Skip to main content

Reading the Bible as one book – important subjects that the Bible tells us about

Here's my introduction to my third MEPC seminar on how to read the Bible. It deals with systematic theology, or doctrine. Again, feedback is appreciated.
* * * * *
The Art of Systematic Theology
As we listen carefully to the Bible, in its own voice, and understand all of it in light of God’s redemptive plan, we see that the Bible has certain themes, or topics, or subjects, that it treats with particular importance. Systematic theology is the task of:
1. Discerning these topics, and
2. Assembling them in a orderly way that shows:
a. Why they’re important, and
b. How they’re related to each other.
We can only properly do this through exhaustive Bible study. Any systematic theology must be dependent upon the Bible, and therefore open to being criticised and corrected by the Bible.
That said, over the last 2000 years, there have been many thoroughly Biblical systematic theologies. They sum up the Bible better than an individual person, starting from first principles, could. Some of them are: Three assertions about Systematic Theology
1. The Bible sets the agenda, not us
The Bible tends to have different priorities to us. What we think is important, and what the Bible thinks is important, are often totally different. Don’t be surprised if the Bible treats something that you think is vitally important to your life as a minor detail, and instead spends ages talking about something you think is boring & irrelevant. The problem is not with the Bible, it’s with us – our priorities are all wrong.
2. The Bible tells us everything we need to have a full life, in relationship with God and each other; and it tells this to us with God’s authority
While the Bible has different priorities to us, it does speak to every issue in our lives. This is an aspect of the Bible’s sufficiency and authority. The Bible tells us enough for us to know God, ourselves and the world. And it tells us this with God’s own authority, which stands over every other authority.
3. We need to listen to the Bible on its own terms
To do this correctly, we must go through steps 1 & 2 first: we must listen carefully to the Bible, in its own voice, and understand all of it in light of God’s redemptive plan.

Comments

jeltzz said…
How come historical theology only feeds into Systematic and Biblical? Where does historical theology come from?

Popular posts from this blog

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders,  Ryan Burge  of Washington University,  posted some really interesting preliminary results  on his Substack.  1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional.  2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another.  Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else.  The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...
TGC Australia recently published an analysis by Dr Sarah Quicke of whether we are experiencing a 'quiet revival' of interest in and/or conversion to Christianity  here in Australia. It does it a good job of describing the difficulties involved in both gathering and interpreting data about religious beliefs and behaviours, e.g. the difference between the 44% who (still) call themselves Christian and the 8% of people aged 18-35 who actually "believed and lived out the gospel."  Quicke refers to the very insightful McCrindle report An Undercurrent Of Faith , released in March 2025, which uses an analytical method called cohort analysis to try and work out how a particular group of people tend to behave over time. The purpose of this post is to draw attention to one element of that report which agrees with Quicke's analysis but also adds some detail to it.  Here is what the cohort analysis showed about different age groups' identification with Christianity:  As y...