TANC 2015 Homework
This is an advanced question that hasn’t been fully covered in class. I have however made mention of this in some comments here and on Paul’s Passing Thoughts, my book Blight in the Vineyard and my readers are smart. So I’m confident you can answer the following. If nothing else this will getting you thinking . . . a goal that I strive to achieve.
Here are the questions:
- Name five Systematic Theology Authors.
- What is Systematic Theology?
- What is the foundational assumption that all systematic theologies hold about the nature and formation of cnnon?
- What is Hermeneutics?
- What are the three fundamental Hermeneutical questions? (Hint: How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth.)
Hi John,
This is Ryan who has posted on PPT. I’l take a stab at these questions:
1. I’ll name some Systematic Theology authors:
BAPTIST and/or DISPENSATIONALIST: Augustus Hopkins Strong, Henry Clarence Thiessen, Floyd H. Barackman, Millard J. Erickson, James Leo Garrett, Gordon Russell Lewis & Bruce Demarest, Edgar Young Mullins, Robert Duncan Culver, Alvah Hovey, Roland McCune, Emery Hebert Bancroft, Norman L. Geisler, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Charles Caldwell Ryrie
REFORMED or PRESBYTERIAN: Charles Hodge, Johannes Jacobus Van Oosterzee, William G.T. Shedd, Louis Berkhof, John Calvin, Robert Lewis Dabney (racist), Henry Boynton Smith
LUTHERAN: Hans Martensen, Franz August Otto Pieper
ANGLICAN: William Henry Griffith Thomas, Francis Joseph Hall, Edward Arthur Litton
2. Agustus Hopkins Strong defines theology as “the science of God and the relations between God and the universe”.
He further states that:
“Biblical Theology aims to arrange and classify the facts of revelation, confining itself to the Scriptures for its material, and treating of doctrine only so far as it was developed at the close of the apostolic age.”
“Historical Theology traces the development of Biblical doctrines from the time of the apostles to the present day, and gives account of the results of this development in the life of the church. By doctrinal development, we mean the progressive unfolding and apprehension, by the church, of the truth explicitly or implicitly contained in Scripture.”
“Systematic Theology takes the material furnished by Biblical and Historical Theology, and with this material seeks to build up into an organic and consistent whole all our knowledge of God and the universe, whether this knowledge be originally derived from nature or from the Scriptures.”
Thanks Ryan … I do appreciate your work. And welcome.
I learned something from your comment above . . . I wasn’t familiar with the denomination perspective of each author. Not that the denominational bias actually changes the theological essentials but it does help me see how and why they chose to deviate to the left or right of the Reformed Theology plumb line.
These are fair answers from existing sources. My first goal with these questions is to (at a minimum) introduce Systematic Theology as a interpretive practice to my readers. But my endgame is to inspire a deeper thought about the nature of Systematic Theology. To make a critical evaluation if the interpretive methodology.
Answer 2 is what the glossy brochure says about Systematic Theology. If you sit in any university Systematics class the profs will regale you with assertion that Systematic Theology is was considered “the Queen of the Sciences,” that them measure of learned men is their mastery of the theological presentation, and how fortunate and enlightened you are to cross the threshold into the classroom.
But this is the marketing and packaging.
Each author above holds one foundational assumption about the nature and formation of cannon. This assumption is what gives them the intellectual license to “systematize” Christian doctrine.
Dear Readers, ponder that question please . . . .
How can any form of “Christian Theology” be anything but heresy if it denies what was decided in Acts 15?
They wrote this letter by them:
The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,
To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”[f] —to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.[g] If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
Either all Christians are Jews, and accountable for the whole law, or some are Jews, and thus accountable and some are not; and if not Jews, are subject only to the law once delivered by the Apostles, as quoted above.
By way of example, tithing is not mentioned at all in Acts 15. If the whole of Christian Theology is a discussion of what laws must be observed by Christians, the greatest of these, and the one that should inform all others is the One and Only Commandment of Jesus: “This is My [one and only] commandment, that ye love one another.” John 13:34-35. Any supposedly Christian Law that violates this one commandment is a curse to its keeper and a treading upon the blood of the Lamb.
Well, fair question Tom . . . .lets see if a committed Reformed Systematic Theologian is willing to answer your challenge.
4. Hermeneutics is the study of the theory and method of interpretation of the Bible.
“Each author above holds one foundational assumption about the nature and formation of cannon. This assumption is what gives them the intellectual license to “systematize” Christian doctrine. ”
I pondered this for quite a while and could not get past the problem of “systematizing” the Holy Spirit and our God given brains to think. As far as how the canon was formed, if that is their foundation their only credibility comes from our ignorance.
I am not saying I don’t find some scholars interesting but usually they are OT/NT historical scholars.