ideas. They may be used correctly and I may be wrong to suspect them but I know in some forums I would quickly be told to look at the context and/or what this meant to the original readers. Or perhaps to quit spiritualizing certain texts, which sometimes is my tendency and is not always suspect.

Anyway, I agree that we must watch this attitude of being more clever in our understandings today than those in history. I think the Health and Wealth gospel is an area where certain scriptures have been interpreted to support just what is most appealing to many today in our Western culture. And yet, if looked at from a New Testament perspective and what Jesus and the apostles actually taught and lived, it is full of holes, IMO.

I think there often is much bias in many interpretations and it is suspect to me that some 'truths' are rightly being divided. However, as can be seen on this forum, some believe they have some inside tract on revelation that we all need to latch unto. I'm curious where this all is heading.