Theoblogian.org

Brian on Externalized Theology

Brian — 11/21/2005 5:50:00 PM

Charlie,

In both of the examples you gave in comments 3 and 5 are examples of adding to the scripture in order to satisfy our curiosity. In #5 your hypothetical exegete is thinking about inserting the word "only." into "all things were created through him and [only] for him." In #3 h.e. is wondering if the absence of "always" in "And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick" is...an example of omission by early scribes that can be corrected by creative exegesis.

Biblical theology, as you pointed out, relies on context and may guard us from such errors. Systematic theology is not able to guard us from exegetical errors. In practice, systematic theology, relies on a logical, extra-Biblical framework. Therefore it encourages the neglect of context in favor of parsing phrases.

Let's take your example from Colossian 1:16 and give a name to your hypothetical exegete. The Expositor's Bible Commentary makes the exclusion of the rest of the Godhead explicit,

The act of creation rested, as it were, in him. Creation is "through" (dia) Christ in the sense that he was the mediating Agent through whom it actually came into being. The preposition is frequently used of Christ's redemptive mediation between God and men, but the thought here is that the entire life of the universe is mediated from God through Christ.

From that emphasis on Christ alone in the act of creation, it moves to the phrase "for him" without modifying the exclusion of the rest of the Godhead. The conclusion is that if we interpret Christ as being the one through whom everything was created (in contrast to the rest of the Godhead) then it is created for him (also in contrast to the rest of the Godhead).

While Expositor's is silent on if creation was for the Father and the Holy Spirit, it does say that they did not actively create. By adding this distinction to the first clause ("by him") it alters the emphasis of the passage, and this distinction is left to apply to the second clause ("for him"). This is the danger that systematic theology brings to theology. Systematic theology (and doctrinal statements) reveal our conclusions. Without a robust Biblical theology we are unable to see the flaws in our systematic theology.

Charlie on Externalized Theology

Charlie — 11/5/2005 12:09:00 AM

I came across another good illustration of our questions vs. the original question in Colossians 1, in the middle of the section about Christ, specifically that everything was "created by him and for him." Now our question might be something like this: If everything was created for him, then was it not created for God the father as well? Or does this limit it to Jesus? If Paul was answering that question, then it would limit it. But Paul is addressing the question: Who is this Jesus guy anyway? His focus is on Jesus, not on Christ as part of the godhead. So Paul is not limiting the "forness" to Jesus, for him to do so would require an "only" for him. This fits well with Josh's comment about the so-called "Satan" passages in the OT. Are the OT prophets really answering a question about Satan? Answering that question does not give us an automatic answer to the poll-the-blog question, but we must answer the first questions first before we get to the last questions.

Charlie on Externalized Theology

Charlie — 11/5/2005 12:04:00 AM

I've been pondering the connection between doctrine and how we act. I agree wholeheartedly with Brian that there is a strong connection. I'm simply wondering if that connection can be used to help fulfill the same function a doctrinal statement fulfills. What would that look like? It seems to me that it is very difficult to point at a specific area of life, see a problem, and then point a specific aspect of theology and say that it is wrong. Even if we can do that, it is often the case that they say they believe it, but they simply are not living it out. I don't really know where I am going with this, I'm just thinking out loud.

Charlie on Externalized Theology

Charlie — 11/3/2005 5:13:00 AM

The most helpful way for me to describe biblical theology vs. systematic theology is this: biblical theology is trying to figure out which questions the biblical authors are trying to answer, while systematic theology brings our own questions to the text. I had a great example of this in James 5, which I preached on recently. James is asking the question: What do you do when you get sick? The answer is that you call the elders and have them pray for you and God hears prayer. Our question is often: Does God always answer prayer for healing? If we think that James is trying to answer this question, then we come to the wrong conclusion that God always answer prayer for healing. But if we realize what James is doing, then we can be more careful. We can still use what James is saying to help answer our question, but we will realize that we need more than just this one text to answer OUR question.

Brian on Externalized Theology

Brian — 11/2/2005 3:23:00 PM

Charlie,
I see that I was vague in my use of "Biblical theology," but "Biblical theologies" sounds strange. Of course there are a number of distinguishable theologies in scripture wherein we find an author or group of authors emphasizing particular facets of God, his relationship to us, or our relationship to him. Pauline, Petrine and Johannine are the most familiar. Perhaps we could recognize a few more (though I am sure you do, Charlie). The Jewish divisions, the Torah, former prophets (aka history), writings (wisdom literature), and latter prophets each provide a distinct emphasis. It may be helpful to consider each of them as authoritative contributors to the theological conversation.

Willsey's analogy with systematic theology "asking questions of the text" is helpful. I agree that systematic theolgy is our (cultural) perspective in a conversation with scripture. A doctrinal statement codifies that, and if it is allowed to dictate my interpretation of scripture, I cannot perceive the perspective of the text.

Biblical theology is our effort to understand scripture's point of view. Each division provides unique information about God, but we seem weak on the ability to describe these differences. As we become skilled in exegesis we will recognize (and be able to describe) the differences between them. This skill may even translate into being able to recognize the ways that the perspective of scripture differs from our own.

Charlie on Externalized Theology

Charlie — 11/2/2005 6:49:00 AM

Before I rip you to shreds (just kidding!, I agree with much of what you say), a few clarification questions.

First, it looks like you are using the term "biblical theology" to mean "theology that is from the Bible", and not "theology of specific sections of the Bible," such as Pauline theology. Is that correct?

Second, this post reminds me of my days in Introduction to Theological Studies with Willsey. There he talked about (or at least today I remember him talking abou this, perhaps I have made it up in my head) how systematic theology is us asking questions of the text. We have our questions that we want the answer to, so we go to the text to try and find an answer. If we define systematic theology that way, then the starting point of our theology is already culturalized (is that a word?). I'm not sure how this would fit in with what you say, but it does seem to at least kind of fit.