- May 4, 2020
- 2,895
- 1,306
That's what makes it interesting.Much to ponder.
The problem is, there's too much to take in and each of us has bias to over come. I've heard several people on this forum discredit theologians that have studied scripture for decades and have a gift for teaching. This is a grave mistake.
Read 3 Systematic Theology books (wisdom in numbers), make notes on each topic ... then better chance to put it all together. At a minimum you can be wrong but have a lot to evidence to support your understanding.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/61c0c/61c0cfd15efa65431d0bd949476f6e23628e95d2" alt="057_chin :chin :chin"
Aside:
Inductive reasoning starts with particular facts and moves toward a general truth to interpret particular facts. Deductive reasoning uses a general truth to interpret particular facts.
No one ever comes to the Bible and simply begins by inductively studying a particular passage. Inductive Bible study leaders may give the impression that they are setting aside their prejudices and simply reading Scripture, but this is not really the case. Baptists tend to read the Bible as if it teaches adult-only baptism, non-charismatics as if it teaches that there is no longer an office of prophet, and Calvinists as if it teaches unconditional election. We all read expecting to find specific things.
In other words, we never see Scripture through completely fresh, unprejudiced eyes. We read particular passages in the light of what we already know ---or think we know--- of Scripture's general teaching. So we both deduce how to interpret particular Scriptures from our general knowledge of the whole of Scripture even as we inductively examine the particular parts of Scripture in order to reach general conclusions about the whole of it. It is never completely clear when we are doing the one task or the other. This delicate, back-and-forth dance that strives to get closer to the true meaning of Scripture is called "the hermeneutical spiral."
When systematic theology does its job well, it is well aware of this spiral, knowing that a system without parts and parts without a system are equally useless for Christian preaching, faith, and practice. We are not free to impose a system on Scripture (which would be a purely deductive approach), but we are at no greater liberty to assume, rather arrogantly, that we are the first to read the Bible just as it is at face value (which would be a purely inductive approach). Imposing a system on Scripture makes the Bible a slave of tradition, while assuming that we are the first to read it just as it is at face value renders Scripture a slave to unacknowledged personal prejudices.
Good systematic theologians, regardless of their differences, always strive to approach Scripture as students rather than as masters. They also seek to gather together whatever Scripture says anywhere on the same topic and thus interpret the particular parts in the light of the whole, even as they once again test their conclusions about the whole in the light of what they find in Scripture's particular parts-and so on. This dance never ends on this side of Glory. Author Unknown